Rotem Dan wrote:
>Each wikis is, after all, an independent
No - we are one project at one website. It was a mistake to internationalize
based on subdomains because it incorrectly gives the impression that we are
on different websites. A much better system is to have internationalization
based on folders; http://wikipedia.org/en/ = English version,
http://wikipedia.org/de/ = German version, ect.
>I find it really boring and dull that all the wikis
>look and feel the same.
Because they are all part of the same project silly!
The current logo at wikipedia en has caused a great deal of problems, though,
because it has quotations in English.
I think we should have all discussion on new logo ideas on meta.
I personally like this idea:
Of course all the words will have to be taken out - those should never be part
of the image itself when that image is intended for use by many different
languages. HTML text translations of "Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia"
should be placed in a prominent place at the top of each page.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
>However, if we start going toward "uniformity",
>setting all new projects based upon english
>choices, and ask other projects to fit in the
>resulting frame later on is not likely to be very
Just because the current project isn't internationalized doesn't mean that the
needs of future non-English versions are not important or that the English
version will enforce all standards. That is just silly paranoia.
My point is that the English version doesn't even know what it wants to be yet
- let's focus on developing those basic parameters and then other-language
versions can be spun-off based on the /general/ theme developed for the first
This is how Wikipedia was developed and IMO it has been very successful; the
different language versions are distinct enough to meet the needs of those
languages while similar enough to be one project called Wikipedia.
The same should be the case for Wikibooks.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
>Could the textbook site be made international
>then please ?
Can we figure out how to do the English one first? We are still in very basic
development and /are not/ in a position to set-up franchises yet. I don't
have the ability to do as you ask anyway and the developers are way
overloaded with simply keeping everything from crashing down as it is.
Otherwise visit textbook-l and help us get organized so that we can start to
think about how to internationalize.
The hebrew Wikipedia is holding a logo competition:
I really think that it is best if all 'pedias share a common logo and a
It is bad enough that the French wikipedia has a different logo.
Do we have a hebrew ambassador who could tell them to hold off -- or
suggest their logos as project-wide proposals?
>I am a bit concerned about the pace at
>which new Wikipedia spinoff projects are
Isn't spin-offs the whole point of the Wikimedia idea?
>Wiktionary was a good idea, because it filled
>a gap that was there -- we received lots of
>dictionary entries, so it seemed like the logical
>conclusion to start a wiki-dictionary.
We also get a lot of very long articles that are more suited for a textbook.
>But now we have a new "Textbook-Wiki" which
>was started without much discussion -
Not much discussion? There was so much discussion that we very quickly got our
own mailing list.
>possibly a good idea, but also possibly too
Too specific? Have you browsed any online book seller for textbooks? There are
thousands of different types - if anything it is a far more ambitious project
that creating just one encyclopedia. We plan on writing hundreds of different
textbooks. Specific indeed.
>and shortly afterwards, a "Wiki-Quote" project was
That one blindsided me too - where was the discussion for that?
>Now people are talking about creating a
>"Wiki-Piki" for pictures.
Terrible names - sounds like a fast nose picking. But having a centralized
database for images that all Wikimedia projects can share is a very good
thing. But that is a longer term goal and (as you say below) there are more
important immediate needs to take care of.
>This is all nice and good, but haven't we learned
>anything from the Wiktionary experience? Wiktionary
>was set up without much thought as to how the wiki
>process could be applied to a dictionary; it took
>months to formulate some kind of standard template,
Huh? The template and the processes you speak of were worked out the WikiWay
on live data. Wikipedia was similarly chaotic during its first few months. To
work this stuff out you have to work with real data - mock-ups on meta are
little help here (and having them "clog" meta's RC would probably be frowed
So we have learned something from the Wiktionary experience; we started with a
project with the vague goal of having it be a dictionary. We experimented on
different ways to make that happen with a great variety of different data. So
different ways to organize those data were explored. Ambiguity problems arose
between different meanings of words so we reorganized articles. Somebody had
the idea of having translations in entries - similar ambiguity problems arose
and were taken care of. Now instead of just a dictionary we have a dictionary
to end all dictionaries whose entries will be all words of all languages.
It is difficult to imagine all that being worked out on meta.
>and we still don't have Wiktionaries in other languages.
In time. Wikitionary has the goal to define every word in every language so in
a sense it is already somewhat internationalized (of course the descriptions
are in English). This, IMO, brings down the demand for other language
versions (they are still needed though).
>Wiktionary could have benefitted a lot
>from better planning before it was set up.
Perhaps. But do read the above.
