----- Original Message -----
From: "Delirium" <delirium(a)hackish.org>
> Interlanguage links are already done with [[zh-tw:]] and [[zh-cn:]], so
> perhaps we could simply split zh.wikipedia.org into zh-cn.wikipedia.org
> and zh-tw.wikipedia.org, with zh.wikipedia.org being a disambiguating
> portal? Of course, this is more up to Chinese-speakers than it is to
> myself; just a suggestion that would be consistent with our current
> usage. Having separate interlanguage links going to one encyclopedia
> that is effectively written in a mixture of two writing systems that are
> often not mutually intelligible is more than a little bit odd.
!!!
A relatively small effort is asked to full-form characters users to get used
to simple forms, and the reverse. If you are a little bit used to it, the
very largest part of simplification is obvious and only few "not obvious"
simplified characters would need a check in a dictionnary. Those two
scripting habits are very far from "two mutually unintelligible languages".
In Mainland China, where I leave now, I do often see full form characters,
for instance in some good and relatively expensive restaurants or hotels. It
looks fancy... Most educated people do know enough of them to be quickly
confortable reading a book in full-forms. On the other hand, simple form
characters are often derivated from the common (and sometime very ancient)
usage in fast hand script and. I know that simple forms hurts the eyes of
some Taiwanese people, and I understand that (I'd be hurted in French
spelling be simplified). But I don't agree with "simple english" comparison.
One can easily write complex sentences using rare words in simple-form,
right ? The difference between zh-tw and zh-cn is much closer to the
difference between en-gb and en-us, and I didn't see any kind of "british
english" wikipedia on my screen.
I don't agree also with the idea of a "tw.wikipedia.org". Full forms are
used in many Chinatowns world wide and is not a specifically Taiwanese
language. In Paris for example there are some Chinese language newspapers
and most of them are in full forms, but the readers are mostly from
Guangdong or such other places in Southern China while only few are from
Taiwan.
What I agree with is that the present choice for chinese wikipedia is far
from perfect. I guess a kind of option that you can change in "your prefs"
would be better : you choose your prefered display and, if a page has the
two versions, you are sent on the one you prefer. I have no idea of the
feasability of such a thing.
Last word : I'm far from a defender of simplified forms, I often think full
forms carry more semantics and phonetics and often have more "qi" (energy)
and harmony, I'd prefer the writing-system reform to have been much softer,
if any.
(gbog)
Hi all,
There a security limit that prevent to use more than 5 times the same
template in the same page.
Waiting to found a better solution, I'd like to set this limite to 100 for
template less than 256 bytes.
(256 * 100 = maximum 25 Kb)
I can do it myself in source, but no objection ?
Aoineko
We, administrators of Chinese Wikipedia, had contacted our ISP today,
and they confirmed the block is responsible for the Chinese government,
and one of them can help us to send an application to the officials who
are in charge of the blockage. We had sent the application, and now we
are waiting for the result. If this attempt is failed, we'll try another
way. We make efforts to change the situation at present.
I had see Mav's comment at foundation-l
( http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-June/000365.html ),
I think mav's approach is thoughtful.
We, administrators of Chinese Wikipedia, had contacted our ISP today,
and they confirmed the block is responsible for the Chinese government,
and one of them can help us to send an application to the officials who
are in charge of the blockage. We had sent the application, and now we
are waiting for the result. If this attempt is failed, we’ll try another
way. We make efforts to change the situation at present.
I had see Mav’s comment at foundation-l
( http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-June/000365.html ),
I think mav's approach is thoughtful.
We, administrators of Chinese Wikipedia, had contacted our ISP today,
and they confirmed the block is responsible for the Chinese government,
and one of them can help us to send an application to the officials who
are in charge of the blockage. We had sent the application, and now we
are waiting for the result. If this attempt is failed, we’ll try another
way. We make efforts to change the situation at present.
I had see mav’s comment at foundation-l
( http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-June/000365.html ),
I think mav's approach is thoughtful.
--Mountain
_________________________________________________________________
与联机的朋友进行交流，请使用 MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com/cn
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 14:40:22 -0500, Delirium
<delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:
> Or at the very least, stick the message on recent changes ahead of time,
> but not every single page until somewhere closer to the actual downtime.
Perhaps this is a good place to ask the question - is RC "required
reading"?
