So, it seems (if I interpret Jimbo's mail on wikitech and the discussion
here correctly) that most of us would like *some kind* of category
scheme in wikipedia. I do, too! But, we seem to differ on the details
So far, I saw three concepts:
1. Simple categories like "Person", "Event", etc.; about a dozen total.
2. Categories and subcategories, like
"Science/Biology/Biochemistry/Proteomics", which can be "scaled down" to
#1 as well ("Humankind/Person" or something)
3. Complex object structures with machine-readable meta-knowledge
encoded into the articles, which would allow for quite complex
queries/summaries, like "biologists born after 1860".
1. Easy to edit (the wiki way!)
2. Still easy to edit, but making wikipedia browseable by category,
fine-tune Recent Changes, etc.
3. Strong improvement in search functions, meta-knowledge available for
1. Not much of a help...
2. We'd need to agree on a category scheme, and maintenance might get a
3. Quite complex to edit (e.g., "<category type='person'
occupation='biologist' birth_month='5' birth_day='24' birth_year='1874'
For a wikipedia I'd have to write myself, I'd choose #3, but with
respect to the wiki way, #2 seems more likely to achieve consensus (if
there is such a thing;-)
There is a basic problem with your logo, logo contest, and use of art in
general -- a good number of us out here cannot see them! ALL of the art on your
pages discusssing the logo contest come up with a red X in place of the art. You
discuss the fact that you want all logo designs in PNG format, but this is a
format that not all systems (Mac) and not all browsers (AOL 5.0, the only
software available for older Power PC Macs) support -- so you are cutting out a
sizeable portion of potential viewership. I'm a graphic designer, but I've never
used, nor have I had to use, PNG format for any image. TIF, JPEG, GIF and EPS
are the standards for graphics, and JPEG AND GIF are the standards for use on
the web when people with non-graphic software or systems need to view them.
One of the guiding principles in the development of the web has been to honor
the common person, probably one using an older computer with unsophisticated
software, and not freeze them out by demanding they constantly download the
latest "fireworks" or whatever in order to just view a common page. Backward
compatibility is an important concept, and is worth keeping whenever possible. Most
of us are still using dialup 56K modems out in the world -- web entities that
load up their pages with sophisticated cutting-edge animations and hi-res
long-loading photos and art are virtually assured of loosing me and millions of
others as potential viewers. Same thing applies with your art -- coding your
artwork in PNG format closes out a lot of potential viewers -- put them JPEG and
your viewership and useability will increase. Take a look a Amazon.com or any
other highly successful web business -- their pages open just as pretty in my
Mac as they do in the latest Pentium blazer, and they don't use advanced
formats. Let's keep it low tech -- PNG is an unnecessary complication for the
project. Thanks for listening.
--- Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote:
> Yes, one of my grave defects is love of stirring up
> I hope you can see, apart from the fun we are
> having, that anyone who logs
> on to the French Wikipedia, not just Anthere, can
> edit your article. I
> sympathise with your view that you should be able to
> maintain the integrity
> of your article and in most publishing situations
> you could, (like fun) but
> where you are you can't due to the GNU copyright
> (which by publishing on
> Wikipedia you have implicitly agreed to). I hope
> this clarifies the
> Fred Bauder
Since it could be going into legal matters, I switch
to the main list. Ultimately, this could concerns
I should add that we are slowly proceeding toward an
agreement on the [[religion grecque]] page.
That is, I am boldly going toward each step upon which
we can find an agreement, and let issues such as his
use (and my breaking) of non-breakable caracters, use
of fancy div, use of multiple external anchors between
his articles for later discussion. As I told him,
discussion over anchors are likely to take some time,
it would be sad not to settle an agreement on the
articles themselves. Any relevant links against
technical or practical use of external anchors will be
welcome, advice from french speaking as well, as
Vincent is claiming this opinion of mine is only mine.