>I'm not sure I like the Wiki-Quote idea at all,
>as it intersects a lot with Project Sourceberg,
That has been my reaction too and I unsuccessfully tried to expand the focus
of the project to include really big quatations (such as books).
>is not very wiki-like (a quote is a quote) and not
>very compatible with the open content idea.
Giving the source of the quotations and giving commentary about them is
>Wiki-Quote was only very briefly discussed.
I don't remember the discussion at all...
>Furthermore, it's not exactly like we have lots
>of free resources. Our database server, pliny, is
>down on its knees, the full text search on the
>English wiki is now permanently disabled, we
>have only a couple of active server administrators,
> and hardly enough developers to address
>problems in the software.
These are all very valid points.
>I propose that
>1) we do not start any new Wiki spin-off
>projects until our current resources have
>been substantially expanded;
I agree - that may have to wait until well after Wikimedia has a bank account
set-up and is able to accept donations/grants. But that should encourage much
discussion on how Wikimedia will function and on how to organize additional
>2) we formalize a process for starting such
>projects, e.g. a planning period of at least 3
>months on Meta with exact specifications as
>to what is to be placed there.
I wouldn't put such a time period on it since many ideas never are discussed
much. I would set milestones (such as figuring out a name, the parameters of
what just should and should not be in such a project etc.).
>After this period, users on the Meta wiki should
>vote on whether the new wiki should be set up
>or not. 3 months may seem long, but if interest
>can't be kept up that long, the idea may not be
>so great after all.
Hm. I wonder if there would have been a Wikipedia at all if a similar process
was vetted at Nupedia... Sometimes the best thing to do is jump in head
first. But dead wikis are bad so something is needed to keep the still born
>Otherwise I see the danger that we'll end up with
>lots of nice ideas that all go nowhere, like the sep11.
>wikipedia.org (which IMHO should never have been
>set up in the first place).
Call me Cassandra but I predicted that. I suggested several times that we
should have a general tribute wiki and that we shouldn't limit such a project
to a single event. I still think that that would be a viable project.
So yeah - until our load/server/software problems are fixed the non-developers
should concentrate their efforts on the already existing Wikimedia projects
and subprojects and on devising processes on how to best form new ones. In
short; no new Wikimedia projects.
--- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Hello out there. Quick question.
How do you configure wikipedia to run using one of the languages?
I've installed wikipedia succesfully but now I'd like to change the language.
I tried simply renaming the LanguagueEs.php to Languague.php unsuccesfully. It seems that Languague.php contains certain variables necessary for the whole thing to work.
Please Advice :)
El pinCHE MaklooN
I don't have any more time to work on Wikipedia just now... unless my
tickets get lost in the mail :D I'll be off to Sweden for two weeks from
Wednesday, and I've got lots of other stuff to finish before then.
Please direct technical complaints to our other suckers -- er, volunteer
developers -- for the interim. :)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I received this reply from HMSO concerning Crown copyright. It seems
that HM Government's opinion is that Crown Copyright is not compatible
with the GFDL.
I'm not really surprised, but ... "Signalman, hoist 'Bummer Zulu.'"
- -------- Original Message --------
<headers available upon request>
Dear Mr Barrett
Thank you for your letter of 7 July which was addressed to Carol Tullo
(Controller and Queen's Printer).
HMSO's policy is to encourage the re-use of government information. A
large amount of the material that is published on government websites is
considered "core" information and this can be reproduced at no charge under
the terms of HMSO's on-licence known at the Click-Use Licence. Here is a
direct link to the licence terms:
You will see at paragraph 6.2 that there is an obligation on any holder of
a Click-Use Licence to ensure that the users of the licensee's
products/services are given an end-user licence to enable them to use the
Crown copyright material that is included in the product/service.
As I understand it the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License mean that
you are not able to pass on the obligations of our licence to the users of
your open content encyclopaedia (the end user). If that is the case you
would not be meeting the terms of our licence. If you are able to meet the
terms of our licence then there are no obstacles to you using core Crown
copyright material from government websites on your open content
I hope this note has clarified the query raised in your letter to Mrs Tullo.
St Clements House
Tel 01603 723009
Fax 01603 723000
Her Majesty's Stationery Office - delivers access and reuse of government
information through innovative e-services at www.hmso.gov.uk
The Cabinet Office's computer systems may be monitored and communications
carried on them recorded, to secure the effective operation of the system
and for other lawful purposes.
~ Sean Barrett | Braccae illae virides cum subucula rosea et
~ sean(a)epoptic.com | tunica Caledonia-quam elenganter concinnatur!
~ | [Those green pants go so well with
~ | that pink shirt and the plaid jacket!]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----