"Wesley Sheldahl" <wsheldahl(a)iglou.com> schrieb:
> That's exactly right. If a set of articles seem out of proportion, it
> would be far better to add more to the smaller articles, then to cut
> material from the larger ones for no other reason than that someone had
> worked hard to make them more complete or comprehensive. Wikipedia is
> not paper. Over time, this shouldn't be a significant problem.
I certainly think it would. If someone is going to make 50 extensive
articles on otherwise insignificant members of their volleyball clubs,
Wikipedia is not going to be improved by doing the same for all other
sport clubs in the world as well. More is not necessarily better. It
can sometimes be significantly worse.
Andre Engels
hello,
excuse me but I missed the way how to start up a new wiktionary in my own
language. anyone could enlighten me please?
can we use hu.wikipedia.org for the base? could we start it now? :)
thanks,
[[user:grin]]
I have added a new release of the Python Wikipediabot package, it can be
found at
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=93107&package_id=98691 .
There are now several packages in the release, but if you download
pywikipediabot.zip, you don't need to worry about the others, as they
are only parts of it, containing the files necessary for specific uses
of the bot.
Changes to the bot since my previous message on April 6:
* A new bot, windows_chars.py, has been included, changing windows characters
that are not in Latin-1 into their HTML-encoding. It is advisable to use
this bot (or another one with the same working, developped by Looxix) before
switching a Wikipedia from Latin-1 to UTF-8.
* When using the bot to transfer images from one Wikipedia to another, the
image description page of the language the image is taken from is used as
the base for a default description. Also, this bot now is able to handle
redirect pages.
* When the interwiki-bot finds links to different pages on the same language,
those are first given to the user to decide on, rather than having them
mixed up with languages for which just one page was found. Also, the options
to 'say yes to all' and 'give up' have been included
* Several bugs in the uploading of images have been repaired.
* boilerplate.py now can also be used to change {{msg:...}}-messages
into written-out messages (using {{subst:...}})
* The table copying and translating bot has had several bug repairs and minor
improvements. It now works for French departments.
* The bot now handles localized redirect text (for the moment that includes
only the #ail-cyfeirio for cy:)
Discussed in recent weeks but not implemented are:
* Creating localization information to enable the bot to be used on wikitravel
(or other WikiMedia-projects)
* Creating a bot to add redirects of the "Sometown, KY" to "Sometown, Kentucky"
kind
* Further changes to make things easier on the operator when the interwiki-bot
has a problem that it cannot solve by itself
Andre Engels
best practices:
wikipedia: 31%
google: 48%
community:
wikipedia 17%
livejournal: 63%
From the development of the last days, at least "best practices"
behaved in a credible way. If all theses numbers can be attributed to
this "Dr. Dean"-effect - start early, die early - is beyond my knowledge.
--
nach uns der synflood.
Hi
I want to contribute Carnatic music lyrics by
Thyagaraja and Annamacharya. The lyrics will be in
Telugu with Hindi and English Transliteration (as per
iTransliteration scheme). Please let me know the
procedure.
Regards
Sree Sistla
=====
Om tatsat Om tatsat Om tatsat
With Best Regards
Sree Sistla
______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
"Peter Gervai" <grin(a)tolna.net> schrieb:
> can I set a user to be a bot? seems being sysop isn't enough, or I'm
> undereducated :)
I see that Angela already did so, however I also notice that the
Hungarian recentchanges page does not yet contain the possibility
to show bot edits.
Please edit [[hu:MediaWiki:Showhideminor]] to read the Hungarian
translation of:
$1 minor edits | $2 bots | $3 logged in users
Andre Engels
Wikipedia has been nominated for Webby Awards in two categories:
Best Practices and Community. The definitions of these two categories
can be found here:
http://www.webbyawards.com/main/webby_awards/cat_defs.html
The nomination itself is an honor, since in each category we are 1 of
5 sites selected from thousands of submissions.
>Best Practices
>
>Sites demonstrating unparalleled excellence across The Academy's six
>criteria: content, structure & navigation, visual design,
>interactivity,functionality, and overall experience. Best Practices
>sites serve as an industry benchmark for the most current, innovative,
>and advanced practices in Web development.
>Community
>
>Sites creating and facilitating online community, connectedness and/or
>communication around shared interests. These sites can target either a
>broad-based or niche audience.
In each category, we are eligible for both a Webby Award and a The
People's Voice award.
In their email to me, they said:
>While the Academy selects The Webby Awards' winners, the online public
>selects The People's Voice Award winners. With frequently different results
>some people are as honored to receive the People's Voice vote of confidence
>as it indicates a strong following by your site's visitors. We encourage you
>to launch a People's Voice campaign to get your loyal audience to the polls.
>More information is available in the Nominee Kit that you will receive once
>you've confirmed your contact information as outlined below.
The kit is here:
http://www.webbyawards.com/nomineekit/downloads.html
I think we should launch a strong People's Voice campaign, today!
--Jimbo
Hello all,
This is at the same time, news from another wikipedia,
and somehow a feature request (or start of discussion,
whatever), hence sent to wikipedia-l and wikitech.
---------
NEWS SECTION
Today, the french wikipedia adopted new rules with
regards to sanctions and exclusion (majority of 93%)
To make it simple.
Before : the only action toward a problematic user was
banning. It was decided by consensus, with 100%
agreement. Two people were banned by this way, Mulot
(in august 2002) and Papotages (in november 2003).
