> Wikiquote now has specific-language subdomains. Instead of creating
> wikis for all 150 languages, I made a system where wikis are only
> created when they're wanted. To save time during maintenance
> operations,
> it should now be possible to delete unused Wiktionaries and even
> Wikipedias until they are required.
>
> Similar conversion of Wikibooks should be a fairly simple thing, I'm
> now
> just waiting for community approval. We can't put subdomains under
> wikisource.org because the domain name doesn't point to the right
> place.
> It's owned by Mav and points to a redirect server, redirecting to
> quote.wikipedia.org.
So, in terms of wikimarkup, you could use something like [[quote:Main
Page]] to link to Wikiquote's main page from a Wikipedia or Wiktionary?
What about [[books:Main Page]] or [[source:Main Page]]?
We won't be forking. We have a rating system achieving consensus. So far
so good.
I predict the all-in shitfight will be in turf wars. Selection, as every
partisan editorial group tries to get its articles into the final cut. Not at
the level of editing the articles themselves - an approval mechanism will
handle that - I'm talking about telling people that their area won't get all
the articles it might want in. If any.
(The worst thing is that we'll have to cut back the areas we're actually
really strong in.)
[[Wikipedia:List of encyclopedia topics]] gives us some idea of what should go
into a single-volume reference. We also need to work out roughly how the
Columbia or Concise Britannica break down into space per topic area. (Do we
have any work in this area already?)
A version rating system (as is mooted on the mailing list) will help a lot.
That is, the mooted peer-rating system which looks likely to happen anyway. We
can use this to 1.0's benefit - rather than set some poor bastard to rating
the articles, we *let the wiki do the work*.
1. Wait till a lot of articles (or a fair few) have been rated.
2. Set a cutoff level that gives you a book's worth of articles. Call that
milestone 0.7.
3. Examine just how imbalanced we are.
This will give us Wikipedia 0.7, let's say. 0.8 can be better, 0.9 can be
area-selection-complete, 1.0 can be a polished 0.9.
What we need is a way to let the wiki do the work for step 3 above. Is there a
way to harness dilettantism to achieve consensus on what to cut and what to boost?
Bringing areas up to scratch will still be real heavy lifting. How much real
work, we can't know until we get the 0.7 described above.
Thoughts? (Jimbo, you there?)
- d.
There is perhaps a bug in blocking. It is known to some sysops of japanese
wikipedia that an admin has to sometimes block the same IP or username twice
in order to make it effective.
Tomos
_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
I understand that, when blocking vandals, blocking addresses
that are actually AOL proxies is worse-than-useless: the
vandal isn't blocked, and legit users will be. I have fallen
afoul of this myself (and emailed apologies to aggrieved
AOL users after unblocking).
So, here is a request: something on special:blockip that
will warn you that you are about to block an AOL proxy (by
IP number), and possibly even not let you do so.
Are all the AOL address ranges easily obtainable? (A simple
query to ARIN, or perhaps emailing and asking AOL?)
- d.
This might not be the right place to put it, but my preference is for
speaking English.
Anyways, I can't seem to move pages on fr - whenever I try to move one,
it says that I have to log in first, even though I'm already logged in.
Relogging-in does not make a difference.
There is an user with a particular IP address that is posting the same inflamatory and derogatory page on Mao Zedong over and over again. I have blocked the IP, but the posts kept on coming.
What do I do now?
The IP address is 81.48.83.54.
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchanges
-Vina
I've seen similar problem when I was using a particular popup ad blocker (I don't remembre which anymore). You can try my method of getting around it and see if it works.
I logged in with the firewall turned on, it shows that I'm logged in, except when I try to edit pages. The only way that I got around it was to log out, log in with the same cookie between session checked, then turned the firewall back on.
-Vina
-----Original Message-----
From: kelvSYC <kelvsyc(a)shaw.ca>
To: wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 20:33:04 -0600
Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Can't seem to move pages in fr:
This might not be the right place to put it, but my preference is for
speaking English.
Anyways, I can't seem to move pages on fr - whenever I try to move one,
it says that I have to log in first, even though I'm already logged in.
Relogging-in does not make a difference.
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
There is an user with a particular IP address that is posting the same inflamatory and derogatory page on Mao Zedong over and over again. I have blocked the IP, but the posts kept on coming.
What do I do now?
The IP address is 81.48.83.54.
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchanges
-Vina
Here's a very unscientific and informal gauge of how great Wikipedia
has become compared to other encyclopedias: the Google fight
(www.googlefight.com). It simply compares Google hits and displays it
in a rather humorous format.
Wikipedia - 11,200,000
Encyclopedia Britannica - 1,670,000
Encyclopaedia Britannica - 1,420,000
Encyclopædia Britannica - 803
Encyclopedia Americana - 94,700
Encyclopaedia Americana - 11,500
Encyclopædia Americana - 88
Encarta - 5,060,000
Microsoft Encarta - 1,070,000
Funk and Wagnalls - 36,400
Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia - 11,300
Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia - 29,000
Grolier's Encyclopedia - 5,920
The Star Trek Encyclopedia - 108,000
Interesting to note that Wikipedia loses against "World Book"
(14,800,000) but not "World Book Encyclopedia" (3,130,000).
For comparison, Wikipedia wins against
Internet Explorer - 10,900,000
The Simpsons - 9,900,000 (the Simpson family member with the highest
score is Lisa Simpson)
iPod - 8,390,000
World Cup - 7,870,000
ESPN - 5,520,000
Warcraft - 3,860,000
Super Bowl - 3,590,000
Slashdot - 3,490,000
National Football League - 2,600,000 (although Wikipedia loses to "NFL"
- 13,300,000)
Pokemon - 2,470,000 (like "Encyclopædia Britannica", you get less
results with the correct spelling of "Pokémon")
Street Fighter - 1,900,000 (speaking of which, Marvel beats Capcom,
which beats SNK)
Starcraft - 1,680,000
Wikipedia tied against SourceForge, and lost embarassingly to football
(42,700,000), Google (59,600,000) and eBay (65,300,000).
As for Wikipedia's dictionary counterpart, Wiktionary loses a lot of
its Google fights...
Wiktionary - 331,000
Oxford English Dictionary - 2,090,000
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language - 1,160,000
New Oxford American Dictionary - 796,000
Concise Oxford Dictionary - 182,000
All data based on results on July 15, 2004.
I've just noticed the GNU diction package, which applies a number of
"figure of merit" measures to text. Although the figures it generates
are of debatable usefulness, it might be an interesting experiment to
run it on a Wikipedia dump
Some questions:
* Do the various readability scores rise as articles are revised?
* Would it be worth creating special pages to find the best/worst
articles by reading score, so they can be copyedited, or checked to see
if they are suitable for being featured articles?
-- Neil