Instead of use google, I prefer use http://www.seeatown.com/search/ only selecting use wikipedia. It works better for me than google and I would like include it in my wikipedia preferences ( like search macine).
Regards.
Where does that address comes from ?
http://acapedia.org/aca/Ecozone ?
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com
have we worked out what do to about this?
I propose:
1. no space after headings -- only before (looks cleaner in text -- the
heading belongs to what is below it)
2. special "compact" headings with no space after OR before get special
markup, say
== compact heading ==!
On Tuesday 18 March 2003 11:55 pm, Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> Yet another reason why bots should always be cleared: the bot
> from 12.246.100.201 that stomped on about 30 pages just now was me.
> Even well-intentioned bots can cause significant damage if not
> treated with care. This one was my Wiki software test suite, which
> was supposed to be testing a new installation of the software on a
> machine on my local LAN, not the live Wiki.
Hi Lee! So that was you eh?
> Anyway, another observation: after stopping it, I came to fix
> the damage, and _I couldn't edit fast enough to catch up to the
> other Wikipedians who had already reverted all my damage_.
> It's nice to know the system is robust enough to recover from
> damage done even by its own developers. :-)
Yeah, I had the same "problem" after the first hour of the MIT vandal attack:
In order to preserve my sanity I was trying to edit articles for a few
minutes between rolling back the vandal's edits en masse. But by the time I
got to the rolling back part I found that much of the vandal's damage had
already been fixed by regular users.
I also found that the rollback feature can cause trouble in these situations
since it blindly reverts the top edit and doesn't track /who/ made the top
edit. So on a couple dozen occasions that night I accidently resurrected the
vandal's edits because because somebody else had reverted the article a
second before I hit "rollback."
So after a while I felt like I was starting to get in the way especially after
about an hour into the attack when the "immune system" of Wikipedia was fully
primed and my Admin powers became largely irrelevant (and in fact a bit
counterproductive).
Wikimmunity at its best I say (a smarter rollback and the ability to block
logged-in vandals via IP address would be still be nice though...).
WikiKarma
The usual at [[March 13]]
My wife and little girl are feeling ill today with a cold, so I'm
going to be taking off work to help out. I'm already a little behind
in wikipedia email, so I'll probably be slow for a few days as I dig
out.
We're getting a new (second) machine for wikipedia -- the parts have
been ordered and are being shipped to Jason, and then at some point
soon, he'll drive down to San Diego to install everything.
--Jimbo
Hi,
we have a winner. Because we did everything manually, vote counting has been
a bit of work, but now it's done and even with minor errors, the results are
fairly clear. The new article count system is going to be based on two
factors:
1) An article is counted if, trimmed of all trailing whitespace (blanks,
newlines etc.), it is longer than zero bytes (non-empty) AND
2) it contains at least one link.
Redirects, talk pages, user pages and Wikipedia: pages are not counted.
The vote consisted of two parts, the main vote on article size and a vote on
further restrictions.
The results for the main vote were, ranked lowest (better) first:
1) zero bytes:
39 votes, averaging 3.1795
2) 100 bytes:
37 votes, averaging 3.4595
3) 20 bytes:
38 votes, averaging 3.8158
4) 250 bytes:
37 votes, averaging 4.027
5) 5 bytes:
36 votes, averaging 4.4167
6) language-dependent:
33 votes, averaging 4.5758
7) 500 bytes:
37 votes, averaging 4.7027
8) dynamic (e.g. depending on stub size):
35 votes, averaging 5.1142
The votes for further restrictions, of which only one is to be picked, were:
1) at least one link:
36 votes, averaging 3.1667
2) independent system for each wikipedia:
31 votes, averaging 4.4516
3) stub flag (stubs excluded from count):
34 votes, averaging 4.5882
4) minimum number of contributors:
35 votes, averaging 4.6857
5) language-dependent punctuation (comma etc):
36 votes, averaging 4.7778
6) two paragraphs minimum:
33 votes, averaging 5
7) <article> tag
33 votes, averaging 5.1515
8) no further restriction
32 votes, averaging 5.1875
minimum number of edits
32 votes, averaging 5.1875
9) divide database size by byte size:
30 votes, averaging 5.4333
10) existing comma requirement
38 votes, averaging 5.5789
I have done my best to avoid errors, and for the first stage have compared
with Tomos' count, but I cannot be certain. While an error is unlikely to
affect the result, pedants may want to doublecheck just in case. Please note
that votes added after yesterday's deadline should not be counted. I also
did not count the anonymous vote (6 against dynamic).