Partially true, as there is no rules against using
anchors. Except for Vincent as external anchors, I
believe most anchors have been used in "list of xxx"
as internal anchors, which I can live with. My issue
is mostly a question of easiness of editing, and
mostly linking. I think we have to take time for
issue, and proceed slowly.
just to make you laugh, I must also say he is
currently considering I was acting against the rules
of Wikipedia, when I refused to protect the page, as
he requested it. He claims edit wars rules that
protection is mandatory, and that his wishes for
protection are not respected, and that I am forcing my
personal belief in what Wikipedia should be (but is
not) by refusing to protect it myself !
My, this is fun ! I would never have believed someone
in a war "against" me would so deeply reproach "me" to
refuse to "protect" the page against "his" edits!
172 ! come over here :-) (just kidding, right ?)
However, I would like to insist on the *legal matter*,
as I think, should Vincent proceeds along the lines he
has been suggesting, this will be a problem for Jimbo.
Vincent explains that
* he can prove he is the main author of some articles
(he gives this link as an example
* he can show further proofs of him being the author,
such as school notes (I suppose he teaches that
topic), or articles notes
* he knows where to seek legal advice. He adds that he
does not want to do that, but should he has further
problem with his intellectual ownership to these
articles I insist on editing, he will know where to go
* He further add that there is no legal notion of
copyright in France anyway
* that he is a scholar, who accepted nicely to spent
his time here, and to give us his work free of right
because he liked Wikipedia concept. However, he says
he can't tolerate my attitude that consist in
incoherently editing his perfectly good articles, to
modify along my own views, when not everyone share
them (note : absolutely no one gave any comment on the
article content itself and my proposition of division,
that he incidentely accepted)
* that if I further proceed in editing his articles,
he would remove everything he wrote and would have his
(oops I dunno how to say that) legal rights respected,
in a way to quit wikipedia and let it in the same
state that it was before he gots there. He add he
would be very sad if that should happen.
(note : his articles are very interesting, though they
are not always very accessible to everyone imho. Some
have been a little bit rework by others (mostly
wikification, I tried a couple of time to do more, and
was ill-received, which is why I suspected a strong
* he also says he will not tolerate that one (note :
me) decide I have any rights in a system with no
hierarchy : and that if I refuse to respect structures
in place to facilitate edit war, it is my choice, but
that I do let him any possibility than to (what he
wrote in the edit war article, which is basically that
I am a vandale). (note : what he is hinting at here,
is my refusal to protect the page I am on war on, and
my proposition to discuss the matter instead, rather
than letting other more knowledgeable people decide
what is best).
I must add that a couple of people expressed I was
right on the copyright point (I tried to explain to
him what the license implied, and that he implicitely
agreed to proceed under this license each time he
pushed on "save"), but it does not appear clear he
understands the point.
All in all, he is a very good contributor, but a
disaster as a collaborator. As long as no one touches
his articles, all is fine (and little do so, as these
are expert and very well research topics), if someone
remove a single sentence from anything he wrote, he
says it is abusive.
Anyway, I am used to being the bugging one :-)
I don't think this will proceed any further in the
next weeks. But, I wanted to make clear what the
problem is, for any further edit wars (which will
undoubtely occur again). I learn the hard way from my
peers I can't own articles, I can teach others as well
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
Ein Konferenzvortrag ist zwar etwas mehr Arbeit als ein
Wikipedia-Artikel und kann auch nur in begrenztem Rahmen
gemeinschaftlich erstellt werden, aber die Wizards of OS
sollte man schon ausnützen. Ich bin leider am September
für ein habes Jahr im Ausland, aber vielleicht hat der
eine oder andere Zeit und Lust?
Angeblich ist Jimbo Wales da, aber ich finde, man sollte
auch etwas "von unten" aus der deutschsprachigen Wikipedia
P.S: ist gmane gerade unten?
