Please, don't think about one wikipedia for all swiss-german dialects. That
would be the same thing like the Alemannic wikipedia: An uncommon mixture of
native dialects. Surely all Baseldytsch speakers understand the Züritüütsch
(zurich-german) speakers and vice versa.
And please tell me: Why is there already a Plattdüütsch wikipedia? And a
Lëtzebuergesch wikipedia? They also seem to be dialects (although
Lëtzebuergesch is official in Luxemburg). So, why shouldn't there be other
dialect wikipedias? In Swabian, in Bernese German, in Saxony-German?
And yes, Baseldytsch has ist own orthography and dictionary (which many
dialects don't). I think that's also an argument for this wikipedia. The
interface are already translated into Baseldytsch. So lets just put it
online under bsd.wikipedia.org and we shall see how it'll be running and
what the reactions are. Then we can take it offline, or we just let it be in
its developpment to a useful encyclopedia.
David Rossel wrote:
> And please tell me: Why is there already a Plattdüütsch wikipedia? And a
> Lëtzebuergesch wikipedia? They also seem to be dialects (although
> Lëtzebuergesch is official in Luxemburg). So, why shouldn't there be other
> dialect wikipedias? In Swabian, in Bernese German, in Saxony-German?
Plattdüütsch is not a dialect. Since 1998, it has been recognized by the
EU:
Plattdüütsch is een eegen Spraak (eenige Lüd dink, dat is een Dialekt).
Upp ingelsch seggt de Lüüt Low Saxon (wesslich vun de Ilv) ellers East
Low German (össlich vun de Ilv) dorto, ook Nedersassisch, Nedersaksisch
un Niedersächsisch (wat nich heet, dat bloots Neddersassen dat snackt)
un Ostnederdüütsch. De offizielle Spraakencode na ISO 639-2 is nds.
Plattdüütsch is in de Europääsche Kort vun de Regionaal un
Minnerheetenspraaken opnahm. Dat is nu güllig vun 1998 af.
Translation (I don't know Plattdüütsch, but with German and Dutch it can
be reasonably understood):
Plattdüütsch is a language (some people think it is a dialect). East of
the Ilv, the English name is Low Saxon. West of the Ilv it's East Low
German. The official language code is, according to ISO 693-2, nds.
Since 1998, Plattdüütsch has been recognized by the European bureau for
minority languages.
> And yes, Baseldytsch has ist own orthography and dictionary (which many
> dialects don't). I think that's also an argument for this wikipedia. The
> interface are already translated into Baseldytsch. So lets just put it
> online under bsd.wikipedia.org and we shall see how it'll be running and
> what the reactions are. Then we can take it offline, or we just let it be in
> its developpment to a useful encyclopedia.
+1, for what it's worth.
regards,
Gerrit Holl.
--
Weather in Lulea / Kallax, Sweden 19/11 08:50:
-13.0°C wind 0.9 m/s SW (34 m above NAP)
--
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of
misplaced power exists and will persist.
-Dwight David Eisenhower, January 17, 1961
May I know exactly what behaviour you are referring to?
http://hy.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Haykhttp://ka.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sopho&curid=841&diff=1…
Is it perhaps http://fj.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Main_Page&diff=0&oldid=1454
?
Can I please see a specific policy page that says there's something
wrong with that? See other Wikipedias that do similar things for
example http://lv.wikipedia.org/http://mn.wikipedia.org/http://zh.wikipedia.org/ If you want to see it with an inactive
Wikipedia, try http://iu.wikipedia.org/
I have been accused repeatedly of posting "badly translated text" to
various Wikipedias, and I would like to say that the people who have
been making these claims don't even CLAIM to be able to speak the
languages in question and I assure you the text is not "badly
translated".
As far as being fluent in other languages, 英語だけで話せます ；P･･･NOT
自分は、少数言語が話せますが、英語を話すことができなくては明白ですね。
将来には、こんなに攻撃しなくてください。
うちなーぐちんはなやびらんなー；ｐ
لا أتكلم ألإنجليزية
seriously though, what is wrong with knowing a few languages fluently
and knowing a few phrases in many others?
