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 ??
In the grand tradition of actually getting things done on Wikipedia,
Wikipedian KSheka, with some assistance from myself to convert the video
to Theora, has gone ahead and uploaded a video of an "echocardiograph
demonstrating systolic anterior motion of the anterior leaflet of the
mitral value", which, translated, I think means "a video of a beating
heart with a valve that's moving wrongly"
You can see the article with the uploaded video at
Now we actually *have* a video in a patent-unencumbered codec uploaded
to Wikipedia, and the ability to make more of them (transcoding to Theora
is pretty straightforward once you've got ffmpeg2theora installed), the
discussion about video I posted at http://meta.wikimedia.org/Video_policy
becomes a little more directly relevant...
>From my point of view, I'd be very interested in people's thoughts on
what we should do to make best use of video (one thing that comes to
mind is that we should always take a still from the video as
illustration, but more thoughts are good)...
Oh, and has there been any progress on implementing code for an approval
"And James Hird has just gone after Robert Harvey...that's like Bambi
-- Gerard Whately, Essendon vs. St Kilda, 3/4/2004
Would it be feasable to just have a program that takes the normal English, French, Hindu... Wikipedia, and just creates a Flash character that signs the article out?
The animation would, in my dream world, change automatically, as the normal English Wikipedia was updated in its normal Latin text format.
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
I attempted to post info on Wikipedia on the HIV=AIDS controversy - at
first my post was censored - then totally remove!
What I posted was info from Dr. Kary Mullis, a biochemist who was
awarded the Nobel Prize For Chemistry - he invented the polymerase
chain reaction (PCR), a central technique in molecular biology which
allows the amplification of specified DNA sequences. I wonder how many
inventions or Nobel Prizes the Wilkipedia censor(s) have?
Dr. Kary Mullis states that there is not one scientific study published
in a scholarly journal with peer review the shows that "HIV is the
probable cause of AIDS" (notice PROBABLE). In Mullis book 'Dancing
Naked In The Mind Field" - Mullis states:
"I was going to a lot of meetings and conferences as part of my job. I
got in the habit of approaching anyone who gave a talk about AIDS and
asking him or her what reference I should quote for that increasingly
problematic statement, "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS."
After ten or fifteen meetings over a couple of years, I was getting
pretty upset when no one could site the reference. I didn't like the
ugly conclusion that was forming in my mind: The entire campaign
against a disease increasingly regarded as a twentieth- century Black
Plague was based on a hypothesis whose origins no one could recall.
That defied both scientific and common sense.
"Finally I had an opportunity to question one of the giants in HIV and
AIDS research, Dr. Luc Montagnier of the Pasteur Institute, when he
gave a talk in San Diego. It would be the last time I would be able to
ask my little question without showing anger, and I figured Montagnier
would know the answer. So I asked him.
With a look of condescending puzzlement, Montagnier said, "Why don't
you quote the report from the Centers for Disease Control?"
I replied, "It doesn't really address the issue of whether or not HIV
is the probable cause of AIDS does it?"
"No," he admitted, no doubt wondering when I would just go away. He
looked for support to the little circle of people around him, but they
were all awaiting a more definitive response, like I was.
"Why don't you quote the work on SIV [Simian Immunodeficiency Virus]?"
the good doctor offered.
"I read that too, Dr. Montagnier," I responded. "What happened to those
monkeys didn't remind me of AIDS. Besides, that paper was just
published only a couple of months ago. I'm looking for the original
paper where somebody showed that HIV caused AIDS."
This time, Dr. Montagnier's response was to walk quickly away to greet
an acquaintance across the room. "
First of all, can your censors give me a reference to one (just one)
scientific study published in a scholarly journal with peer review the
shows that "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS"? If they can't, then all
of the dis-information on HIV=AIDS needs to removed from Wikipedia.
At the same time - your censors stated that Mullis's views on HIV+AIDS,
is in the minority (that most scientists believe that HIV is the
probable cause of AIDS) - again can I see the statistical reference -
that is, a scientific study published in a scholarly journal with peer
review to that claim?
I am interesting in sponsoring a live audio debate (in aacPlus codec)
on the WWW - with Dr. Kary Mullis and anyone one of Wikipedia
"censors" or so-called "experts" on HIV=AIDS, I am sure that we would
have thousands of listeners (from readers of Wikipedia and other news
sources) - what date and time would "you" prefer for this debate so
that I can finalize arrangements with Dr. Mullis.
- Harry Pasternak
When we indicate languages in interwiki links, we write the names of
those languages as it is written in that language. So we get English,
Nederlands, Deutsch, 日本語 etc. I think it is a nice feature.
Some languages however are not written as they are written in that
language, think italiano, français or sicilianu. Basically, this is
wrong. The only reason I can think of why you want this, is for
"esthetic" reasons. These however take not into account the
sensibilities that are often associated with language names.
In this e-mail I don't want to personally introduce new arguments but
I want people to know that further debate on this topic is continuing
Some speakers of these languages have lent their support: Steve,
Instantnood, and Felix Wan for Yue/Cantonese, and Nishishei,
Pangguanzhe, and alaya for Wu/Shanghainese (Wu also includes the
varieties of the surrounding areas including for example Suzhou).
Interestingly, on that page, no native speakers have directly
condemned the idea (only direct opposition is from Shizhao), although
Toytoy, a Cantonese speaker, has some concerns.
This is what I got when I asked this person to stop sending me automated
messages. Perhaps somebody should convince this person to fix this problem.
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: Your email requires verification
Date: Sunday 30 January 2005 18:50
This message is a reply to a boxtrapper verifcation message.
No action is needed on your part.
The headers of the message sent from your address are show below: