Hy @ all
As first, sorry my bad english... my preferred languages are German and French.
I'm interested to start
- http://ch.wikipedia.org and
- http://ch.wikinews.org
details on ch.wikipedia.org:
Switzerland is especially: The national languages are German, French,
Italian, and Romansh and this by only 7 millions habitants.
There's already a Page for swiss users:
http://wikimedia.org/ch-portal/ but i think that's a bad seller. I
have further plans with respectable and multilingual content for
Switzerland.
details on ch.wikinews.org:
same motivation like ch.wikipedia.org and
Switzerland has a strong economy with a lot's of interesting news.
Switzerland is not a member of the European Union. And so, we have
other interestes than germany.
and so on.
Are there also Plans like this?
Can i help?
If there no plans i will to start first with wikipedia.ch and secondly
wikinews.ch.
Are someone interesstet to help?
best regards
Michael Rueetschli
business data processing specialist
Switzerland
Stan has voiced a very important theoretical point that defines the whole
mechanism of Wikipedia. It also resolves (or rationalises) some of Larry's
concerns.
Articles develop Darwinistically. They emerge from primordial soup
(substubs, anon newbie edits) and evolve as more people add material.
From this point, there are two types of articles: those that attract
interest and those that do not. This is easily compared to evolutionary
selection pressures. Lifeforms that develop under extreme circumstances are
simply more adapted than those that have had free reign without being
predated upon.
Articles under scrutiny get better (vandalism to [[Jew]] or [[Holocaust]]
is reverted quicker than vandalism to [[Metabolic syndrome]] due to
Watchlist and "vested contributor" exposure). Articles out of the limelight
perform much worse - inaccuracies are not corrected, vandalism is removed
by other anons (yep, this happens), etc. These are the ones that are poorly
sourced, inundated with irrelevant external links, sometimes edit warred
over a bit, but generally don't reach anything close to featured article
quality.
Stan is completely right that effective contributors eventually carry the
day. There is so much to write about, to improve, to edit. He ignores the
big POV dinosaurs, who do eventually get blocked for personal attacks or
sockpuppetry, but that just proves the point.
I don't completely disagree with Larry on the accuracy issues for these
"underperforming articles". They are just not getting the attention they
deserve. There are a few solutions. Most involve automatic Vfd, but it can
be replaced with "cleanup" by inclusionists:
* Vfd an article that has not been edited for 6 months (or 12, or 18)
* Vfd an article that is on nobody's watchlist
* Vfd orphaned articles
* Vfd an article that has STILL not been put in a category (other than "stub")
The above is the pruning effort of unviable lifeforms on Wikipedia. Some
articles should be allowed to die gracefully. Others may be revived by
vigorous spring cleanup. Anyway, this amorphous mass of poorly edited
articles should get more attention that it is getting right now.
Jfdwolff
I recently posted a draft that folks might be interested in:
http://reagle.org/joseph/2004/agree/wikip-agree.html
[[[
A Case of Mutual Aid: Wikipedia, Politeness, and Perspective Taking
...
This paper explores the character of “mutual aid” and interdependent
decision making within the Wikipedia. I provide a brief introduction to
Wikipedia, the key terms associated with group decision making, and the
Wikipedia dispute resolution process. I then focus on the cultural norms
within Wikipedia that frame participation as a cooperative endeavor. I
conclude by identifying some notions from negotiation literature that may
be inappropriate or require adaptation to the Wikipedia case.
]]]
I would be interested in any feedback, including corrections of my
characterization of Wikipedia and any pointers to historical archives that
shed light on both the "epistemological stance" and norms of politeness. I
expect the former came from Larry Sanger and was present in the Nupedia as
well, and the latter is part of Jimbo Wales's personality. Regardless of
this that this week on questions of expertise, I find these two variables
to be rather complementary as I discuss further in the paper.
--
Regards, http://www.mit.edu/~reagle/
Joseph Reagle E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65 BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E
What's a patrolled edit? I looked at a new page on jbo: and it asked me if I
wanted to mark the page as "patrolled". I looked in the glossary on en: and
other places on en: and meta and didn't find an explanation.
phma
--
Now I need a magnifier to find my eyeglasses!
-Les Perles de la médecine
Dear Yann, Gerard & al.,
I have noticed that some people find it amusing (or whatever it is) to
harrass (!) Mark W. Please stop with it -- Wikipedia has bigger problems
than some of you not agreeing with Mark W. Acceptance of escalated
personal attacks is one of them -- and it is not exactly like Mark W. has
been proven to have a monopoly on those...
Respectfully,
Olve Utne (who is starting to get a bit sick of this peck-order-oriented
list...)
At 12:17 04/01/2005 +0000, Yann Forget wrote:
>Hi Mark, [...] Please stop spreading FUD. Requests are not well received
>when they are sent by YOU, that the point.
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>You are like an old record, stuck in the same phrases time and again. You
>have annoyed and insulted many people and you are unappologetic about it.
___________________
Olve Utne
http://utne.nvg.org
After rereading my explanation about the article counts, it still seems a
bit vague.
Let me try again:
One a first pass through the database all categories and their mutual
relations are collected.
On a second pass a list is compiled for each article of all categories that
are named in the article and of their supercategories, duplicates are
removed. Then all categories in the list have their counter incremented by
one.
Erik Zachte
Stan wrote:
"Very interesting! I take it the article counts are simple sums
of cat and subcats, and don't account for an article appearing
in several subcategories?"
Indeed. The number behind each category is the total number of pages in that
category and all of its subcategories.
Of course if you add up the pages counts for all level 2 categories you will
get a multitude of the total number of articles in Wp,
since one category will often appear as node in several branches.
Erik Zachte
I created category trees from the Dec 30 2004 dumps for the largest
wikipedias (en/de/ja/fr/pl/nl)
You'll find them at http://eza.gemm.nl/index.html#Categories
Beware. Some of the files are huge!
Each category is listed along its shortest path to the top of the hierarchy.
Other branches that contain this category link back to there.
Circular references are detected and listed at the bottom of the page.
E.g. 'Travel > Tourism > Travel'
Separate trees exist because some categories are not categorized themselves
(or were not at Dec 30).
I might generate these trees for all wikipedias as part of the weekly stats
job, after the database changes are over (Mediawiki 1.5), which will involve
major maintenance on the stats scripts anyway.
Erik Zachte