Mark
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 07:26:10 -0800
Subject: Banned from editing except on en
To: Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com>
Cc: Angela <beesley(a)gmail.com>, anthere9(a)yahoo.com
As a courtesy to you, Mark, I'm not going to make a big public
spectacle of this, but if you would like to take it public, please do
so. I just see no reason at this juncture to put you through the
embarassment of a public ban.
You are banned from editing at any wikipedia site other than en. I
will make an adjustment to this if you can convince me that you are
fluent in any other language. It is simply unacceptable for you to
continue making edits to minor language wikis in the way that you
have.
We could enforce this ban at a technical level if we had to, but you
know how our system works enough to see that it would be quite a lot
of work for us. I don't think I've seen enough evidence of bad faith
on your part to think that you'd do that.
--Jimbo
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 20:17:35 +0200, Andy Rabagliati wrote:
>Amongst some truly great discussion, we should remember pt:, and ask again
>if all the nn: and nb: folks could swallow their differences and skim
>through the other dialect as if it were their own. We have been told that
>they all understand both.
Dear Andy Rablagliati:
Norwegians also understand English, Swedish and Danish. Swedes mostly
understand Norwegian and English, and, to varying degrees, Danish. Danes
mostly understand Norwegian Bokmål and English, and, to varying degrees,
Swedish. Most Dutch and many Belgians understand English.
Bokmål and Nynorsk are not dialects, they are written languages -- each
with a solid tradition. Should we then close down all but one of the four
Scandinavian Wikipedias, as well as the Dutch one? And how about the
Afrikaans one? (English, Dutch) Or the Alemannish one? (German, French) Or
the Panjabi one? (Hindi, Urdu) How about the
Spanish/Asturian/Galego/Portuguese situation? If you know either Spanish or
Portuguese and you know a bit of language history, it is reasonably easy to
read all of them! But that doesn't make it any more or less "justified" for
them to have a feeling of what is their language identity!
As for Alemannish, I have no serious problem reading it with my background
in knowing German, Yiddish and some Dutch. But I will not ask for it to be
closed down, and I do not think would be appropriate in any way for me as
an outsider to tell them to quit their project and work only within the
German or French wikipedias instead!
>Balkanisation has irretrievable consequences. We are in the information
>business, and the information comes first.
Information indeed comes first.
In this case, we are talking about two literary languages, each with a
solid tradition going back about a hundred years as a separate language for
Bokmål (defined as the time of the first major orthographic reform away
from Danish) and 150 years for Nynorsk (defined by the publishing of Ivar
Aasen's dictionary and grammar of "Det norske Folkesprog". Both Bokmål and
Nynorsk have their own, extensive literature -- with authors like Olav
Duun, Tarjei Vesaas, Aslaug Moren Vesaas, Arne Garborg, Kjartan Fløgstad,
Olav H. Hauge and many others in Nynorsk; and André Bjerke, Knut Hamsun,
Johan Falkberget, Johan Bojer, Anne-Cath. Vestly, and many others in
Bokmål. Both Bokmål (< Riksmål < Rigsmaal < Danish) and Nynorsk (< Landsmål
< Landsmaal < "Det norske Folkesprog") have had separate, clear identities
continually since the mid-1800s.
Both Bokmål and Nynorsk each have status as official languages in Norway.
The morphology and orthography of Bokmål and Nynorsk differ to a much
higher degree than is the case of UK vs. US English or the Portuguese of
Portugal vs. Brazil.
It has also been made clear a few times already in this discussion that we
are not talking about splitting up Bokmål and Nynorsk. *That has already
happened,* after it became clear that the experiment of joining the two
didn't work all that well for practical reasons. It appears that that was a
good move in that it created a new base of recruitment, and the new users
tend to work in both Nynorsk and Bokmål, making it a win-win situation for
everyone. There is what appears to be a minority opinion (Ulf Lunde) of
splitting the "mostly Bokmål" and an "entirely Bokmål" Wikipedia -- a
proposal it appears that most of the debattants on wikipedia-l do not in
fact support. The topic we are discussing is whether the mostly Bokmål
Wikipedia on no: should move from the countrycode no: for Norway to the
language code nb: for Bokmål. Also, we are discussing -- and your input
would be appreciated there -- is how to implement a solution where we can
let these two languages, together with Swedish and Danish, have optimal
opportunities for integration and cooperation while also keeping them
separate enough that it is possible to have a good workspace for
fine-tuning of grammar and orthography within each language as well as
having an easier time figuring out what information is lacking in one or
more of these languages.