-------- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --------
Betreff: Call for Participation Wizards of OS 3
Datum: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 15:44:43 +0200
Von: Volker Grassmuck <vgrass(a)rz.hu-berlin.de>
Firma: mikro & HU
An: Wizards(a)arcor-online.net, of(a)arcor-online.net,
Dear wos participant,
we are happy to announce that the Wizards of OS 3 will take place in
late April 2004 in Berlin. The landscape of open collaboration and of
the digital commons is quite different now than it was in 1999 and 2001.
It's no less exciting. As contributor to a previous wos event, we would
like to invite you to participate in shaping the next one. We would like
to re-start the dialog with the following questions:
- What do you see as crucial issues in free software and free content
that the wos3 should address? What other issues should be included?
- Are there any speakers you think we should invite?
- Would you yourself like to contribute something again?
- What other formats aside from the classic "3-4 presentations + panel
discussion in a 2-hour slot" do you know from experience and can recommend?
Some ideas for the wos3 have, of course, come up already. You can view
them at our wiki workspace: http://wiki.wizards-of-os.org/
Instead of replying by mail you're very welcome to input your ideas
The discussions about the wos3 have started on the mailinglist
wos(a)mikrolisten.de. If you're not currently subscribed you can do so at:
The wos website is currently undergoing a complete re-design. If you
gave a talk at wos2, you might want to take a look at:
and see whether your transcript is online already. The others will
follow soon. I will send a separate mail inviting you to edit it if you
like, before the relaunch of the site.
And a final point, since organizing conferences alas isn't like free
beer: If you can point us to any source of funding for the wos, that
would be very much appreciated.
There have been long discussions about having a separate "Sifter" project
which publishes selected revisions of existing Wikipedia articles that are
believed to be accurate and complete. Such a Sifter project would exist
alongside Wikipedia under a different name. Similarly, I have proposed a
system for certifying articles within Wikipedia.
Both may not be necessary.
The German and the English Wikipedia currently use a quite clever process
for selecting the so-called "Brilliant Prose" articles, the best of
Wikipedia, so to speak. Articles are first added to a "Brilliant Prose
Candidates" page, and if there are no objections within a week, they are
added to the Brilliant Prose directory. If there are objections, they have
to be resolved in some way.
This alone is already a kind of certification process, but it lacks one
component that the Sifter project provides, namely, the establishment of
trust by only linking to "safe" revisions of an article. This could be
integrated into the Brilliant Prose process relatively easily.
In the article footer (where the license stuff is), there could be a
"permalink" to the current revision of the article, which would simply be
a link with a timestamp like in the article history. When an article is
added to BP, this permalink would be used instead of a normal wiki-link.
Furthermore, the BP page itself would be protected, and only sysops would
actually add or remove articles from the BP candidates list to the BP
page. Similarly to the "Votes for Deletion" page, sysops would simply
carry out the requests of the community.
I would personally prefer if a process was in place that if a consensus
cannot be reached within a timeframe, the page is added to a list of
"Current negotiations", where again, for a period of 7 days, people would
be invited to suggest compromises and if that *also* fails, a vote is held
on the matter. This is to avoid problems like on the VfD page, where
sysops are given quite a lot of room for interpretation if a "consensus"
has been reached, and pages often linger without a decision for days or
The last component that might be necessary to make this work is an
associated WikiProject to organize the reviewing process. This is simply a
matter of organization.
The advantages of this approach vs. a separate Sifter project:
* no separate brand to the Wikipedia brand, no separate community
* feedback from all Wikipedians, not just those specializing in the
discipline in question -- besides being complete and accurate, articles
also must be reasonably well written and easy to understand
* establishes trust in Wikipedia
* simple, easy to use and completely open
* requires only one change to the software (permalinks), which is useful
anyway for external authors trying to provide a permanent reference to the
revision of the Wikipedia article they cite
* Does not encourage the establishment of any POV in the selected
In a Sifter project, people might just make some last minute changes
and then put the revision that contains these changes on the separate
site, knowing full well that the changes won't survive on the Wikipedia,
whereas in this model, changes would have to survive the Wikipedia
consensus process, so it works with existing NPOV guidelines
One possible disadvantage I see is that it might be harder to "launch"
this project -- when there's a new separate project there's always the
associated excitement, whereas a new WikiProject might not arouse the same
level of interest. On the other hand, if we get too much interest, the
candidate page might get too long, and we would have to split it up into
different categories. Both are not unsolvable problems.
