On Sunday 28 July 2002 03:00 am, The Cunctator wrote:
> What are the articles this person has been changing?
For 66.108.155.126:
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
For 208.24.115.6:
20:20 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
For 141.157.232.26:
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.
--mav
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
(shocked silence!).
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".
Pros:
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
data-mining.
Cons:
1. Not much of a help...
2. We'd need to agree on a category scheme, and maintenance might get a
*little* complicated.
3. Quite complex to edit (e.g., "<category type='person'
occupation='biologist' birth_month='5' birth_day='24' birth_year='1874'
birth_place='London' death_month=.....>")
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;-)
Magnus
"Academia" is the name for a huge institutionalized process of peer
review. Wikipedia is peer review on steroids, so you'd think that
academics would be clamoring to contribute to Wikipedia, especially since
academia and Wikipedia both love free expression and open discourse. The
difference is, academia is peer review with competition for prestige and
resources, and Wikipedia is not.
If Wikipedia creates a space into which academic competition can expand,
then scholars will fill it. As soon as some scholars see a way to
pad their CVs or increase their prestige in their field through
contributing to Wikipedia, they will.
How do you create a space where scholars can compete? Since the prizes in
academia are relevance and prestige, and since relevance/presitge are
measured by the number of people who are citing your work, Wikipedia could
allow users to cite scholarly works in articles, and track those
citations competitively. For example:
- Allow users to upload read-only versions of their papers.
- Give users the ability to cite and link to these uploaded read-only
papers from within the text of the Wikipedia article.
- The author of each paper should have his/her own profile. This is where
score is kept. There you'll find:
- the user's "Area of Expertise": a list of the Wikipedia articles which
cite the user's papers.
- A list of users who have similar Areas of Expertise, base.
Just as Wikipedians keep each other honest by checking each others' work,
scholars (and non-academic Wikiepdians) will keep each other honest by
reviewing each others' citations in articles.
The first scholar to cite his work in a wikipedia article will be the
expert on that subject. But, there's no point in being an expert if no
one knows about it, which is why word will spread, and others will follow.
If a subject that applies to a scholar's work does not exist as an
article, then the scholar will have an incentive to write it, in order to
include his/her citation and increase or refine his/her area of expertise
relative to others. Since scholars who are similar can see each other,
once a scholar writes a new article, the others can add their own
citations, to stay competitive on those topics.
Another way scholars can compete is by answering questions from users.
Google's pay-per-use "Ask Google", is interesting, and useful, but
terribly centralized. If Wikipedia allowed users to ask questions to
scholars through Wikipedia, then allowed users to rank the responses from
scholars, then scholars could be ranked relative to each other based on
their ability to answer questions in certain fields. All questions and
answers would be saved and searchable by keyword, or browseable by the
articles it is categorized under, therefore available to other users.
The result would be information on scholars' areas of expertise and
information on scholars' ability to answer questions in that area, which I
think would be important information when competing for jobs.
My basic assumption behind this is: once academics have the opportunity
to get credit for their work, in a way that ranks them competitively to
others in their field, the will do so.
What do you think?
Abe
I am annoyed by the behaviour of user:fire. He is not a sysop on
Wikisource, yet he was able to come and block a user indefinitely with
no better excuse than a non-working link to wikipedia about name-change
policy. I immediately reversed the block.
Those who participate in Wikisource are quite capable of deciding who
should be blocked. We don't need this loose cannon who has not
otherwise participated in Wikisource to sneakily acquire some kind of
superior access for no other reason to block a user that he does not like.
Ec
Hello,
I hope I'm posting this on the right list, don't know where else to
turn. We have a minor dispute on the Romanian Wikipedia and I'd like to
ask for your advice. The dispute refers to the naming of an article
(would prefer not to specify which article, but it's a sensitive topic
with people). Now, there are two spellings proposed for the article
name: the one widely accepted in Romania and another one which is
preferred by a Romanian minority.
Some people say that the article should be named the way the Romanian
majority spells it, others say it should be named as the minority spells
it, as to respect the rights of the minority, and most importantly
Wikiquette. The article topic itself is not per se relevant to neither
the minority nor the majority in particular. Of course that in both
cases a redirect will be made from the "other" spelling to the main
article, regardless of which will remain as the main article and which
remains as a redirect.