Looking forward to your input in these topics.
All the best,
Olve
___________________
Olve Utne
http://utne.nvg.org
Fellow wikipedians,
This mailing-list was presented with a few arguments that have been raised in a
debate on no: since the request for a wikipedia in Norsk Bokmål on this
mailing-list by Lars Alvik.
Olve Utne has already pointed out a few flaws in these. I will expand on what he
said:
>1. Most of the articles on no: is on either bokmål or riksmål.
So in other words most of the content is in the wrong place? Norsk bokmål (of
which riksmål both linguistically and politically is considered a conservative
variant) has its own ISO 639-1 code, nb, in the same way as nynorsk has one,
nn. The ISO code "no" for Norwegian can really only apply to the Norwegian
spoken language, as there is no one written language called solely Norwegian,
but rather two official forms and several unrecognised variants (including
riksmål).
Some of the articles on no: are in nynorsk and the wiki explicitly allows
entries in the variants mentioned above. Still the UI (not to mention its name:
Wikipedia - den frie encyklopedi) is in bokmål/riksmål, something which deters
arrival of more Nynorsk-contributors. Also, editing a bokmål-article is for me
not difficult (although for some it may be, and it may also be difficult
editing nynorsk-articles for many bokmål-users), but I'd of course rather
translate it to see it in my own language on a wiki that fully integrates the
language. Translating it to nynorsk from bokmål and then leave it on no: I
would consider disrespectful towards the initial contributors.
>2. The debate started on nn:, and is probably an attempt to claim (or deny
>the other part use of the no; domain)
The debate did as a matter of fact not start on nn:. I started the debate on a
page there after seeing an independent person's (Ulf Lunde, recent arrival at
both no: and nn:) request on this mailing-list. I didn't know him from before,
but despite being new he's rased some important points. I found it very natural
to discuss the matter with fellow wikipedians, and it did not occur to me that
anyone would find it offensive that I started the debate there rather than on
no: I made it clearly visible for everyone who visited nn: with a link on the
front page. A prominent administrator from no: indeed noticed the debate (which
was the intention). However, instead of contributing to our debate (he is also a
user on nn: like I and everyone else on nn: are users of no:), he went back to
no: and commenced a discussion on the Village Pump with the following words
(translated by myself):
"==Campaign against no.wikipedia.org==
I have noticed that there is an indelicate campaign against Norwegian wikipedia
on the Nynorsk wikipedia, and I would just like to remind everyone that the
discussion about bokmål occurs here on the pages reserved for that."
I am not shy to admit that I personally think that until the MediaWiki
technology allows for a custom UI and parallel texts I believe the Norwegian
wikipedia is best served by two wikis, one on nn: and one on nb:, while no: can
be a redirect to the major wiki or possibly a disambiguition link. Other people
in the debate on nn: (but certainly not all) may have similar opinions, but I
can hardly see how a discussion and brainstorm about this equates with a
campaign against no:! Such rhetoric only serves to make people annoyed.
He goes on to try exclude users of nn: the right to debate this matter on nn:.
Most users of nn: are users of no: and are proficient in bokmål. It also is a
matter that concern us for as long as there is nynorsk material on no: and the
wikipedia is using our common iso-code, no. I agree that the discussion should
be held on no:, but half expecting outbursts like the one above, I suppose I
subconsciously chose our friendlier nn: for such a discussion.
>3. A split (practicaly a move) would give bokmål (the dominant language) a
>unfamiliar name.
Somewhere else in the debate on no: it was argued:
"The domain no: and its meaning is wellknown, while the domain nb: is totally
unknown [...]. To swap to nb: as primary domain will therefore be very damaging
for this version's continued growth"
I think it is important to distinguish between the top-level domain ".no" and
the iso-code "no". It is the latter that has traditionally determined
wikipedia-URIs, not the former. Languages know no political borders.