Analysis of results
===================
The opinion regarding the main size restriction can be divided into two camps:
One group thought simply counting non-blank articles would be enough, the
other felt that excluding very short articles would also be necessary.
Consensus between these two groups was unlikely. The non-blank camp won by a
relatively narrow margin, but those who wanted more restrictions got an
important victory in the second stage of the vote: Only articles including
at least one link are counted, which excludes most newbie experiments.
This, in my opinion, is an almost perfect result that everyone should be
able to live with. It demonstrates well that voting systems can arrive at
compromises not just as well, but even better than simple discussions. How
long would we have needed to talk to agree on this solution and to determine
agreement? My guess is that we would not have arrived at it, ever.
But it is a good solution. There can simply be no valid article in the
Wikipedia system without links -- the whole wiki concept depends on high
interconnectedness. Material copied from somewhere else is not "wikified",
however -- nor are newbie experiments. Such "articles" are now
excluded from the count, as they should be. At the same time, we do not
choose an arbitrary byte size limit that would always remain arguable.
And I do not foresee users adding <!--[[]]--> HTML comments to an
article just to have it counted, as has happened with the comma.
Yet, even with this solution, there are people who feel strongly
that it is a bad one: 8 people have voted that counting only
articles with at least one link is a "very bad" idea (11 people thought
it is a very good idea). Once again, it is unlikely that there would
have been consensus between these groups, further disproving the
consensus model. With groups of 30 and more people, there is simply
never going to be "near unanimous consensus" about anything but the
most obvious questions.
But some results came as no surprise: Keeping the comma count was almost
universally rejected, and it is debatable whether we should have included
that option in the first place. Second place in the restrictions stage, with
considerable distance, was the option to let each Wikipedia decide on its
own. While this option clearly lost, its rank highlights that many
Wikipedians want "their" Wikipedia to have room for independent decisions. A
similar option should thus be included in future polls.
Finally, I would like to point out that the process has led to a remarkable
number of ideas -- some of them awful, sure, but some of them, like the link
idea, have never been mentioned on the mailing list. This, too, demonstrates
the advantages of a formalized brainstorming process.
Analysis of methodology
=======================
What have we learned from the process we used here?
1) The participation rate was very high. Concerns that an option might win
because of neglect were unjustified. HOWEVER, options which were added too
late tended to gather significantly fewer votes. Options which were
apparently written off as unlikely to win also tended to gather fewer votes.
2) Votes tended toward the extremes, i.e. 6 or 1. For most options, however,
the entire spectrum was used.
3) The system used therefore allowed us to gather a very large amount of
information about the opinions held. It would be difficult, if not
impossible, to gather as much information through a non-formalized process.
4) Deadlines and limits on options must be even more strictly enforced. The
deadline for proposing options should be longer, but options should be
discussed more carefully.
5) The combination of options and the possible requirement to split up voting
into stages need to be discussed to avoid ambiguity (e.g. "can more than one
option win?").
6) The voting system used takes some effort to handle manually, but would be
relatively easy to implement in code. Until we have such a software-based
solution, using this system would probably be overkill for small decisions.
In any case, we should try consensus finding first.
These are my thoughts for now -- please add yours.
