A proclamation
I support the continuation of the Klingon Wikipedia, because it seems
that a (very rough) consensus has been reached. It's worth noting,
too, that Klingon is a "special case" in many ways in the geek culture
where we all live, and that my own confusing remarks caused it to be
created, and then deleted, causing hurt feelings which are fully my
own fault and much regretted.
In short, this is a unique historical situation that ought not to be
viewed as creating a precedent. I feel the same way about the sep11
wiki, a project that we likely would not have undertaken or continued
to support, except for a set of unique historical facts about how our
project has evolved.
I'm not really ready to declare an _exact_ policy for future cases,
and it would be inappropriate of me to do so until we have more
consensus building, but I think that we can easily recognize the broad
outlines of a reasonable policy...
1. We ought to use some external source or sources to determine what
we will count as a language for the purposes of creating new projects.
2. Based on those external sources, we ought to have a mechanical
rule that generates a default answer. For example, Klingon has a 3
letter ISO 639-2 code, so the default is "accept". "Toki Pona" has no
such code, so the default is "reject". (However, I have been
convinced by sound argument that the ISO 639 codes are often drawn
along political lines rather than real linguistic lines, so a more
sophisticated rule is likely needed than in this simple example.)
3. In cases where there is significant community support or opposition
to the result given by the "rule" we should use some additional
procedure, such as a vote, or better yet a discussion with an eye
toward reaching some compromise, followed by a vote.
4. Reasons for overriding the "rule" could range from the rule being
wrong to historical precedent. For example, we might decide
ultimately to keep 'toki pona' even though in other cases, we would
not. While consistency is a value, special cases can be made as a
courtesy when a significant community has grown up.
----
I think almost everyone can agree with the outline above, but mostly
because it's an abstract procedure that leaves us with no concrete
guidance. ;-) I'm good at that. But I freely admit that the hard
part is settling on a "rule" for the future.
Some things that I think people can agree on about what the rule should
look like:
1. The rule should not tell us to have separate wikipedias for
British English and Australian English and American English. (Nor for
"African-American Vernacular English", popularly called "ebonics", nor
for "Southern American English", my own native dialect.)
2. The rule should provide some means of exclusion for vanity
projects and extremely small (and thus unlikely to be successful)
groups.
3. The rule should be external to Wikipedia, based on some other
official standards. The reason for this is that this is only our
default, and the whole purpose of the rule is to give us one less
thing to argue about. Let some international body make the decision,
and then we follow it unless we do something unusual.
--Jimbo
>But just when pessimism about the internet has reached its most
>chronic depths, the web's most stunning and exciting site is becoming
>wildly popular and threatening to provide all the glorious
>enlightenment we had stopped daring to hope would arrive.
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200wales/tm_objectid=14292033&meth…
On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 03:40:19PM +1000, Tim Starling
wrote:
> Anthere wrote:
> >
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_by_MBTI_type
> > > > How do you explain the current majority of NTs
?
> > > > > MBTI is pseudoscience. I don't know why
people bother with it.
>The wikipedia article gives the answer: confirmation
>bias.
>"Some even demonstrate that profiles can apparently
>seem to fit any person by confirmation bias,
ambiguity >of basic terms and the Byzantine complexity
that >allows any kind of behavior to fit any
personality >type."
>People have a natural craving to "belong"; they want
>to be accepted
>into whatever social group they see themselves as
part >of. By
>deliberately ambiguous wording, the test lets you
>answer questions
>in such a way that you can deceive yourself into
>finding external
>confirmation of your perception of yourself. That's
>the lure.
>Arvind
Yup, I agree.
Since I think these two comments are making me look
silly :-) I will list below the slow construction of
wikipedians, who feel so cold in our current
organisation, that they feel the need to create sub
cultural groups to gather warm around them. Of course,
that is also confirmation of personal perception.
