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;-)
Wikipedia needs a new language edition - Cassubian.
Cassubian is a regional language of northern Poland near the Baltic Sea.
It has some interesting literature, bible translation, some doctionaries.
There is nearly 200,000 Cassubians there but only 5,000 speak his language
on the daily basis.
To setup a language edition on Wikipedia can be good way to help promoting
the language and to protect it from extinction.
Some of us have been wanting to add a Wikipedia in the Toki Pona language. We
normally use the 2 letter abbreviation "tp" for this language. How can it be
added so we can translate all the preliminary pages?
Although I do not know Klingon, I believe it would be a good idea to add it as
a possible Wikipedia language. I am sure there are many enthusiasts out there
who are willing to develop it.
Given the problems with Geoffrin I have been patient in my hope that
some day our own search function will some day rise again from its ashes.
I have been having a bit of discussion with User Długosz
: at Talk:Appendix:Words From Sherlock Holmes
on Wiktionary. It makes me wonder how realistic it would be to have a
properly functioning search function take a text(s) that we have in
Wikisource and create a concordance to better illustrate variations in a
a word's usage over the year for purposes of building value added into
"Timwi" <timwi(a)gmx.net> schrieb:
> Kasper wrote:
> > It would be nice if the Limburgian Wikipedia could be instigated at
> > li.wikipedia.org, or rather lim.wikipedia.org. I think lim would be much
> > clearer than li.
> The question is not whether it's "clearer" or not. The language codes we
> use are from an ISO standard.
> I can't find any mention of "Limburgian language" in the ISO language
> codes table, or on Wikipedia, or in Ethnologue. This seems to suggest to
> me that such a language doesn't exist...
See: http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/codechanges.html (changes to the
ISO 639 code). "Limburgish", "Limburger" or "Limburgan" has been added to
ISO 639 with code "li" in August 2002.
I have made a list comparing the number of Wikipedians (according
to the stats) with the number of speakers per language. German has
most according to this statistic: 22 Wikipedians per million
speakers. For number of speakers, I have used the data from
http://www.nicemice.net/amc/tmp/lang-pop.var, using data from
Wikipedia for those languages not available. For number of
Wikipedians, I used the statistics page (which counts everyone
who at one time or other edited 5 or more articles). Here is the
list. After the language code, the number of Wikipedians per
million speakers, the number of Wikipedians and the number of
speakers in millions is given.
Numbers between brackets: counting only first-language speakers
*: number of speakers from Wikipedia
@: number of speakers not available on Wikipedia; from elsewhere
=: given as several separate languages by the source, one on
!: given as one language by the source, several on Wikipedia
*s: the number on Wikipedia would, if valid, have led the language
to be on the top-100 list. Reduced from 8 to 6 million.
de: 22.1 (27.3) 2680 121
he: 21.5 110 5.1
da: 20.0 100 5
sv: 18.5 167 9
nl: 18.2 383 21
gd: 16.6* 1 0.06
cy: 15.0* 9 0.6
et: 12.7 14 1.1
fy: 12.3 9 0.7
en: 12.1 (17.7) 5717 470
no: 11.6 58 5
fi: 8.3 50 6
gl: 7.7@ 24 3.1
ca: 7.6* 38 5
pl: 7.4 327 44
fr: 5.3 (9.2) 666 124
ja: 3.7 472 125
sl: 3.1 7 2.2
af: 2.3 15 6.4
it: 1.8 (2.9) 119 63
cs: 1.8 22 12
hu: 1.6 25 15
hr/bs/sr: 1.5! <=33 21
bg: 1.3 12 9
nah: 1.3* 2 1.5
el: 1.0 12 12
lt: 1.0 4 4
ro: 0.9 25 26
es: 0.7 (1.0) 281 362
ms: 0.6 11 18
sq: 0.6*s 4 6
pt: 0.2 (0.2) 49 182
fa: 0.2 6 27
ka: 0.2 1 3.9
ru: 0.1 (0.2) 39 288
zh: 0.1= 1064 194
ar: 0.1= 16 135
tr: 0.1 10 59
vi: 0.1 7 67
sk: 0.1* 1 5.6
als: 0.1@ 1 6
id: 0.0 (0.5) 9 140
sw: 0.0 (0.4) 2 30
hi: 0.0 (0.0) 5 418
ta: 0.0 (0.0) 4 69
ml: 0.0 3 34
ur: 0.0 1 57
"Erik Moeller" <erik_moeller(a)gmx.de> schrieb:
> > It has been discussed before, I think I want to go beyond discussion,
> > and get this thing rolling. I would like to start setting up a database
> > of public domain and copyleft images, using the Wikipedia technology.
> As noted earlier, this should be done under the name "Wikimedia Commons",
> and reside at commons.wikimedia.org, to allow for other content than just
> images, and to make it clear that that this is not just for Wikipedia, but
> for all Wikimedia projects.
I don't like the name 'commons', and although I do agree that we want to
be broader than just images, in practice it will be 99% images - textual
material that might be put here should I think go to wikiquote (or if it's
longer wikisource) instead, so I think what is left apart from images are
sound bites and video footing. On the other hand I fully agree with you
that it should be connected to Wikimedia rather than wikipedia.
It has been discussed before, I think I want to go beyond discussion,
and get this thing rolling. I would like to start setting up a database
of public domain and copyleft images, using the Wikipedia technology.
Goal: Provide a source for public domain and copyleft images, in the
first place intended for Wikipedia, but of course also for use by any
other projects (in particular copyleft projects), whether connected
to Wikipedia or not.
For this, I would like to get Wikimedia set up at some url like
image.wikipedia.org for the time being; standard setup should be
changed in that the image-namespace would be in the standard search
options. Once this is done, it can be announced at Wikipedia etcetera,
and I hope I will get some others who would like to help getting this