Regards,
Erik
Sheldon Rampton wrote:
>I think we should go further still and shoot for the
>ultimate goal of creating "Wikimedia." That's media
>with an "m." It would use Wiki-style rules to enable
>public participation in the creation and editing of all
>kinds of media: encyclopedias and other reference
>works, current news, books, fiction, music, video etc.
>Like current broadcast media, it would have
>differentiated "channels" and "programs," each with
>self-selecting audiences. Unlike current media,
>however, the audience would also be actively
>involved in creating its own programming, instead
>of merely passively watching it.
Way to go Sheldon! I've been raking my brain for months trying to figure out a
good name for the non-profit / umbrella organization. "Wikipedia Foundation"
was a placeholder but the "WikiPedia" part didn't seem to work for me since
we now have Wiktionary, will (hopefully soon) be launching the
yet-to-be-named source text wiki, and we will almost certainly expand into
the textbook arena in the next few years (with fiction to follow behind
that). So Wikimedia is perfect (so perfect that I just registered
wikimedia.org and will transfer that to the Foundation when it is set-up)!
However, at this point in time, we simply do not have the resources to do real
news reporting (which isn't simply rewriting news reports by others but
involves expensive primary research, travel and interviewing). But until/if
we do, our process of updating Wikipedia in near real-time as history unfolds
will do just fine.
As a matter of fact this is one of the /big/ reasons for our success; many
people are very interested in current events so they write encyclopedia
articles that reflect this. It is also no cooincidence that whenever there is
a hugely important current event that Wikipedia gets a surge of traffic and
new contributors. This is a point that we are often complemented on and IMO
is the real edge we have over dead tree encyclopedias. So there is no reason
to divert these efforts to another project for a long time (if ever). Doing
so could hurt Wikipedia in profound way.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
WikiKarma
The usual at [[March 11]]
(Crossposted: wikipedia-l, intlwiki-l, wikieo-l)
I received the follow message in my user's page today:
Estimata Sinjoro, Bonvolu komuniki la adresojn al kiuj
sendi leteron per ordinara poŝto, por vi kaj por
s-ro Brion Vibber, kiuj estas indikitaj kiel responsaj
pri la redaktado de ĉi tiu enciklopedio. Bonvolu
komuniki la adreson, sed ankau la kompletan nomon, de
la persono kiu uzas la pseŭdonimon "Kriĉjo".
Manke de respondo, mi sendigos per advokato
registritan leteron je via atento ĉe la Centra
Oficejo de UEA en Roterdamo. La afable petitajn
informojn vi povas skribi ĉi-sube.
Antaŭdankante pro la respondo.
Rough translation: Dear sir, please communicate to me
the adress(es) of who to send a letter by mail for you
and for Mr. Brion Vibber, who are indicated as the
ones responsible for the editing of this encyclopedia.
Please communicate the address, but also the complete
name, of the person who uses the name, "Kricxjo". If
you don't respond, I will send through my lawyer a
registered letter to your attention at the central
office of UEA in Rotterdam. You can answer the nicely
requested information below. Thanks in advance for
your response.
Now, I should clarify the situation. Kricxjo has
added the following critique of Giorgio SILFER in his
biography: "La politika agado de Giorgio Silfer ne
estas universale aprezita. Dum la 90-aj jaroj, la
verkisto Jorge CAMACHO mokis lin en la satira verko La
Majstro kaj Martinelli (1993) kaj kritikis liajn
ideojn en La liturgio de la foiro. Jouko LINDSTEDT,
alia surskribinto de la Manifesto de Raŭmo,
akuzas Silfer-on de proponi per la vorto
"Raŭmiso" ideologion kiun li ne rekonas."
(Translation: "The political action of Giorgio Silfer
is not universally appreciated. In the 90's, the
author Jorge Camacho mocked him in his satirical work,
The Master and Martinelli and critiqued his ideas in
The liturgy of the oven. Jouko Lindstedt, another
writer of the Raum manifest, acuses Silfer of
proposing an ideology to the word "Raumism" which he
does not recognize.")
