I have converted the whole English Wikipedia to a TomeRaider file.
The complete file is now available on my Pocket PC.
You will need a storage card for this: the file is roughly 100 Mb,
contains 145000+ entries (including redirects) and 200 Mb of
(compressed) text.
I chose to strip all meta info (discussions, user pages, etc).
TomeRaider (shareware) is a blindingly fast text retrieval system for
handhelds (Pocket PC, Palm*, and EPOC*) and MS Windows. Index lookup is
sub second. Rendering very large articles or complex html tables may
take a few seconds. Images are not supported. Hyperlinks are. Most html
tags as well.
I wrote a perl script to accomplish this. Unfortunately I do not have
the web space or bandwidth to offer the file for download from my site.
So either any user or the Wikipedia support team will have to redo the
conversion. Conversion to a TomeRaider input file is completely
automated. Conversion plus import in TomeRaider takes about 90 minutes
on my 500 MHz PC.
For screen shots and additional info about how to do this yourself:
http://members.ams.chello.nl/epzachte/Wikipedia
Erik Zachte
* Not tested. I only have a PPC.
Hey everybody,
Just wanted to send a message out that Brion Vibber
and I will be at MIT next week (April 19-26) and
thought maybe some Wikipedians would be interesting in
meeting up. If you're interested, please email me
personally at msochuck(a)yahoo.com.
We're planning to have an open house day where Brion
and I will probably talk a bit (in English) about
Wikipedia (maybe 10 minutes), mostly about our work on
the Esperanto version, but it might be of interest to
some of you. This will be on Tuesday, April 22 at
2:00pm - 3:50pm in room 4-231
(http://whereis.mit.edu/bin/map?locate=bldg_4). This
is connected with the Esperanto@Interreto seminar at
MIT (http://www.ikso.net/mit), where we'll work on
various Esperanto Internet projects. The working
language of the seminar is Esperanto as we have
participants coming from 7 different countries.
Thanks,
Chuck
=====
Learn Esperanto! - http://www.lernu.net/
My homepage - http://www.ikso.net/~chuck
Enciklopedio - http://eo.wikipedia.org/
___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français !
Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
--- wikipedia-l-request(a)wikipedia.org a écrit : >
Send Wikipedia-l mailing list submissions to
> wikipedia-l(a)wikipedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web,
> visit
>
>
http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body
> 'help' to
> wikipedia-l-request(a)wikipedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikipedia-l-admin(a)wikipedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it
> is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikipedia-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. older versions --> authors/editors
> (=?iso-8859-1?q?Chuck=20Smith?=)
> 2. Re: older versions --> authors/editors (Brion
> Vibber)
> 3. Re: older versions --> authors/editors (Lee
> Daniel Crocker)
> 4. Re: GFDL on printable version (Axel Boldt)
> 5. Re: GFDL on printable version (Brion Vibber)
> 6. Re: GFDL on printable version (Lee Daniel
> Crocker)
> 7. Re: older versions --> authors/editors (Andre
> Engels)
> 8. Re: older versions --> authors/editors (Erik
> Moeller)
> 9. Re: older versions --> authors/editors
> (tarquin)
> 10. Re: older versions --> authors/editors (Jimmy
> Wales)
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 22:32:37 +0200 (CEST)
> From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Chuck=20Smith?=
> <msochuck(a)yahoo.com>
> To: wikipedia-l(a)wikipedia.org
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] older versions -->
> authors/editors
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l(a)wikipedia.org
>
> What would you think of changing the text "Older
> Versions" to "Authors/Editors" because this page
> does
> indeed show which authors and editors worked on the
> article. This would make it easier for people at
> the
> Esperanto Wikipedia to see if they trust the
> writers.
> For example, two of our most active Wikipedians have
> even written Esperanto grammar books, so people
> would
> know that what they've written is probably more
> authoritative than what others have written. Also,
> many newbies to Wikipedia don't realize how they can
> find the authors and editors of an article and this
> would make that clearer.
>
> ...if the people at the English Wikipedia don't like
> this idea, we could just change the translation of
> the
> Esperanto interface from "Malnovaj versioj" to
> "Auxtoroj/Redaktantoj".
>
> Thanks,
> Chuck
>
> =====
> Learn Esperanto! - http://www.lernu.net/
> My homepage - http://www.ikso.net/~chuck
> Enciklopedio - http://eo.wikipedia.org/
>
>
___________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et
> en français !
> Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 13:39:22 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Brion Vibber <vibber(a)aludra.usc.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] older versions -->
> authors/editors
> To: wikipedia-l(a)wikipedia.org
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l(a)wikipedia.org
>
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, [iso-8859-1] Chuck Smith wrote:
> > What would you think of changing the text "Older
> > Versions" to "Authors/Editors" because this page
> does
> > indeed show which authors and editors worked on
> the
> > article.
>
> I would find that utterly confusing; I would expect
> such a link to show
> simply a list of individual editors, and would not
> click on it when
> trying to see what the last three changes were. But
> then, I preferred the
> original label, "History".