This naturally has become unworkable.
Now : a new policy was adopted. This is not a final
policy, as several points have to be further
discussed, but it outlines the principles.
This policy is rather different from the english one.
I guess the difference is due to 1) we are less
numerous and 2) we never had a benevolent dictator :-)
The major differences rely here
* There is no arbitration committee. Decisions are
taken by the full community (with requirements of
number of contributions or length of presence
depending on the decision).
* The policy relies on two steps, clearly identified.
The first step is meant to slow down edition by a
problematic user, or to restrict his right of edition
to some parts of the project for example. It is
relying on the *agreement* of the user to respect
these rules. The community issues a sort of warning to
the problematic user and ask him to voluntarily
respect this collective warning.
For example, if a user is unable to collaborate on an
article, and starts edit wars on this article all the
time, he may be asked by the community not to edit
this specific article for one month.
The restriction in edition is automatically lifted
after a month.
If the user does not respect the request issued by the
community, the second step is reached. Similarly, a
user being issued repeated warnings and edition
restrictions in first step will meet second step.
The second step is restriction of edition, by
technical means. In short blocking/banning temporarily
or permanently.
# This means that the entire community will be able
to express disagreement to a user, depending on his
behavior as an editor.
# Decisions of restriction of edition or banning will
not be unilateral but collective
# Restriction in edition should not be necessarily
seen as a punishment for the user, but more a warning
from the collective, and request for him to behave
differently
# Restriction in edition should be respected by the
user himself, voluntarily. That means the user
actively chooses to behave within community norms or
not. If he accepts, his full rights will be
reinstated. If he refuses, a vote for banning will be
started
# Community answer to problematic behavior is
gradual. It allows room for voluntary behavior
improvement and general forgiveness.
-------
FEATURE REQUEST SECTION
You may note that the second step, restriction of
edition by technical means, is limited. The only point
on which we may act is time. Banning for one week, one
month, forever etc�.
I think it would be nice that technical means allow to
block people more selectively, such as blocking on all
meta space, or blocking on one article specifically.
In the first case (meta space blocking), that means we
recognise the right of the user to contribute to
articles themselves, but we do not welcome them in the
community.
In the second case (article blocking), that means we
could selectively prevent a user to edit on article or
some set of articles which are really �hot buttons�
for him.
This has been mentioned a couple of time already, as
well as edit throttling, which I think, holds interest
as well.
I would give a 100 wiki-kisses to any developer
interested in working on that :-)
I would also suggest raising funds for this, 'cause I
am not sure I own 100 wiki-kisses. But I promise I am
dedicated in making/removing people sysop and
bureaucrat status to give developers more free time
:-)
Anthere
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25�
http://photos.yahoo.com/ph/print_splash
On Fri Apr 16 09:41:21 UTC 2004 Peter Gervai wrote
>On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 11:15:14AM +1000, Tim Starling wrote:
> > fabiform wrote:
> > >(Perl admitted he made a mistake and said it wouldn't happen again)
> >
> > The issue is not whether or not he apologises every time he makes a
> > mistake. We know that he does apologise regularly. The issue is whether
> > he will do it again, or something similar. Perl's judgement is not
> > sufficient, he has to be watched all the time.
>
>If someone does not feel the responsibility of the power given then he
>should not have the power itself.
I completely agree. Being a sysop is not a right, but a responsibility. It
also is not a tenured position, and while desysopping should not be done
lightly, there has already been a lot of thoughtful discussion about this
-- far more than is currently required to make someone a sysop (although I
realize a new policy is under consideration).
>Irresponsible but helpful people doesn't need sysop power to submit articles
>and changes. Neutral people doesn't need it either, there is life without
>power. Sysopship should be *restricted to* careful, responsible people.
>Preferably proven careful, responsible people. It is a tough goal but
>should be
>tried anyway...
>
>I don't know perl and I am not involved. Reading all the mails here he
>should be desysopped, and stay that way, because he is helpful but neither
>careful nor responsible. This is valid for anyone using his/her/its power
>irresponsibly or without maximal possible care.
Peter is correct here as well. Perl doesn't need to be a sysop to do good
work and be helpful in fighting vandalism. And I will note that I opposed
Perl/Alex becoming an admin on en: repeatedly because he had shown what I
considered poor judgment, duplicity (as well as outright deception) and
being unwilling to be more careful and moderate his behavior (despite a
willingness to apologize repeatedly). I also opposed his self-nomination on
the French Wikipedia (where I am an occasional, but serious, editor)
because of his history on en: and his stated reason for wanting adminship:
"Je voudrais devine admin pour terminé (assasiné) les vandals comme
papotages et micheal."
<http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikip%C3%A9dia:Administrateur&ol…>.
I appreciate that we want to weigh carefully the decision to remove
someone's adminship, but it's clear to me that he received it by a
carefully planned course of action -- perhaps even "scheming" is not too
strong a word here -- and that he has not acted responsibly. While he may
end one specific problematic behavior, he often seems to find one that he
hasn't been specifically warned about. To me, he obeys the letter of the
law, but no its spirit.
So I urge that he is desysopped, that the current policy proposal is
reviewed by people and adopted, and that Perl can reapply if he wishes, and
that the community can make a decision.
Thanks,
Brian (Bcorr)