In response to this critique, an anonymous user put
the following in the discussion page: "Ni estas
studentoj de la kurso pri interlingvistiko kaj
esperantologio en la universitato de Torino. La
plenigo de kelkaj rubrikoj en Vikipedio estas parto de
nia studa taskaro. Ni faras tion lau kriterioj de
UTET-enciklopedio, kiuj supozeble estas sciencaj. Ni
ne havas tempon por diskuti pri ili, kaj ne deziras
polemiki kun aliaj. Se iu deziras bazi sin sur
onidiroj kaj emociaj reagoj, tio estas unuavice
problemo por tiu, kaj duavice por la fidindeco de la
Vikipedio. (el Torino, 13.III.2003)"
Translation: "We are students of the course of
interlinguistics and esperantology in the university
of Torino. Working on the Wikipedia is part of our
homework. We write them according to the criteria of
the UTET encyclopedia, which supposably is scientific.
We do not have time to discuss them, and do not wish
to start a controversy. If someone wishes to base
themselves on hearsay and emotional reactions, that is
first a problem for them, and then a problem for the
credibility of the Wikipedia."
Later the source was given for the critique and added
back into the article (the anonymous person had
deleted it). The anonymous author again makes legal
threats claiming that Kricxjo is slandering his
reputation. Brion then comments that threats from an
anonymous author are not very convincing and then I
received the above the threat on my personal page.
A few days ago, Kricxjo put the following comment on
the discussion page of the anonymous user:
"Mi proponas ke la uzanto 130.192.202.25 estu
forbarita. Li jam ŝanĝis artikolojn por
forigi ajnan mencion de kritika flanko, kaj lastatempe
laŭte kriis kontraŭ ajnaj kritikaj mencioj
en artikoloj Perla MARTINELLI kaj Giorgio SILFER,
kvankam neŭtrala biografio prezentas ĉiujn
flankojn. Hodiaŭ, li eĉ minacis jurprocezon
pro mia eta mencio de verko de Camacho La Majstro kaj
Martinelli, kvankam publikaj reagoj kontraŭ iu
homo - same kiel publikaj subtenoj - estas grava parto
de biografio. Homoj kiuj intence kaj daŭre
minacas la kunlaborecon kaj liberecon de Vikipedio
devus esti forbaritaj."
Rough translation: "I propose that the user
130.192.202.25 be banned. He has already changed
articles which delete any kind of mention of a
critical side in the articles on Perla Martinelli and
Giorgio Silfer, although a neutral biography should
present every POV. Today, he even threated legal
process because of a small mention of the work by
Camacho, The Master and Martinelli, although public
reactions against a person - the same as public
support - are an important part of a biography.
People who purposefully and continually threaten the
cooperation and freedom of the Wikipedia must be
banned."
So, I need legal advice. Jimbo, should I give
Kricxjo's name and address to Silfer? Should I
temporarily remove the critique from the biography
until the legal problem is solved? Please reply
ASAP... and CC: your reply to my personal address as
well, msochuck(a)yahoo.com.
Thank you,
Chuck Smith
=====
Learn Esperanto! - http://www.lernu.net/
Enciklopedio: http://eo.wikipedia.org/
___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français !
Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
Yet another reason why bots should always be cleared: the bot
from 12.246.100.201 that stomped on about 30 pages just now was me.
Even well-intentioned bots can cause significant damage if not
treated with care. This one was my Wiki software test suite, which
was supposed to be testing a new installation of the software on a
machine on my local LAN, not the live Wiki.
Anyway, another observation: after stopping it, I came to fix
the damage, and _I couldn't edit fast enough to catch up to the
other Wikipedians who had already reverted all my damage_.
It's nice to know the system is robust enough to recover from
damage done even by its own developers. :-)
--
Lee Daniel Crocker <lee(a)piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC