On Sunday 28 July 2002 03:00 am, The Cunctator wrote:
> What are the articles this person has been changing?
20:08 Jul 27, 2002 Computer
20:07 Jul 27, 2002 Exploit
20:07 Jul 27, 2002 AOL
20:05 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
20:05 Jul 27, 2002 Leet
20:03 Jul 27, 2002 Root
20:02 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
19:59 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
19:58 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
19:54 Jul 27, 2002 Principle of least astonishment
19:54 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
19:52 Jul 27, 2002 Trance music
19:51 Jul 27, 2002 Trance music
20:20 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
20:19 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
Most of these were complete replacements with discoherent statements.
Such as "TAP IS THE ABSOLUTE DEFINITION OF THE NOUN HACKER" for Hacker.
For the specifics follow http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist
and look at the contribs.
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;-)
I think it is now not a good time for a general press relase.
- search does not work
- wikipedia is very slow
- the logo-stuff, who is willing to explain that to a visitor?
- only gifts by paypall
- no need for more publictiy Look at the stats, every month more and more
Contact: walter AT wikipedia.be
Ook een artikeltje schrijven? WikipediaNL, de vrije GNU/FDL encyclopedie
Thomas R. Koll wrote:
>How about restricting the press release to
>foreign languages? Doubling German users
>is not that heavy like doubling English users.
Well the non-English versions are going to be released a week before the
English one either way. The big thing I'm waiting for is the server upgrades.
As soon as that happens we should go ahead and distribute the non-English
press releases (with the English version following a week later).
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
As both a check on the election results, and as a demonstration of
pairwise voting, I decided to do the following:
* Download the ballots cast in this contest
* Run them through a program I wrote to parse them into a format
I'm used to working with (with candidate translation list I manually
* Tally the votes using the Condorcet calculator
In using this technique, the winner of this election remains the same
(1a). However, it's still interesting to see the nature of the pairwise
matchups. In particular, the race for second place was really close
(option 2c beat option 10 by five votes). It was even closer before I
noticed I missed the international ballots (without those ballots, 10
beat 2c by a vote).
You can see the complete results here:
Can somebody tell me, please, when will this endless discussion of the
bloody logo end?
Please, please, please, can there be a point where we can talk about
other things, like how we are going to get 1.0 happening (a far more
interesting topic IMHO)?
Eve Kendall (Eva Marie Saint): I'm a big girl.
Roger Thornhill (Carey Grant): Yeah, and in all the right places, too.
-- "North By Northwest"
>I want us to take decisions together, to work
>deeply on that. Not to pretend working together,
>to be allowed at the last step to be sessionnists.
I agree 100% with you Anthere! We had a Wikipedia-wide vote for a
Wikipedia-wide logo and we should stick with that (making improvements, of
course). We need one logo for Wikipedia for instant recognition - no matter
However, the idea of ratification does seem interesting, but in a different
way; if a certain percentage of Wikipedias do not ratify the logo, then it is
not adopted Wikipedia-wide and we are stuck with our old logos again and
probably a new logo contest (simple up or down votes on the concept with no
amendments or changes).
But a no vote would not mean that that Wikipedia version would be free to have
whatever logo it wants. However, I'm sure a super majority (75% of all
Wikipedia versions) will give the concept an up vote. That would mean that
the logo will be adopted Wikipedia-wide as soon as it is improved enough to
garner a majority yes vote.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
I don't know what to do with this message, so I'm
forwarding it here. I expect someone else will be
better able to reply than me.
--- Sydneysider <cwernerhoff(a)yahoo.com> schrieb: >
An: Chuck SMITH <msochuck(a)yahoo.com>
> Betreff: Wikipedia e-mail
> Von: Sydneysider <cwernerhoff(a)yahoo.com>
> An: Chuck SMITH <msochuck(a)yahoo.com>
> Datum: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 09:14:22 +0000 (UTC)
> I am having trouble with my contributions to a
> Wikipedia article. I have tried to keep my edits
> intact, but several Administrators keep reverting it
> to the preceding version. Then after a few efforts I
> was blocked for alleged vandalism. (By Tannin, who
> rather too conveniently, does not make his/her email
> address available for a response.)
> However, I have read through what the website says
> about vandalism, and it is clear to me that my
> material has been reverted, and I have finally been
> blocked, for political reasons.
> I am a History Ph.D. with an extensive knowldge of
> American political history and a seasoned writer.
> The information I attempted to include in this
> particular entry may not please particular readers,
> but it does deserve to be acknowledged. Moreover, I
> was careful to write it in an objective manner. None
> of the people who reverted the page have any
> expertise in American political history and are
> certainly not fit to judge the merit of the passages
> I attempted to include.
> That Administrators seems to have the power to
> prevent particular revisions taking place - by
> blocking using for alleged 'vandalism' (including
> material they object to for political reasons) is
> clearly in conflict with Wikikpedia 'open
> publishing' principles and probably constitutes a
> major flaw of the system. The removal of all
> material that they object to for political reasons
> leaves nothing but the bare bones (in this case) of
> a biography, from which all important material has
> been excised. I am sure the aim is not to produce
> something that elementary.
> Let me quote what it says on the relevant Wikipedia
> "Sysops can block and unblock IP addresses. This is
> meant to be used solely to deal with persistent
> vandalism. IP banning is not meant to be used
> against unpopular opinions, non-persistent
> vandalism, etc."
> So what can be done when Administrators are clearly
> acting for political reasons? (Or who should I
> contact about this problem?)
Learn a cool language for free!
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Logos und Klingeltöne fürs Handy bei http://sms.yahoo.de
>The current winner should be disqualified on
>technical grounds -- it simply does not meet the
>design brief of the competition.
In a democracy sometimes your side loses. Get over it work on a better variant
of the *same* concept.
Ray Saintonge wrote:
>3. The underlying concept is that Wikimedia brings
>together the diverse puzzle pieces to form a single world.
>Each project is one piece of that puzzle.
Very nice! However this concept has already been voted-in for Wikipedia. I am
not in favor of going against that even though I really like your idea.