Wikipedians categorized by sub-cultural affiliation
>From Meta, a wiki about Wikimedia
*Wikipedians with criminal records
*Wikipedians who use recreational drugs
*Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered Wikipedians
*Wiccapedians or other neopagan Wikipedians
*Roots Rock Reggae Security Investigative Wikipedians
*Vegetarian Wikipedians
*Wikipedians who don't like to be categorised
*WIKIngs
*Academia pro Interlingua Wikipedians
*Politically conservative Wikipedians
*Blue Wikipedians
*Green Wikipedians
*Surrealist Wikipedians
*Non-American Wikipedians
*American Indigene
*Wikipedians American Wikipedians
*Anti-American Wikipedians
*Anti-Anti-American users
*Anti-Anti-Anti-American_users
*European Union Wikipedians
*Southeastern European Wikipedians
*United Nations Wikipedians
*Gothic Wikipedians
*Not Gothic Wikipedians
*Anti-Anti-anything users
*Wikipedians by religion
*Wikipedians by race
*Wikipedians who use PDA's
*Wikipedians who use laptops
*Wikipedians who use a regular computer
*Wikipedians by favorite color
*Wikipedians by favorite text editor
*Fannish Wikipedians
*Wikipediholics
*Wikipedians by Favorite Ice Cream Flavor
*Wikipedians who are students or alumni of McGill
University Phish
*Fans of Wikipedia
*Wikipedians who support a World Government
*Wikipedians who support a Universal Religion
*Internationalist Wikipedians
*Multilingual Wikipedians
*Intellectual Wikipedians
*Wikimedians by age
*Wikimedians by birthday
*Wikipedians by geekness
*Wikipedians by MBTI type
*Operating System Preference
*Linux user Wikipedians
*Mac user Wikipedians
*BSD user Wikipedians
*Windows user Wikipedians
*Biological affiliations
*WikiMen WikiWomen
*Deaf Wikipedians
*Twin Wikipedians
*Aspergian Wikipedians
*Unemployed Wikipedians
*Internet connection
*Wikipedians with slow Internet connections
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
http://www.heise.de/tp/english/special/wos/17544/1.html
The Planet of Free Knowledge
Volker Grassmuck 01.06.2004
The future of the digital commons will be discussed during the
conference Wizards of OS 3
The Wizards of OS 3 (10-12 June 2004, Berliner Congress Center) is
bringing together an interdisciplinary group of leading scholars and
practitioners from the planet of free knowledge. This planet is bustling
with activity. Everywhere there are people creating and exchanging
information, working together to build a solid foundation of free
technology and to erect cathedrals of wisdom -- by all and for all --
such as Wikipedia. Some are labouring to bring science back to its
philosophical foundations: an unencumbered exchange of ideas and the
freedom essential for research and innovation.
http://www.heise.de/tp/english/special/wos/17549/1.html
The Online Library of Alexandria
Stefan Krempl 01.06.2004
Interview with Jimmy Wales, co-founder of the ever-growing online
encyclopedia Wikipedia
Open Content -- the effort of the Online Community to produce freely
available editorial essays, articles, and other forms of writings -- has
become a major success in the realm of Open Source. Pioneer is the Web
based encyclopedia Wikipedia which is supposed reach another milestone
of 300.000 articles soon. The open content forerunner is giving
commercial encyclopedias like Britannica or Encarta a hard time, since
they are loosing customers quickly now.
--
nach uns der synflood.
Anthere wrote:
>http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_by_MBTI_type
>
>How do you explain the current majority of NTs ?
>
Could it be that NTs are more willing than others to fill in a questionary
in order to categorize themselves, without a job selector looking over their
shoulders?
I did complete the questionaire and put my name on the list, but still I'm
rather skeptical, or should I be according to my type? :)
For fun try to convince yourself that you scored any other type than you did
and read the description, part of it will still seem to describe you, at
least that was my experience. Just like with astrology charts, people tend
to agree with all niceties written about them.
Erik Zachte
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> --- Ray Saintonge
<saintonge-EynCeXvFgoheoWH0uzbU5w(a)public.gmane.org>
wrote:
>
>>Anthere wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_by_MBTI_type
>>>
>>>How do you explain the current majority of NTs ?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Wikipedians are not a representative sample of the
general population. 8-)
>>
>>Ec
>
>
> NTs are to Wikipedia as flies are to fly paper (or
moths to a flame). ;)
>
> -- mav
Hmmmmmm.
Well, I hope more people will add themselves so we
improve statistics.
But after we noticed an apparent predominance of NT,
who think of
* why are those predominant ? What is the positive
feedback given to them and not given to others ?
* Are the other groups not attracted by WP ? Or are
they quickly leaving because they can't meet their
needs ?
* is it good for wikipedia community that mostly NT
are here ? Would not we benefit of more types ? How to
attract them and *keep* them ?
* who are the groups more embarassed with trolls ? Who
could better help best with wikistress attacks ?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
--- Timwi <timwi(a)gmx.net> wrote:
> I was indeed assuming that the compromise of
> disallowing inter-wiki
> links to it would also apply to Toki Pona.
I wasn't assuming the compromise applied to toki pona.
If there is going to be a policy to remove all
existing links to it, then you need to show there is
consensus to do that. Wikitech-l is not the place to
discuss such a policy so I'm moving this thread to
wikipedia-l.
I don't feel the policy on Klingon should necessarily
apply to toki pona. I don't have any strong feeling on
whether that wikipedia should exist, but while it
does, please stop removing links to it on the
assumption that Klingon policies can be applied
retroactively to any other controversial languages.
Angela.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Angela
____________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping"
your friends today! Download Messenger Now
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html