Based on what I've said above, I personally believe the suggestions from Andre
and Mark are both good with a bias towards Andre's suggestion. Leaving two
wikis for editing in the same language I think is counter-productive and will
only serve to confuse new users. I think the situation is served best by moving
the current contents to nb: (while having a server-wide redirect from no: to
keep search-engine links etc active), and to implement a trans-Scandinavian
search feature as suggested by Olve Utne on this mailing-list once this is
technologically possible.
Finally, I also suggest that, if these changes are made, the language names
showing up in interwiki-links are changed from
Nynorsk ([nn:]) --> Norsk (Nynorsk)
Norsk ([no:]) --> Norsk (Bokmål) ([nb:])
Sincerely,
Bjarte Sorensen
(User BjarteSorensen on en:, no:, nn:, commons:)
For a while we experimented with a bulletin-board discussion site
(running on phpBB) at http://boards.wikimedia.org/ This hasn't been
used since August as far as I can see.
A serious security vulnerability has been announced in phpBB recently;
rather than add to our maintenance burden for an unused site I'm taking
the boards offline. If there's a sudden demand for it, we could upgrade
it and put it back online.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Daniel Mayer (maveric149(a)yahoo.com) [041117 10:43]:
> --- Mark Richards <marich712000(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I very much hope this does not happen. Setting up
> > 'expert reviews' would be the death of the project.
> But the goal of the project is to create the largest free resource of knowledge
> that has ever existed. Wiki is a means to that end. So if some aspects of that
> process start to result in a drive toward mediocre content, then we *must* make
> some changes to put us back on track.
We went through this (you and I) on this very list just recently. You're
still reasoning along the lines of:
1. We must do something.
2. This is something.
3. Therefore, we must do this.
Not only is this logically fallacious, you haven't really proven 1. as yet.
Note that de: Wikipedia recently beat two commercial encyclopedias in blind
testing without imposing review boards.
> Adding some type of article review system that could scale to cover a large
> part of our content would be a massive improvement. Experts should have seats
> on those review boards, but so should non-experts. Neither the views of experts
> or non-experts would carry more weight - both would be equal (the consensus
> view of the board itself is what would count).
I suspect review boards will not scale. What is the processing rate of a
review board likely to be? How many articles are there again? How many
being created each day?
While reviewing content sounds like a good ide (to me too), there should be
a way to do it wihtout seeming to repudiate the concept of the wiki. I'm
not actually wedded to the idea myself, but repudiating it as you describe
would be extremely jarring culturally and - and this is the important point
- demotivating for the volunteers.
If it can at all be done within the wiki process, it should be. de: is
solid evidence it can be achieved within the wiki process; neither your
assertions nor those of the Britannica editor are solid evidence it can't.
(And I'm still seeking details of what de: did to get to that standard!
Could someone on de: please tell us? cc'd to wikipedia-l for this purpose)
- d.
There will be a discussion of encyclopedias, including, of course,
Wikipedia, on the "You and Yours" programme on BBC Radio 4 tomorrow
(Wednesday) afternoon.
The programme is on from approximately 12-1pm (UTC) and the Wikipedia
part is expected to start about half way though.
There are details on the programme, though not specifically Wikipedia
yet, at http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/youandyours/ and you can also
listen to it via http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/aod/radio4.shtml?fm
Angela.
Scríobh Chuck0,
>I've been told that Wikipedia is run
>by right wing libertarians,
I've been told that Indymedia is run by a giant evil robot called "Hank".
His joints are oiled by the blood of capitalist babies.
Besides, I reject that implication. I'm a left-leaning libertarian ;-)
>so hwo do we know that the volunteer work
>put into a joint project won't be exploited by venture capitalists when
>they try to turn Wikipedia into an IPO?
This sort of thing is why I feel it will be difficult to come to a
compromise. I admire IndyMedia for at least having the initiative to do
something that they think is obviously important, but this sort of almost
fanatical anti-business anti-capitalism rhetoric that is common over there
does not sit well with the principle of NPOV at all. IndyMedia are a
political advocacy site (they proudly say as much), and Wikimedia is
theoretically (at least) an unbiased, neutral source of information.
... unless I'm totally missing the fact that Chuck is having a little joke,
in which case I do apologise ;-)
Seriously though, I think we'd all love to have the IndyMedians aboard, but
our two different cultures are like oil and water, and I'm not sure that too
many of the ranters over there will be interested in putting aside their
political viewpoints to be of much use on Wikinews.
Now, go ahead and prove me wrong :-)
Regards,
- Craig Franklin
-------------------
Craig Franklin
PO Box 764
Ashgrove, Q, 4060
Australia
http://www.halo-17.net - Australia's Favourite Source of Indie Music, Art,
and Culture.
----- Original Message -----
From: <wikipedia-l-request(a)Wikimedia.org>
To: <wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 10:18 AM
Subject: [personal] Wikipedia-l Digest, Vol 16, Issue 31
> Send Wikipedia-l mailing list submissions to
> wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wikipedia-l-request(a)Wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikipedia-l-owner(a)Wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikipedia-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Fwd: Banned from editing except on en (Henry H. Tan-Tenn)
> 2. Re: no:/nb:/nn:/etc. - modified suggestion (Bjarte Sorensen)
> 3. Re: Wikinews demo launches! (Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales)
> 4. Re: Re: Fwd: Banned from editing except on en
> (Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales)
> 5. Re: Wikinews demo launches! (Erik Moeller)
> 6. Re: Fwd: Banned from editing except on en (Henry H. Tan-Tenn)
> 7. Baseldytsch Wikipedia: Who can put it online? (cdamvvwgs(a)gmx.ch)
> 8. Re: [IMC-Tech] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikinews demo launches! (Chuck0)
> 9. Re: [IMC-Tech] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikinews demo launches! (jeff)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:24:28 -0500
> From: "Henry H. Tan-Tenn" <share2002nov(a)lomaji.com>
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Fwd: Banned from editing except on en
> To: wikipedia-l(a)wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <cnb6qe$knb$1(a)sea.gmane.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> > You are banned from editing at any wikipedia site other than en.
>
> Personally (and with all due respect to Jimbo), I'd prefer that
> judgement be left to individual Wikipedias to decide, per their usual
> policy of banning users.
>
> Specifically, I personally wouldn't mind if Mark edit on zh-min-nan.
> Evidence suggests that he is not a fluent speaker or writer of Southern
> Min by any measure, but at the same time he has also shown some
> willingness to learn. That willingness may well just be curiosity or
> dabbling, but those tendencies are not themselves evil. Regardless of
> his ultimate attainment in proficiency (if any), a degree of "language
> exploration" might even be encouraged. In practice this could mean
> devoting more community resources to correcting the learner's sentences,
> but so long as the errors are made in good faith and not meant to
> disrupt, they will be corrected in the usual wiki way.
>
> Of course, if Mark were to engage in spamming (on zh-min-nan) or other
> actions based on bad faith, he'd become a candidate for censure,
> including the possibility of banning. Until and unless that occurs on
> zh-min-nan, I'd personally not mind participation from him (or anyone).
>
>
>
>
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales <jwales(a)wikia.com>
> > Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 07:26:10 -0800
> > Subject: Banned from editing except on en
> > To: Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com>
> > Cc: Angela <beesley(a)gmail.com>,
anthere9-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w(a)public.gmane.org
> >
> >
> > As a courtesy to you, Mark, I'm not going to make a big public
> > spectacle of this, but if you would like to take it public, please do
> > so. I just see no reason at this juncture to put you through the
> > embarassment of a public ban.
> >
> > You are banned from editing at any wikipedia site other than en. I
> > will make an adjustment to this if you can convince me that you are
> > fluent in any other language. It is simply unacceptable for you to
> > continue making edits to minor language wikis in the way that you
> > have.
> >
> > We could enforce this ban at a technical level if we had to, but you
> > know how our system works enough to see that it would be quite a lot
> > of work for us. I don't think I've seen enough evidence of bad faith
> > on your part to think that you'd do that.