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 15:39:50 -0500
> From: Lee Daniel Crocker <lee(a)piclab.com>
> To: wikipedia-l(a)wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] older versions -->
> authors/editors
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l(a)wikipedia.org
>
> > (Chuck Smith <msochuck(a)yahoo.com>):
> > What would you think of changing the text "Older
> > Versions" to "Authors/Editors" ...
>
> I believe it used to say "Article history" which
> would cover
> both uses. I don't when it changed.
>
> --
> 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
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 16:00:19 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Axel Boldt <axelboldt(a)yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] GFDL on printable version
> To: wikipedia-l(a)wikipedia.org
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l(a)wikipedia.org
>
> --- tarquin <tarquin(a)planetunreal.com> wrote:
> > should we (briefly) mention the GFDL at the foot
> of printable
> > versions?
> >
> > Currently says:
> >
> > /Retrieved from
> >
>
"http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Backus-Naur_Form"
> > It was last modified 10:26 Apr 14, 2003./
>
> I think the GFDL needs to be mentioned, and it would
> also be nice to
> show the stable URL
> http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backus-Naur_Form
> rather than the internal one given above.
>
> Axel
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms,
> and more
> http://tax.yahoo.com
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 16:03:50 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Brion Vibber <vibber(a)aludra.usc.edu>
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] GFDL on printable version
> To: wikipedia-l(a)wikipedia.org
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l(a)wikipedia.org
>
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Axel Boldt wrote:
> > I think the GFDL needs to be mentioned, and it
> would also be nice to
> > show the stable URL
> > http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backus-Naur_Form
> > rather than the internal one given above.
>
> Another issue is whether we should have a stable URL
> that goes to
> _that particular_ revision. This is something people
> have requested for
> purposes of citing Wikipedia articles in
> bibliographies, etc, where part
> of the point is that people can check your citations
> to see if you quoted
> or interpreted them accurately.
>
> -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 18:55:31 -0500
> From: Lee Daniel Crocker <lee(a)piclab.com>
> To: wikipedia-l(a)wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] GFDL on printable version
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l(a)wikipedia.org
>
> > (Brion Vibber <vibber(a)aludra.usc.edu>):
> > On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Axel Boldt wrote:
> > > I think the GFDL needs to be mentioned, and it
> would also be nice to
> > > show the stable URL
> > > http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backus-Naur_Form
> > > rather than the internal one given above.
> >
> > Another issue is whether we should have a stable
> URL that goes to
> > _that particular_ revision. This is something
> people have requested for
> > purposes of citing Wikipedia articles in
> bibliographies, etc, where part
> > of the point is that people can check your
> citations to see if you quoted
> > or interpreted them accurately.
> >
> > -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
>
> I think we'll want static-looking URLs for citable
> revisions,
> so I'd suggest:
>
>
>
http://www.wikipedia.org/cite/20021215024500/Backus-Naur_Form
>
> which gets redirected to
>
>
>
.../oldrev.phtml?title=Backus-Naur_Form&time=20021215024500
>
> That shouldn't be too hard to implement.
>
> --
> 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
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 10:26:47 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Andre Engels <engels(a)uni-koblenz.de>
> To: wikipedia-l(a)wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] older versions -->
> authors/editors
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l(a)wikipedia.org
>
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
>
> > > (Chuck Smith <msochuck(a)yahoo.com>):
> > > What would you think of changing the text "Older
> > > Versions" to "Authors/Editors" ...
> >
> > I believe it used to say "Article history" which
> would cover
> > both uses. I don't when it changed.
>
> It was changed by eloquence on November 12;
> according to his comment this
> was "as discussed on wikipedia-l". He made a message
> on November 11, saying
> he was making a number of changes, and asking for
> comments. From his
> proposals:
>
> > - "History" should be "Older versions" or "Page
> history" to be more
> > obvious. Most people are not familiar with the
> concept of article
> > histories.
>
> Andre Engels
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 8
> Date: 15 Apr 2003 03:44:00 +0200
> From: erik_moeller(a)gmx.de (Erik Moeller)
> To: wikipedia-l(a)wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] older versions -->
> authors/editors
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l(a)wikipedia.org
>
> > On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, [iso-8859-1] Chuck Smith
> wrote:
> >> What would you think of changing the text "Older
> >> Versions" to "Authors/Editors" because this page
> does
> >> indeed show which authors and editors worked on
> the
> >> article.
>
> > I would find that utterly confusing; I would
> expect such a link to show
> > simply a list of individual editors, and would not
> click on it when
> > trying to see what the last three changes were.
> But then, I preferred the
> > original label, "History".
>
> I agree that "Authors" doesn't help much. I think a
> less ambiguous term
> like "Version history" would be best. Consider
> you're in an article about
> World War II which you found via Google -- now what
> do you expect to find
> behind a "History" link?
