Nevermind, I just saw the Wikipedia:Announcements page. It's on
my watchlist, but I was having problems with my watchlist, and...
On 7 Aug 2003, at 16:09, wikipedia-l(a)wikipedia.org wrote:
> My watchlist is currently defaulting to showing me only changes in
> the past hour. Has someone changed the software?
> Stephen G.
Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia
Steve Vertigo wrote:
> The Cunctator wrote:
> > Hmm. Maybe a web-based bulletin board which by its
> > nature helps people
> > sort discussions by topic and discourages getting
> > off topic, and which
> > allows for easier reference to the Wikipedia content
> > being discussed?
> > Just a thought.
> I think it may be getting practical --- there seems to
> be inclreased traffic on the lists -- I still cant
> figure out why the Village pump isnt run as some kind
> of threaded chat page. -- even that would be against
> the purpose of
> -- the digests are miserable due to all the metadata,
> -- the archives are fairly ok to read from -- aside
> from plain email -- but theres no return form from
> archives to answer with, and it has an annoying bug of
> not wrapping unformatted text -- so that LD's and
> others messages read as a single very long string...
Have you tried using the GMANE ( http://www.gmane.org/ )
interface with a good newsreader? It threads dscussions quite well,
and if there is a thread you're not interested, just use the "Ignore"
function of your newsreader, and you never have to see it again.
As for a web-based BBS, no thanks. I find browser-based interfaces clunky
(alas, it's true for editing articles as well). Also, such a beast can't be
used offline, which is a big minus for me.
- Stephen G.
Not a member of the list, so I may miss replies I'm not CCed to, but I
didn't see this mentioned in the archives.
CNN.com has an article on Wikipedia:
It was linked from their front page yesterday, but is only in the tech
section, now. It's pretty light and fluffy (and calls all the
Wikipedians "cult-like" ;), but it's about Wikipedia. There's also a
"Video" link, which leads me to believe they may have mentioned this
on-air, too, but since I'm not a paying subscriber to CNN, I can't see it.
Brett (The Quark)
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
I like the sample the Brion made from Magnus logo for Wikibooks. That is the one currently at http://wikimedia.org.
Thanks, and good work all.
Lou Imholt (LouI at wiki)
Express Yourself - Share Your Mood in Emails!
Visit www.SmileyCentral.com - the happiest place on the Web.
Before going after other people's supposed GNU/FDL violations, we should
realize that we don't follow the letter of it ourselves either. I found that
the following provisions are broken by Wikipedia. Note that the Title Page
of Wikipedia is defined in the GNU/FDL. If we consider each page a separate
GNU/FDL document, it is the part between the title of the page and its text.
If we consider Wikipedia a single document, it is probably above the text
"Main Page" on the main page.
It seems that the smallest amount of broken rules comes when we consider
Wikipedia as a "Collection of Documents" rather than "Combined Documents" or
a single document, but in any case we break:
4B: We do not list the author of the last version plus at least five authors
of the old version on the title page.
4E: We do not add a copyright notice each time a new document is created.
4F+addendum: The license notice of Wikipedia is not in the prescribed form,
and it is not put on the title page
4I: Our history section is called "<title> Revision history" rather than
And that's just the English version. Other languages have even greater
problems. The German version already starts with not containing the GNU/FDL
but only a link to it. Some of the minor languages have not even that.
>I made a temporary logo for Wikibooks out of one of
>the old proposed Wikipedia logos
>number 10, by our own Magnus Manske)...
"Learn free, think free" - I kinda like that. The logo ain't half bad either
(A "W" made out of books). This will do just fine as our first logo - please
make it so on the site itself (I'll localize Wikibooks' language.php file
Oh, and Wikibooks.org/.com is already forwarded to the Wikipedia subdomain. I
cc'd you the user names and passwords to those (and other domain names).
Moving isn't a priority but would be nice.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)