> >
> > --Jimbo
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 08:27:19 +1100
> From: Bjarte Sorensen <bjarte(a)pingpingping.com>
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: no:/nb:/nn:/etc. - modified suggestion
> To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <1100554039.41991f3724a01(a)www.pingpingping.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> I agree fully with Olve Utne's solution. I don't think it matters that
no:-links
> redirect to nb:-links. They are for the most part pointing to articles
that
> would stay on nb: anyway, and after a while most no:-interwiki links will
be
> changed to reflect the move to nb:. When it comes to static links on say
Google
> or other search engines these will sooner or later be replaced by
appropriate
> ones from nn: and nb: and the no: links will slowly die away. So in other
> words, it will be a temporary "problem", and both wikis will soon enough
have
> required fully equal status.
>
> Cheers,
> Bjarte Sorensen
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 12:25:05 -0800
> From: "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales(a)wikia.com>
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikinews demo launches!
> To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <20041115202505.GE21242(a)wikia.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Jama Poulsen wrote:
> > Has anyone been thinking about how Wikinews could cooperate with the
> > Independent Media Center (IMC) project (http://www.indymedia.org)?
>
> I think that the culture clash would be substantial. Virtually all of
> their text content is completely unusable due to strong POV.
>
> I do think that Indymedia should use wikis, because I think that much
> of their reporting could be strengthened by having an open editing
> process. Most of their worst biases would not last 5 minutes in an
> open editing situation. Even activists should learn that neutrality
> is a powerful means to persuade people, as compared to radical
> ranting.
>
> --Jimbo
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 13:44:04 -0800
> From: "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales(a)wikia.com>
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Fwd: Banned from editing except on en
> To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <20041115214404.GC32013(a)wikia.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Henry H. Tan-Tenn wrote:
> > > You are banned from editing at any wikipedia site other than en.
> >
> > Personally (and with all due respect to Jimbo), I'd prefer that
> > judgement be left to individual Wikipedias to decide, per their usual
> > policy of banning users.
>
> The problem is: he has been making annoying edits on wikipedias that
> do not have any current users. He removed all the interlanguage links
> from one, and replaced the standard boilerplate text with his own
> message and email address. When Angela fixed this, he reverted her.
>
> This is just one example of an ongoing pattern of difficult behavior.
>
> He is one of the main factors forcing us to pursue a policy locking or
> closing small wikis, which is of course ironic, since he is an
> activist for small language wikis.
>
> He and I had a partly constructive dialogue about these issues earlier
> today in IRC, and I am hopeful that some compromise can be worked out.
>
> I admire his energy and enthusiasm, and I find him to be very bright.
> But there have been several incidents that are just problematic to say
> the least (look up the unresolved issue of sockpuppets for example),
> and his hostility and personal attacks against people who are highly
> respected in the community don't help at all.
>
> I took this action at a global level rather than at an individual
> project level, because that's where the problem has arisen.
>
> If you want him to be able to edit at zh-min-nan, then that is enough
> for me. He can do that. If anyone wants to vouch for him anywhere
> else (in an active project), email me and it will be done.
>
> --Jimbo
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: 15 Nov 2004 23:30:00 +0100
> From: erik_moeller(a)gmx.de (Erik Moeller)
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikinews demo launches!
> To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <9Kt$0Y8CpVB@erik_moeller>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Jimmy-
> > Jama Poulsen wrote:
> >> Has anyone been thinking about how Wikinews could cooperate with the
> >> Independent Media Center (IMC) project (http://www.indymedia.org)?
>
> > I think that the culture clash would be substantial. Virtually all of
> > their text content is completely unusable due to strong POV.
>
> I certainly would like us to cooperate wherever reasonably possible.
> Indymedia explicitly does not want to follow a neutral point of view, and
> that is good -- otherwise they'd be competing with us and we'd have to
> destroy them ;-). They can take Wikinews content and develop it from a
> lefty POV, if they want. I for one would be interested in some of their
> video and picture material. It's perfectly legitimate for Wikinews to
> cover the same protests Indymedia does, for example, but from an NPOV.
>
> I'll be talking to some of the Indymedia folks in the coming weeks WRT
> license compatibility. They have already expressed some interest.
