On Monday I sent the Wash Post our response to their "Spreading
Knowledge, the Wiki Way" article, where they compare Brittanica Online
favorably to our disclaimered site. It is slated for publication in
their letters section tomorrow.
So take a look at a copy if you can!
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/PR_department/WashPost-20040909#Response
--
+sj+
I'd like to know if it's possible to have a wiki page converted to
MSWord documents or any other file format that would keep the style,
font size ,colors , etc... (and vice-versa).
It seems to me that a webtool able to do it in a WYSIWYG way would be nice!
Thanks...
Felipe Corrêa da Silva Sanches
While it's nice that Mav is happy about this, I'm still somewhat annoyed.
It's clear that there was no consensus in the broader Wikimedia
community for this. If there was a discussion on meta, I haven't seen
it, so it would only be those people who are subscribed to the list
that would've known about this. It's also apparent that even on the
list, Mav wasn't the only one with objections. But because the three
or four proponents of this shouted him (and others) down more vocally,
it seems the board decides to go off and do their own thing. I don't
make the accusation that it was underhanded, but at the same time, I
hope it won't be something that's repeated.
If there is a non-forking policy, where is it, and why haven't I heard
of it until now? If there is conditions placed on the creation of
Wikispecies, what were they? Disclosure, people, disclosure.
I still believe that Wikispecies should be treated the same as Mark's
attempt to start a Traditional Chinese Wikipedia has been - suspended
until there is community consensus for it to exist.
-- ambi
I'd like to know if it's possible to have a wiki page converted to
MSWord documents or any other file format that would keep the style,
font size ,colors , etc... (and vice-versa).
It seems to me that a webtool able to do it in a WYSIWYG way would be nice!
Thanks...
Felipe Corrêa da Silva Sanches
Daniel Mayer wrote:
>--- Anthere <anthere9(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>If we create a new project, say htt://www.wikispecies.org (to simplify)
>>and that this project is multilingual, then we will also probably have
>>http://en.wikispecies.org
>>http://fr.wikispecies.org
>>http://zh.wikispecies.org
>>etc...
>>
>>
>Huh? Wikispecies is *specifically* supposed to be a language-neutral database.
>Subdomains mean different databases so I'm a bit perplexed. Perhaps you are
>thinking about the language that the interface is in and having the subdomains
>trigger that?
>
Quite so, if Wikispecies (or, for that matter, Wikicommons) generates a
push for different language domains, that would seem to me like a sign
that the project is off track. These projects should be
language-independent resources for the language-specific projects like
Wikipedia.
--Michael Snow
It seems to be that there is a heated debate on whether to keep zh as
one or split. Being from Hong Kong, which uses traditional, and having
the large majority of my Chinese education in Simplified (plus the fact
that I now reside in Canada, which does not use Chinese as an official
language), I'd say that I'd prefer a conversion script/program over
keeping things separate, due to the difficulties in even keeping the
information in two different Wikipedias synchronized.
Has anyone dealt with the article titles? Obviously, if an SC version
redirects to a TC version or vice-versa, given the NPOV policy on
Wikipedia and the political overtones, the article title may be showing
POV (or is it the intention that the conversion script also covers the
article title?).
Having said that, has anyone also discussed this issue with regards
to...
Wiktionary - SC/TC differences are generally that much more of a
problem with a dictionary than an encyclopedia (not to mention if
ci2dian, ci3dian, or zidian is the correct words to use). For example,
a predominantly SC dictionary has the SC character, followed by the
traditional equivalent in brackets, while a TC dictionary has the SC
character in brackets (whether to bracket a character is another story
- TC dictionaries bracket everything, while SC dictionaries only
bracket if their TC version is not readily apparent). Would a
conversion script deal with this? What about codes that are dependant
on how the character is written (such as four-corner or Q-9)? In those
indices, characters in one type but not another is bracketed if they do
not belong to the inherent type of dictionary. I doubt that a
conversion script would bother to make the necessary changes to make it
look aesthetically pleasing (not to mention that it would be stupid for
a TC user to be denied access to an SC dictionary).
