On Sunday 28 July 2002 03:00 am, The Cunctator wrote:
> What are the articles this person has been changing?
For 66.108.155.126:
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
For 208.24.115.6:
20:20 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
For 141.157.232.26:
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.
--mav
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
(shocked silence!).
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".
Pros:
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
data-mining.
Cons:
1. Not much of a help...
2. We'd need to agree on a category scheme, and maintenance might get a
*little* complicated.
3. Quite complex to edit (e.g., "<category type='person'
occupation='biologist' birth_month='5' birth_day='24' birth_year='1874'
birth_place='London' death_month=.....>")
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;-)
Magnus
I have been amazed at the passions that were stirred up when I proposed that we distribute free fonts.
There have been two types of reaction: Point to a source that has a partial solution, sometimes for money and bickering about the level of handholding that a user may need.
As there is not one golden solution, it is not simple to say spend $$ and you are ready.
It can also become part of the installation of software that goes with a DVD for of-line use. When having enough fonts is needed for the best wikipedia experience, why wouldn't we give a helping hand to our current users and help them in this way ??
Thanks,
Gerard
In the grand tradition of actually getting things done on Wikipedia,
Wikipedian KSheka, with some assistance from myself to convert the video
to Theora, has gone ahead and uploaded a video of an "echocardiograph
demonstrating systolic anterior motion of the anterior leaflet of the
mitral value", which, translated, I think means "a video of a beating
heart with a valve that's moving wrongly"
You can see the article with the uploaded video at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertrophic_cardiomyopathy
Now we actually *have* a video in a patent-unencumbered codec uploaded
to Wikipedia, and the ability to make more of them (transcoding to Theora
is pretty straightforward once you've got ffmpeg2theora installed), the
discussion about video I posted at http://meta.wikimedia.org/Video_policy
becomes a little more directly relevant...
>From my point of view, I'd be very interested in people's thoughts on
what we should do to make best use of video (one thing that comes to
mind is that we should always take a still from the video as
illustration, but more thoughts are good)...
Oh, and has there been any progress on implementing code for an approval
process?
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Merkel
robert.merkel(a)benambra.org
http://benambra.org
"And James Hird has just gone after Robert Harvey...that's like Bambi
attacking Bambi"
-- Gerard Whately, Essendon vs. St Kilda, 3/4/2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am very sad that I have to report this, but Node is deleting stub articles
in the Yiddish wikipedia. This happens to be a language that I can read, so I
know what the text says. Yes, they are stubbish, but they are the beginnings
of articles, and at least there is some activity. I do not know why Node has
decided to delete those articles, as there is no explanation. It doesnt matter
if it is a stub about Reb Elimelech of Lizensk or Brittaney Spears (both of
which he deleted by the way).
To Node, I am asking you to stop dealing with languages you do not know. Let
the smaller language Wikipedias grow naturally, without interference from
non-speakers.
Danny
The LanguageGa.php file (at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LanguageGa.php) has
been in need of update for the past couple of months,
as not only are there corrections of spelling and
grammar but the Template and Category namespaces are
redefined. I have posted requests both here and at
Meta-Wiki before to have the live version of the file
synchronised with the newer version, but to no
success.
I know that Ga is not alone in requiring updates to
its localisations, and I know that developers' time is
like gold-dust (and that they're worth their weight in
the stuff), but it hasn't been taken well at
ga.wikipedia that alterations suggested months ago
still haven't been uploaded. (A number of the changes
could be made using the MediaWiki namespace, but their
number is so great that it would be preferable to have
the messages overwritten in one go if possible. And at
any rate there would still be the other php-only
changes to be made.)
On another matter, can someone tell me to what
MediaWiki messages the days and months were moved when
they were made MediaWiki messages a while ago?
Many thanks, as always.
---------
Gabriel Beecham
bureaucrat, ga.wikipedia/sysop, eo.wikipedia
m:User:Kwekubo
___________________________________________________________
Win a castle for NYE with your mates and Yahoo! Messenger
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Hi. I would like to know how different language-wikipedias are handling entries that are not necessarily "typically" encyclopediac.
I recall that, on English Wikipedia, there was a list of songs whose lyrics do not contain the song title itself. On Japanese Wikipedia, there are some discussions if it is good to have lists of episode titles of TV programs.