>
> Regards,
>
> Erik
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 18:41:42 -0500
> From: "Henry H. Tan-Tenn" <share2002nov(a)lomaji.com>
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Fwd: Banned from editing except on en
> To: wikipedia-l(a)wikipedia.org
> Message-ID: <cnbern$90t$1(a)sea.gmane.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Hi, Jimbo,
>
> You are quite right that the inactive Wikipedias are not being cared
> for, except by some dedicated Wikipedian admins from the outside. So if
> indeed someone has been a troublemaker (i.e. editing in bad faith) on
> those inactive WPs, he or she should be judged accordingly, and I think
> you and others have the trust of the larger community to make such a
> decision. But again, I am not comfortable with the idea of a global ban
> (except en:). I think each of the active WPs should consider the record
> in the context of actual edits performed in each edition. That is,
> assume he or she is on a "white list" for all WPs, and only ban him/her
> _locally_ for violating specific community policies (which could well
> differ). It could mean that a persistent editor would need to be banned
> by and from all WPs, one by one, but so be it. (It maybe enough, IMO,
> that all the WPs be notified that so-and-so is believed to have edited
> in bad faith on one or more WP, and leave it at that.)
>
> It was along this line that I proposed to remove Mark from a wide "black
> list" as regards zh-min-nan (to be confirmed or rejected by other
> editors there, of course). In that sense I was "vouching" for Mark, and
> only in that sense (given my limited attempt to follow the discussion).
>
> Anyway, I hope things work out for all.
>
> ~~~~
>
>
> Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales ti 2004/11/15 EP 04:44 sia-kong:
> > Henry H. Tan-Tenn wrote:
> >
> >>>You are banned from editing at any wikipedia site other than en.
> >>
> >>Personally (and with all due respect to Jimbo), I'd prefer that
> >>judgement be left to individual Wikipedias to decide, per their usual
> >>policy of banning users.
> >
> >
> > The problem is: he has been making annoying edits on wikipedias that
> > do not have any current users. He removed all the interlanguage links
> > from one, and replaced the standard boilerplate text with his own
> > message and email address. When Angela fixed this, he reverted her.
> >
> > This is just one example of an ongoing pattern of difficult behavior.
> >
> > He is one of the main factors forcing us to pursue a policy locking or
> > closing small wikis, which is of course ironic, since he is an
> > activist for small language wikis.
> >
> > He and I had a partly constructive dialogue about these issues earlier
> > today in IRC, and I am hopeful that some compromise can be worked out.
> >
> > I admire his energy and enthusiasm, and I find him to be very bright.
> > But there have been several incidents that are just problematic to say
> > the least (look up the unresolved issue of sockpuppets for example),
> > and his hostility and personal attacks against people who are highly
> > respected in the community don't help at all.
> >
> > I took this action at a global level rather than at an individual
> > project level, because that's where the problem has arisen.
> >
> > If you want him to be able to edit at zh-min-nan, then that is enough
> > for me. He can do that. If anyone wants to vouch for him anywhere
> > else (in an active project), email me and it will be done.
> >
> > --Jimbo
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 15:58:10 +0100 (MET)
> From: cdamvvwgs(a)gmx.ch
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Baseldytsch Wikipedia: Who can put it online?
> To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> Message-ID: <31797.1100530690(a)www26.gmx.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Hello dear Wikipedians,
> I listed a proposal for a Wikipedia in Baseldytsch (a swiss-german dialect
> in Switzerland with its own dictionary and orthography, about one million
> speakers; see also http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/
> Request_for_new_language). I'm currently translating the interface (http:/
> /meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Locales_for_the_Wikipedia_Software), but is there
> anyone who can put the Baseldytsch Wikipedia online under the domain http:
> //bsd.wikipedia.org/ ??? If yes, please do so! Or send me an e-mail how to
> do so. Thank you very much,
> CdaMVvWgS
>
> --
> Geschenkt: 3 Monate GMX ProMail + 3 Top-Spielfilme auf DVD
> ++ Jetzt kostenlos testen http://www.gmx.net/de/go/mail ++
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 10:55:29 -0600
> From: Chuck0 <chuck(a)mutualaid.org>
> Subject: Re: [IMC-Tech] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikinews demo launches!