Articles about Chinese stuff in a non-Chinese Wiki - Do we need this
automatic conversion process in a non-Chinese Wiki? For example, does
en.wikt need this conversion process for its entries on Chinese
characters, phrases, and sayings?
Regional differences with regards to SC and TC - Consider "luo-bo"
(carrot). On the mainland, the second character is valid SC and TC.
In Hong Kong, it's valid SC, but not valid TC (as it has another form).
Other characters may be treated similarly: in one region a character
is both SC and TC, but in another, it could be SC only or TC only. An
automatic conversion script would, IMO, be really picky about what is
SC and what is TC.
Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:
>Anthere wrote:
>
>
>>Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales a écrit:
>> There's not much else to disclose other
>>
>>
>>>than what I was wearing at the time of the meeting.
>>>
>>>--Jimbo
>>>
>>>
>>And ?
>>
>>
>There is nothing to disclose, for I wore nothing. ;-)
>
So regarding the question of disclosure, is it more accurate to call
that nondisclosure or full disclosure?
--Michael Snow
Daniel Mayer wrote:
> One question:
>
> Is the level of detail in this article:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Zion_and_Kolob_canyons_area
>
> appropriate for Wikipedia? Or would it be better to have such an article
> in a
> Wikigeology project? I would certainly hate to see similarly detailed
> [[Biology
> of ...]] articles not be created for species in Wikipedia because the
> same
> content is in Wikispecies. Or worse, for them to exist in both and thus
> half
> the contributor base working on each of them.
>
I realise that there is still a misunderstanding what Wikispecies would
look like. This is not about having articles which would be too special
for Wikipedia. This is (at least how I understand it) about having a
species directory containing raw data. For example, an entry for the
European Grass Snake could be structured this way:
Scientific name: Natrix natrix
Vernacular names: European Grass Snake (en), Ringelnatter (de), Ringslang
(nl), Snog (da)...
Author: (Linnaeus 1758)
Synonymes: Coluber natrix, Natrix vulgaris, Coluber scutatus...
Subspecies: Natrix natrix astreptophora, Natrix natrix cetti, Natrix
natrix corsa...
Containing clades: Colubridae - Serpentes - Squamata
Distribution: Europe, North Africa, West Asia
More info: [[de:Ringelnatter]], [[nl:Ringslang]], [[da:Snog (Natrix
natrix)]]...
That's it. The textual info remains in Wikipedia and is not duplicated.
The aim is having a searchable database of every known species, with data
that is mainly interesting for biologists.
I hope I could solve some misunderstandings. Nobody wants to create
another Wikipedia containing Biology articles. That is at least my
understanding (not knowing if I speak for everyone interested in the
Wikispecies project, of course).
See here (http://www.sp2000.org/AnnualChecklist.html) how a taxonomic
database may look like.
Mirko (Baldhur)
--- Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> If we create a new project, say htt://www.wikispecies.org (to simplify)
> and that this project is multilingual, then we will also probably have
> http://en.wikispecies.org
> http://fr.wikispecies.org
> http://zh.wikispecies.org
> etc...
Mav said
Huh? Wikispecies is *specifically* supposed to be a language-neutral database.
Subdomains mean different databases so I'm a bit perplexed. Perhaps you are
thinking about the language that the interface is in and having the subdomains
trigger that?
-- mav
--------------
Fuz question was about the legal, financial and logistical possible implications of a *new project*. This was a *general* question, and I answered "generally". I should not have put wikispecies as an example possibly ;-) Wikispecies does not necessarily cause problem on some of the examples I cited. These were general points.
But it seemed that people were questionning the fact the board had to get involved in the decision of creating a new project. It seems perhaps some people were considering that as soon as a group of people decide a new project is worth, and that there is no strong opposition to it from editors, then the project should be created manu military and the foundation opinion is not involved. This is not true.
Anyone can indeed anytime suggest a new project, then anytime a group can decide to begin a new project, but if the project is to be part of Wikimedia proper, then I think the Foundation also is involved in the decision.
There is first a legal requirement (and moral requirement toward all editors actually).
The new project must fit with the mission of the Foundation. For example, even if the project is great, and is supported by enough editors, if the content provided in that project is not "free", then it does not fit the "mission statement" of the Foundation. I do not necessarily mean gfdl, but I think it should be free in some sense.
The new project (any new project, not wikispecies proper) will have a name... hence possibly a trademark registration (legal issue again, as well as monetary).
Someone will be necessary to manage DNS issues. There will be names to register. If there are subdomains, more names to register, hence more money required.
If the new project involved storing HUGE amounts of data, then more storage place will be needed. More storage means more money as well.
I do not say all this is necessary blocking the decision, money can be found to manage a new project of course, however, a new project not fitting the current mission statement could be blockable. Or the bylaws changed :-)
I only mean that indeed, the proper way is
1) propose a new project
2) study its suitability and interest for readers
3) see if enough contributors are interested to make the project viable
4) see if it would be a good idea to welcome it under Wikimedia umbrella
1, 2 and 3 are totally up to the editors to decide. If any of those 1, 2 and 3 gets a "no", welllll....
And if 1, 2 and 3 are "yes" while 4 is "no", the project could very well exist, but only as a friendly project. Perhaps like wikitravel is a friendly project ?
Within 4, it must be checked
4.1) if the project fits with Wikimedia mission statement
4.2) if we can technically welcome it,
4.3) if we can financially support it,
4.4) if it could cause a threat to other wikimedia project
4.5) if it is a strategic move.
Anyone is welcome to discuss any of these points of course, but ultimately, I guess it is up to the board to answer these questions and to decide. Possibly I missed some questions as well.
4.1 : is mandatory -> requires to look at mission statement, ask a lawyer etc...
4.2 : if we cannot, what should be done ? (factual) -> requires implication of the developer team, possibly developer payment etc...
4.3 : if we cannot, we should look for money to support it (factual) -> requires grants, donations etc...
4.4 : if so, estimate the potential benefits and the losses -> requires community feedback and to look at the big picture
4.5 : is really up to people opinion -> requires community feedback, but I hope the board would be trusted to avoid very wrong moves.
I guess the current criticism is over the 4.4 step no ?
>>Actually, a new project has legal, monetary and logistical issues attached.
>
>
> This argument could be made for nearly anything under the Wikimedia
> umbrella, so it would be best to define explicit scope and procedures.
I guess the scope is above
Procedures (arrrggggg) should be something like
* propose a project on meta
* explain the proposal and the benefit of the project on meta
* list people interested on meta
* mention it on the goings-on
* head to the mailing list and talk about it
* toss well
* regularly put sumaries on meta
* let rest for some time
* toss again
* regularly put sumaries on meta
* let rest for some time
* look for support
* remind people
* regularly put sumaries on meta
* let rest for some time
* gather support
* whine, implore, threaten
* regularly put sumaries on meta
* let rest for some time
* make a poll or whatever
* report from the poll
* contact the board
* mention you contacted the board
* pray
Procedures are evil. But we should be able to summarize this one in 4 mandatory steps I guess (even if the truth will be probably nearer to what I wrote above)
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
I have attempted to consolidate and expand upon the answers to many of
the concerns raised about Wikispecies on the Wikipedia-l mailing list
over the last few days.
Please see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikispecies_FAQ . The page
includes both questions specific to Wikispecies, as well as the wider
issues concerning the decision making processes of the Wikimedia
Board, including the following questions:
1 What is Wikispecies?
2 Is Wikispecies a fork of Wikipedia?
3 Why is Wikispecies not part of Wikipedia?
4 Why is Wikispecies not part of the Wikimedia Commons?
5 What happens if people start writing encyclopedia articles on Wikispecies?
6 What if people want Wikiwar, Wikichemistry etc
7 Was there consensus on starting this project?
8 Was Wikispecies a board decision?
9 Where was this announced?
10 Why was the full log of the meeting not published?
11 What is the next step for Wikispecies?
Angela.