We already have entries on minor cartoonists, animation voice actors, female news casters, many fictional characters/weapons/places/events, etc. Isn't this going to tarnish our reputation and disappoint existing/potential academic-oriented participants, if not yet?
It has to do with, it seems, two major concerns.
1) What is the encyclopedia for in general, and Wikipedia for in specific?
2) The volume of TV, animation, and other leisure/entertainment related posts are quite large in Japanese Wikipedia.
This is not like an official inquiry from the Japanese Wikipedia community, but I personally thought if Wikipedians in other languages know some wise ways to handle them.
Also, please feel free to write in languages other than English, or point to past discussions or existing policy pages on your wikipedia. I personally cannot read them, but I think I can find someone's help at least on languages like de, fr, eo, es, ko, zh, ar, and some others. I personally would appreciate any information.
Thank you,
Tomos
Tim Starling wrote:
> Mark Williamson wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >Andre Engels has recently locked the sh.wikipedia database at the
> >recommendation of Tim Starling, on the grounds that it is "supposed to
> >be dead".
>
> I only commented on procedure and policy, not on the fact of the matter
> itself. Assessment of the facts was performed by others. As I said
> previously, I'm sick of the continuous discussion of linguistics on
> wikipedia-l and I wish it could be taken offlist. I've never made any
> judgement on the status of Serbo-Croatian and I don't intend to start now.
How about a separate mailinglist for 'small language wikipedia's' and
'new wikipedia-related projects'?
regards,
Gerrit.
Sorry Gerrit, but I strongly disagree.
I understand very well that some people might get annoyed with constant discussions about minority languages, but frankly, isolating small languages would be a very bad idea.
2 years and a half ago, I fought so that wikipedia-l stopped being the english wikipedia mailing list only and become a global mailing list. I fought so that all wikipedias could be on the same foot of equality and that decisions could be discussed together. I wish that we do not go backward and isolate minor projects and minor languages. It is very important that we discuss these topics globally. Minorities also are welcome on wikipedia and they need attention. Not the darkness of an intl-l list again. We do not need more lists. The issue of whether we want wikipedia to become only a list of 20 major languages, or if we want wikipedia to be also a resource in many minor languages, and in that case what we should do for all languages which are currently non active, is a global issue. It needs to be here.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page � Try My Yahoo!
The following is my response to a question raised in the Beer Parlour of
the en:wiktionary about how far we go in accepting protologisms or newly
coined words. I have copied it here because it involves issues that can
be of concern to the broader community.
Wiktionary is frequently Googled, and because of its FDL availability it
is frequently copied into other websites. The result is that allowing
some protologism here has a multiplier effect. By allowing a protologism
we become advocates for it; we are no longer neutral, but begin to
collectively push a POV.
Wikipedia has a "no original research" policy. We need some parallel to
that. The support for a word is far more accessible that the details of
some complicated new theory in physics. With a physics theory the
average reader is soon lost in opaque details, and can quickly give up
in confusion. A word is different in that it's often easy to devise a
coherent definition. The average reader can understand it, and begin to
apply it in his own life. We are in a better position to get away with a
lot of public bullshit.
Strangely enough, I believe that Wiktionary has a far greater potential
than Wikipedia to being influential in the general public. I say this
notwithstanding the fact that it is much smaller, and receives far less
critical scrutiny than Wikipedia. A person who has found "prydxl" in
Wiktionary or any of its copycats could very well begin to use it
despite its bogus origins.
Protologisms are only part of the problem. The debate about "leet" words
come into it; so does the verifiability of any entry. Mix these with an
increasing level of influence, and we have a major ethical dilemma
relating to the function and purpose of any dictionary.
A dictionary chronicles the language in both its past and its present.
Its past needs to be subject to calls for evidence; if a word is
challenged the burden of proof for verifying its legitimacy needs to
fall upon the contributor. Otherwise, the rest of us are left with the
futile task of proving a negative. Evidence for new words is even more
important. It is not enough to say that the word was used in some
unspecified episode of a TV series. What amuses the members of today's
peanut gallery may be completely forgotten by this time next year when
the forces of marketing will have diverted our attention to some new
ephemeral fantasy. Web evidence does no better. It is not good to accept
any word as valid irregardless (sic!) of where you found it.
Ec