> To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> Cc: imc-tech(a)lists.indymedia.org
> Message-ID: <4198DF81.6020201(a)mutualaid.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>
> Jama Poulsen wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 07:05:46PM -0800, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
> >
> >>http://demo.wikinews.org/
> >>
> >>After the successful wikinews vote
> >>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Vote
> >>
> >>the board has discussed and decided to move forward with this project!
> >>This will also give people more of a chance to discuss the proposed
> >>policies before the site goes live.
> >
> >
> > Has anyone been thinking about how Wikinews could cooperate with the
> > Independent Media Center (IMC) project (http://www.indymedia.org)?
>
> > In short, it seems to me that if these two projects could join forces,
> > the end result would be more than just Wikinews and IMC separately.
>
> I'm skeptical about this idea. What is the political orientation of
> Wikinews? Indymedia exists as an alternative media space for the
> political left (broadly defined). Is Wikinews apolitical, left-leaning,
> or friendly towards neo-fascists? I've been told that Wikipedia is run
> by right wing libertarians, so hwo do we know that the volunteer work
> put into a joint project won't be exploited by venture capitalists when
> they try to turn Wikipedia into an IPO?
>
> I'm opposed to this partnership until it can be determined how Indymedia
> would benefit from any partnership with a newly launched project.
>
> Chuck Munson
> Infoshop News
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:30:06 -0700
> From: jeff <jeff(a)indymedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [IMC-Tech] Re: [Wikipedia-l] Wikinews demo launches!
> To: imc-tech(a)lists.indymedia.org
> Cc: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org, Chuck0 <chuck(a)mutualaid.org>
> Message-ID: <200411151630.06184.jeff(a)indymedia.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Chuck0 wrote:
> > Jama Poulsen wrote:
> > > On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 07:05:46PM -0800, Jimmy (Jimbo)
> Wales wrote:
> > >>http://demo.wikinews.org/
> > > Has anyone been thinking about how Wikinews could cooperate
> > > with the Independent Media Center (IMC) project
> > > (http://www.indymedia.org)?
> >
> > I'm skeptical about this idea. What is the political
> > orientation of Wikinews?
>
> My guess is that it would have the "Neutral Point of View". I've
> been impressed at how well wikipedia has been able to maintain
> this goal on controversial subjects.
>
> > Indymedia exists as an alternative
> > media space for the political left (broadly defined). Is
> > Wikinews apolitical, left-leaning, or friendly towards
> > neo-fascists?
>
> That's a bit harsh. Can you point to a single wikipedia article
> that has been friendly to neo-fascists?
>
> Indymedia is "left-leaning" but could certainly be an
> automated/semi-automated contributor to wikinews even if there
> are viewpoints on there that are generally not on Indymedia.
> Wikinews could have both, like news.google. Wikinews is
> probably more sympathetic to Indymedia than google as well.
> See the wikipedia entry on Indymedia--it's current & good:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indymedia
>
> Or take a look at their entry on Anarchism (which nicely links
> to Chuck's infoshop.org):
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
>
> > I've been told that Wikipedia is run by right
> > wing libertarians, so hwo do we know that the volunteer work
> > put into a joint project won't be exploited by venture
> > capitalists when they try to turn Wikipedia into an IPO?
>
> wikipedia is a non-profit and the articles are under the GFDL. I
> doubt it will ever go IPO... For more info, see:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Overview_FAQ#Who_owns_Wikipedia.3F
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home
>
> If it ever does turn commercial, you can download the /entire/
> database and set up your own wikipedia and do whatever you want
> with the articles as long as you comply with the GFDL. See:
> http://download.wikimedia.org/
>
> I wish Indymedia database dumps were publicly available!
>
> > I'm opposed to this partnership until it can be determined
> > how Indymedia would benefit from any partnership with a newly
> > launched project.
>
> It could benefit by wider distribution of Indymedia content.
> Wikipedia has a huge audience, and deservedly so. In general,
> I'm in favor of collaboration between wikinews & indymedia.
>
> Chuck, stop dissing one of my favorite Internet projects. ;)
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Jeff
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
> End of Wikipedia-l Digest, Vol 16, Issue 31
> *******************************************
>
>