I know that I look at RC on en: nearly never, even though it's where I
do most of my edits, simply because there's *so much* on it.
Yet it's where e.g. the recent Election was announced, apparently (which
I found out from one of the candidates' User pages), and where you
propose to stick downtime notices.
So - should I look at RC regularly?
(Incidentally, I also think 24 hours is a reasonable time span for the
warning to be up.)
Cheers,
Philip
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Mayer" <maveric149(a)yahoo.com>
> The block seems to have been confirmed, but I'm still not convinced that
it was
> entirely intentional. They could have blocked an entire IP range of
spammers or
> porn sites and we could have been caught in the cross fire. If that is the
case
> then this should be as simple as Jimbo writing the right person in the PRC
to
> explain the situation.
Finding the "right person" to write to is probably not so easy, and a direct
letter could be lost in administration daedalus. I guess Chinese admins
living in Beijing may have more chance to find an open ear in their
relationship that could reconsider the ban or at least explain what happend,
especially in university context. Mountain (juanml) said they tried to
contact people and I'm sure they are doing all what can be done, because
Chinese Wikipedia is their "baby", in a way. I'm not Chinese, just living in
China, but my little experience of this country tells me that we should
leave them manage the problem instead of jumping now on our horses.
My hypothesis about the reason why they probably banned Wikipedia is a fear
of this commemoration that recently took place in HK. So maybe all
"community" web-site where some words appeared may have been banned in a
bunch (it would be interesting to know if other web-sites have been banned
and which). One argument for wikipedia could be that it is all but a place
where friends discuss about current politics or recent history, even if some
articles deal with this topics. It is not a chat room, not a blog, not a
nest of political pamphlets, not even a community of interest editable
web-page, it's simply an open-content encyclopedia, and that's all.
(gbog)
NatKrause emailed me on Sunday morning to ask if it was just his
connection. I confirmed the news from here from another part
of China.
Nat suggests the ban has been in place since early June 9 or late
June 8, China time. If you look at his and my user histories
(except for my proxy login yesterday) it should narrow down the
timeframe.
Yesterday I posted the news to Current Events but it was removed
due to being 'unconfirmed'.
Please consider this news confirmed.
I don't think there's any doubt now.
The ban affects all languages, and has been in place for at least
three days, by Nat's suggestion possibly five.
Can someone please check out our user histories and figure out
the likely time period for the ban, re-instate the news on
'Current Events' and the 'China internet censorship' article.
AFAIK none of us are in Beijing.
- Pratyeka
Administrator, English Wikipedia
Chinese government had blocked Chinese Wikipedia for a week now,
and they blocked the whole Wikipedia project since 9 June at least
in Beijing. By now we have confirmed that Wikipedians in Beijing,
Shanghai, Hunan, He'Nan, Sichuan can't access Chinese Wikipedia;
obviously it is a national-wide ban.
I'm the first contributor of Chinese Wikipedia and an administrator
of it; I'm very worry about the situation now. The fast growth of the
Chinese Wikipedia before the ban showed that Wikipedia project have
been accepted by the Chinese people, but now how can you image that
the door lead to the interesting Wiki world which had opened to us must
be closed so easily. It's really a pity for us.
My ISP is the top-level sub-node of the CERN (Chinese Education and
Research Network). I had visited administrators there. They told me that
the Chinese National Security Bureau is responsible for such ban issues,
but they only give you an order to ban, and you have no way to give them
feedbacks. We, administrators of Chinese Wikipedia in Beijing, decided to
contact the administrators of the whole CERN this week, and if it is
needed we will try to contact the Chinese National Security Bureau.
Before we get more information about the ban, please don't release a
press about it, maybe it is only a several-weeks ban.
Formulax and Daniel Mayer hopes that a press release will make them feel
shame and then cancel the ban. I really don't think so. Maybe an unthoughtful
press release will make things worse and worse.
If the worst happens, the ban is a long-term policy; I think we still have a
choice: we can setup a mirror inside P.R.China. The mirror uses the mediawiki
software, and is under GNU FDL also. Because the wiki page is editable, we must
develop some tools to keep the mirror and the Chinese Wikipedia consistent each
other. The mirror is under the management of the Mediawiki Foundation also. To
assure the accessibility to the Chinese people, we had to filter out some
sensitive information from the mirror. It is not idealistic, but it is realistic.
Mountain