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 10:51:50 +0100
> From: tarquin <tarquin(a)planetunreal.com>
> To: wikipedia-l(a)wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] older versions -->
> authors/editors
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l(a)wikipedia.org
>
>
>
> Erik Moeller wrote:
>
> >>On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, [iso-8859-1] Chuck Smith
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>What would you think of changing the text "Older
> >>>Versions" to "Authors/Editors" because this page
> does
> >>>indeed show which authors and editors worked on
> the
> >>>article.
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >I agree that "Authors" doesn't help much. I think a
> less ambiguous term
> >like "Version history" would be best. Consider
> you're in an article about
> >World War II which you found via Google -- now what
> do you expect to find
> >behind a "History" link?
> >
> >
> lol! indeed!
> "page history" is probably clearest.
>
>
>
> --__--__--
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 03:15:26 -0700
> From: Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com>
> To: wikipedia-l(a)wikipedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] older versions -->
> authors/editors
> Reply-To: wikipedia-l(a)wikipedia.org
>
> > > - "History" should be "Older versions" or "Page
> history" to be more
> > > obvious. Most people are not familiar with the
> concept of article
> > > histories.
>
> It sounds like "Page history" would satisfy
> everyone, then?
>
> --Jimbo
Sounds good. Then, the Esperanto translation would be
simply "Pagxa historio".
Thanks,
Chuck
=====
Learn Esperanto! - http://www.lernu.net/
My homepage - http://www.ikso.net/~chuck
Enciklopedio - http://eo.wikipedia.org/
___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français !
Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
What would you think of changing the text "Older
Versions" to "Authors/Editors" because this page does
indeed show which authors and editors worked on the
article. This would make it easier for people at the
Esperanto Wikipedia to see if they trust the writers.
For example, two of our most active Wikipedians have
even written Esperanto grammar books, so people would
know that what they've written is probably more
authoritative than what others have written. Also,
many newbies to Wikipedia don't realize how they can
find the authors and editors of an article and this
would make that clearer.
...if the people at the English Wikipedia don't like
this idea, we could just change the translation of the
Esperanto interface from "Malnovaj versioj" to
"Auxtoroj/Redaktantoj".
Thanks,
Chuck
=====
Learn Esperanto! - http://www.lernu.net/
My homepage - http://www.ikso.net/~chuck
Enciklopedio - http://eo.wikipedia.org/
___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français !
Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
Another point that seems to be forgotten is how people
who are reading Wikipedia offline will be able to see
the offsite pictures...
Chuck
=====
Learn Esperanto! - http://www.lernu.net/
My homepage - http://www.ikso.net/~chuck
Enciklopedio - http://eo.wikipedia.org/
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
Hi all,
I saw just by chance that [[Rust]] was vandalized by simply adding the word
"bull shit" to the text. Thinking about this I asked myself if it wouldn't be
possible to add an automatic detection for this kind of vandalism? Something
in the way the spam detection programs work. For the beginning a very simple
heuristic algorithm that detects certain word / word combinations would be
sufficient.
Of course the algorithm should not block the modification, simply because it
is impossible to prevent false positives, but it could add the page to a new
special page, making it easier to detect obvious cases of vandalism.
Being still quite new to wikipedia I am not sure if this fits well in the
wikipedia framework and if it is realizable, but nevertheless I would like to
hear your comments.
best regards,
Marco
Regarding references: I generally only list multiple references when dealing
with a highly contentious issue. It's a habit developed on the Straight Dope
Message Board where the word "Cite?" can strike fear into the heart of any
polemicist. As for articles that are largely factually based (geography, for
example) I don't usually see the need, unless, at the outside, I'm exposing
some rare and little-known fact. Basically, any fact that someone would be
highly inclined to question is a fact I'm gonna put a citation for.
Also, Mav suggested that I apply for Admin status, so I'll do that now.
Would someone also please explain what responsibilities come with this?
Matt McLauchlin (Montrealais)
Montreal, Quebec
Below is a message from a new user that I think should be discussed here:
-----Forward----
I don't know how this works, but I know some sites like Google News and CNN
are partners with nytimes.com, which is frequently linked to from
Wikipedia.org
Being a partner allows users to click on a link and go straight to the
article, not having to sign-in or register from nytimes.com (which is free).
The partner code is nothing special (just some suffixes on a standard URI), in
fact you can change the partner id in a url to anything and it will still
work, however I am sure there are steps to be legitimate with nytimes.com.
Such a feature--being able to click and access and article without having to
have an ID at nytimes.com--would be an advantage to both the non-nytimes.com
users and those who happen to be at a foriegn computer when using Wikipedia,
especially considering the importance of that paper and its hypertextual
prevalence here.
Thank you,
Ry Rivard
Erik Zachte wrote:
>Today I released v1.1 of the Wikipedia to TomeRaider conversion script.
>See the script for version history:
>http://members.chello.nl/epzachte/Wikipedia/WikiToTome.pl
>Screenshots and much more info on my site:
>http://members.chello.nl/epzachte/Wikipedia/
>
>
I wonder if we could license a selection of Wikipedia articles to either
TomeRaider, or the hardware manufacturers.
I think it would make a spiffy selling point: "comes preloaded with a
50,000 article encyclopedia"
>
>
>