On Sunday 28 July 2002 03:00 am, The Cunctator wrote:
> What are the articles this person has been changing?
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
20:20 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
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.
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
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".
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
1. Not much of a help...
2. We'd need to agree on a category scheme, and maintenance might get a
3. Quite complex to edit (e.g., "<category type='person'
occupation='biologist' birth_month='5' birth_day='24' birth_year='1874'
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;-)
I have been amazed at the passions that were stirred up when I proposed that we distribute free fonts.
There have been two types of reaction: Point to a source that has a partial solution, sometimes for money and bickering about the level of handholding that a user may need.
As there is not one golden solution, it is not simple to say spend $$ and you are ready.
It can also become part of the installation of software that goes with a DVD for of-line use. When having enough fonts is needed for the best wikipedia experience, why wouldn't we give a helping hand to our current users and help them in this way ??
True. In American English, a list of 3 items is usually "bacon, eggs, and cheese" - not "bacon, eggs and cheese." The later implies a connection between the items, but the former doesn't.
-------------- Original message --------------
> e2m wrote:
> > Why this resource is not used to deal with the differences of the type
> > "behaviour" and "behavior" or "center" and "centre"?
> One reason is that the differences between American and British
> English are more involved than simply changing the spelling of a few
> words. Punctuation and grammar are also involved. If you changed
> behavior to behaviour in an otherwise AE sentence, the sentence would
> then be wrong in both languages. See
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
<Farnsworth>Good news, everyone!</Farnsworth>
I contacted Michael Connors from www.morguefile.com, a free image
repository, about use of the images on wikipedia. Short answer: Go
ahead! Long answer: below...
-------- Original Message --------
Hey mangus, first off for a site like Wikipedia, you can certainly use any
image photographed by mconnors free and clear of all terms or by-lines and
you have my written permission. The problem is that I don't own these
images, I only have permission to redistribute them. Or at least all of the
images that I haven't photographed. And I wrote the disclaimer myself, which
is why it's so shoddy. (even more so then the coding) You are correct, what
I plan to do is have a lawyer provide us with proper terms. My only real
concern was preventing someone from downloading the entire collection and
finding a morgeufile CD for sale at wal-mart. And I have gotten request from
people who want to just rip off as many prints as they can and sell them at
every street vendor in NYC, in which case I tell them they should at least
stick a calendar on it. If your using the images on a webpage, that's really
not the same- they would be really bad prints. The intent of the site was
definitely to serve sites not unlike wikipedia, so I think you should run
with using the images, I honestly believe the contributors would be tickled
to know there work is being used by your site. Give me another 6 months to
hire the lawyers and we'll have a solid license. For now you can contact the
contributor of a specific photo- I'm sure you won't have any problems
getting permission. Thanks a lot for the advice, it is greatly appreciated.
On 8/25/04 3:43 AM, "Magnus Manske" <magnus.manske(a)web.de> wrote:
> I am writing you on behalf of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> (http://www.wikipedia.org ).
> I recently found your great site at http://www.morguefile.com and
> thought it would be a wonderful source for images on Wikipedia. However,
> we are a little uncertain about the copyright policy.
> You *do* state that the images on your site are free to use, even for
> commercial projects. The Wikipedia is licensed under the GNU Free
> Documentation License, the equivalent of the GPL (think Linux) for
> written text. The GFDL allows for commercial use as well, no problem so far.
> But, you also state on your About page "Although selling prints, selling
> the images directly or claiming the photo is yours is prohibited." Of
> course we will appropriately credit the image source, but by "just"
> using an image of yours on our site, someone might produce single prints
> A solution would be for you to co-license all your images under GFDL,
> which would ensure that the information stays free (as in "free speech",
> not "free beer":-) but this is of course entirely your decision. IMHO,
> it would seem to fit the spirit of your site, though.
> Anyhow, if you allow us to use some of your images on Wikipedia, please
> supply us with a short note we can put on the image description below
> the source citing, similar to
> "This image is *not* under GFDL. You are free to use it in any way
> except for selling high-quality versions of it digitally or in print,
> and as long as you cite the source."
> Thank you in advance for your time, and for a great image resource.
> Magnus Manske
On Mon, 2004-09-27 at 09:35 +0530, shantanu oak wrote:
> What are the implied rules of creating hyperlinks?
> Let's assume I am reading the page....
> I have understood 2 things about links...
> 1) Red links don't contain any text.
> 2) External links are marked (a convention, I wish all websites should follow)
> But I completely fail to understand why certain words are hyperlinked.
> For e.g. in the following para why does the date January 27 is linked?
> I clicked on that date and could not find anything related to the
> current page i.e. MandrakeSoft.
> MandrakeSoft operated under bankruptcy protection from [[January 27]],
> [] to [[March 30]], []. Despite its efforts to cut losses
> and improve profits, MandrakeSoft was forced to file for protection
> due to a series of quarterly losses.
> Too much (and mostly unnecessary) hyperlinks makes me shy away from using wiki.
Hmm. We're kind of in a double bind, here. If we don't fix up everything
in the encyclopedia to be completely perfect, you're not going to
participate. But if we fix everything to be completely perfect, we don't
really need your participation after that. B-)
On a more serious note: you should probably look over the manual of
style for English Wikipedia. If I'm not mistaken, linking dates and
years just because is not recommended. You can help Wikipedia by taking
out the links in the page you found.
You will probably find about 100,000,000 thing in Wikipedia as you go
along that will disgust and horrify you. Some you will grow to love;
others you should try to change. There's no Big Boss who's going to do
it for you; if you've got ideas as to how to make the encyclopedia
better, start implementing them (but stop if someone complains!).
P.S. I redirected this to wikipedia-l as it's not really a technical
I started new Wikipedia, Anarchopedia (www.anarchopedia.org). In this
moment it is blank MediaWiki, but I hope it would become real free
The main difference between Wikipedia and Anarchopedia is that
Anarchopedia _is_ test for anarchy. Also, we would have more
anarchistic articles then Wikipedia.
Anarchopedia has sister AnarchApedia (www.anarchapedia.org).
Where to announce new Wikipedian project?
I would like to hear your suggestions as well as I would like to see
Wikipedians anarchists to work on Anarchopedia and Anarchapedia.
On the czech (cs:) Wikipedia, we still have the original english logo.
On meta:Requests for logos, I have added the request that we are ready
to switch the logo, but there is still no reply (after a month). So I
am trying to catch someone's attention here -- could you help to
change the logo?
Vom 6. bis 10. Oktober 2004 ist in Frankfurt die Buchmesse.
Will anyone of you go to the Frankfurt book fair?
I'll attend to that event anyway and I would love to see as many of you
Wäre das nicht eine gute Gelegenheit für ein WikipedianerInnentreffen
dort an einem Tag oder Abend?
Mathias, Frankfurter. :)