What do you think? If we do this, I think we should basically put every
brilliant prose article that hasn't gone through this process in the new
queue, just in case some of them might not be as brilliant (anymore) as
the person who originally added them thought.
>Erik Moeller wrote:
>> 1) Jimbo Wales / Bombis for press requests
>Well, Bomis is now official "just my day job" with
>respect to Wikipedia, and need not be mentioned
But Bomis still owns and hosts the servers - that is an important thing to
note, at least in passing.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
> In short, the Oxford
> University Press wants ideas for how to use their
> dictionaries and stuff. I guess "put it online for
> free" would be too radical, but who knows...
It's not that radical of an idea. Merriam-Webster (http://www.m-w.com) has been available online for years! :-)
I found the following announcement on another list (Corpora-List), and
just don't know what to do with it. It's not directly related to
Wikipedia, but on a similar topic. Any ideas? In short, the Oxford
University Press wants ideas for how to use their dictionaries and
stuff. I guess "put it online for free" would be too radical, but who
Lars Aronsson (lars(a)aronsson.se)
Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se/
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 15:39:59 +0100
From: "LAWSON, Ann" <ann.lawson(a)oup.com>
To: "'CORPORA(a)UIB.NO'" <CORPORA(a)UIB.NO>
Subject: [Corpora-List] Oxford CfP - Reminder
Call for Proposals for Free Access to Resources
Proposals are due by 31 July 2003.
We look forward to receiving your proposals.
Please see www.oup.co.uk/digital_reference for more details. Sample material
is available for pre-proposal testing. A short application form must be
submitted, along with a description of the proposed research project. The
results of the review process will be made available during October 2003.
Oxford University Press (Trade and Reference Department) is pleased to
announce a call for research proposals which make use of OUP's extensive
range of monolingual and bilingual dictionaries, thesauruses, subject
reference material and related resources - at no cost to you. Proposals are
welcomed from individuals and research teams in the academic community, and
will be judged by our panel according to research excellence and innovative
use and development of resources.
We have recently undertaken a lot of work on our newly published Oxford
Dictionary of English data set, with over 170,000 entries covering all
varieties of English worldwide. The ODE data set constitutes a fully
integrated range of formal data types suitable for language engineering and
NLP applications. Please ask for more details.
If you'd like to make commercial use of data or have any other questions,
please get in touch with digitalreference.uk(a)oup.com
Dr Ann Lawson
Business Development Manager, Digital Reference
Academic Division, Oxford University Press
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK
Tel: +44 (0) 1865 353255 Fax: +44 (0) 1865 353658
Mob: +44 (0) 7979 953 100 Web: www.oup.co.uk/digital_reference
Passionate about language? www.askoxford.com
I intend to change the text "Bug reports" to "Contact us", and to describe
several ways to contact Wikipedia on the respective page:
1) Jimbo Wales / Bombis for press requests
2) IRC and instant messaging for direct chat
3) Village pump for general questions
4) Reference desk for subject-related questions
5) Mailing lists for longer discussions
6) SourceForge tracker for bug reports / feature requests
I would suggest that the translation for other Wikipedias than the English
one be changed accordingly.
- Several times people (mostly those who wanted to write a quick article
about the pedia) have said that they saw no easy way to contact Wikipedia.
This is frustrating and can contribute to negative or no reporting about
- We need a single, prominent page that highlights all these options
because some of them (e.g. Village pump) are easily missed.
- "Bug reports" is currently given undue prominence. It can be well
integrated into such a page.
If there are no objections, I will proceed as described above.