Is there an official standing on this issue? Have other people been
confronted similar disputes? How did you resolve them? Which of the
options above would you personally prefer if you were to decide?
--Gutza
Sorry for replying out of the thread, my subscription suffered some
unknown damage so I have to get the replies from the web archive, I
don't receive them by mail although I am subscribed.
Ok, I hoped I could avoid saying what this is about, but I should have
seen the RO/HU assumptions coming -- and it's only natural. The article
in question is the one about Jesus. The Romanian (Eastern) Orthodox
Church says that the name should be spelled "Iisus Hristos". Other
religions in Romania (mainly Catholic branches) say that the Romanian
name is Isus Cristos.
So now you know. It's not about Timisoara, and on a personal note I
mildly resent the way you presented the analogy, as if Timisoara is
natively spelled Temesvár in the same way as Vienna is spelled "Wien"; I
honestly don't understand why you had to bring that into the discussion
out of nowhere. But let's not get into this now, it would be a waste of
our time.
Anyhow, the dispute is basically not about the language itself, because
all religions who dispute the name do it in Romanian. On a side note, to
put your mind at ease before you assume it as being the case, no Magyars
are involved in the dispute itself.
Cheers,
Gutza
Gutza wrote:
>/ Hello,
/>/
/>/ I hope I'm posting this on the right list, don't know where else to
/>/ turn. We have a minor dispute on the Romanian Wikipedia and I'd like to
/>/ ask for your advice. The dispute refers to the naming of an article
/>/ (would prefer not to specify which article, but it's a sensitive topic
/>/ with people). Now, there are two spellings proposed for the article
/>/ name: the one widely accepted in Romania and another one which is
/>/ preferred by a Romanian minority.
/>/
/
Well, if it’s an issue with a city name or anything like that, it may be
just as appropriate to call Temesvár Timişoara as it is to call Wien
Bécs or Kraków Krakkó on the Hungarian wikipedia or Wien Vienna on the
English one simply because the host language calls it that way.
It’s a matter of language, I think, not a matter of what country the
language is spoken. If they want a Hungarian article (I guess this is
just another Székely vs. Romanian “trouble”), they could always come to
the Hungarian Wikipedia and write the article there with a Hungarian
title and Hungarian contents.
>/ Some people say that the article should be named the way the Romanian
/>/ majority spells it, others say it should be named as the minority
spells
/>/ it, as to respect the rights of the minority, and most importantly
/>/ Wikiquette. The article topic itself is not per se relevant to neither
/>/ the minority nor the majority in particular. Of course that in both
/>/ cases a redirect will be made from the "other" spelling to the main
/>/ article, regardless of which will remain as the main article and which
/>/ remains as a redirect.
/>/
/
Otherwise, I’d be really interested to know what article this is about.
Yann Forget <yann(a)forget-me.net> said:
> We had one such issue on fr: recently about [[Action directe (...)]].
> Some wanted to say "(terrorist group)", some "(left-extremist group)", and
> some other "(armed group)" and the last "(revolutionary group)".
> And any other combinations of the above.
> The issue is not settled yet.
What about the very neutral "(group)"? Is it pretty much consensus that they are
a group? Is there another group named "Action directe" that needs to be
disambiguated from?
~ESP
It would seem to me that you go with whichever
spelling is used by a plurality of speakers of the
language.
Meelar
=====
There are more than 17,000 known Kennedys in Massachusetts alone, according to the Kennedy Tracking Center, which uses special collars equipped with GPS devices. Most of the Kennedys live on a large preserve set aside in the central part of the state, where they can roam and mate freely.
--Dave Barry
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Unfortunately I can't read the thread in the MUA, as I said in a
previous post, and your reply doesn't appear in the web archive (See
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2004-July/016295.html).
Could you please forward your reply to me via e-mail at this address,
I'd really like to follow this discussion.
Thank you,
Gutza
Yann Forget <yann(a)forget-me.net> said:
> We had one such issue on fr: recently about [[Action directe (...)]].
> Some wanted to say "(terrorist group)", some "(left-extremist group)", and
> some other "(armed group)" and the last "(revolutionary group)".
> And any other combinations of the above.
> The issue is not settled yet.
What about the very neutral "(group)"? Is it pretty much consensus that they are
a group? Is there another group named "Action directe" that needs to be
disambiguated from?
~ESP