Wikipedia-l January 2005

wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

113 participants
129 discussions

Re:[Wikipedia-l] Wikiforum
by Craig Franklin 26 Jan '05

26 Jan '05

That's pretty neat, but there needs to be a way to have threads with duplicate names (since on a real forum, you can do that). Otherwise, capital job! This should make some of the really, REALLY convoluted talk pages easier to understand. - Craig ------------------- Craig Franklin PO Box 764 Ashgrove, Q, 4060 Australia http://www.halo-17.net - Australia's Favourite Source of Indie Music, Art, and Culture.

2 1

culture - recipes and other stuff
by Sabine Cretella 26 Jan '05

26 Jan '05

So some of you say: a recipe is not part of culture and has nothing to do with encyclopedias .... hmmmm ... So maybe you can tell me what these links and sublinks have to do with "culture" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_television_channels many of them are private and therefore this could be considered publicity - or not? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_videos_played_on_MTV_Jams this is 100% encyclopedic content as it seems - more "culture" than a recipe ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Episode_lists and this would be than a must for culture, right??? I could go ahead with lots and lots of categories/links that make up wikipedia - if these articles are there someone is interested in it - if recipes are there someone is interested in it - so who we are to decide what is interesting for people and what not what they search on wikipedia and what not? I just don't read what is not interesting for me (and I maybe don't consider as encyclopedic content), but maybe you read it as it is interesting for you (and consider it encyclopedic content). Taking recipes outside wikipedia without having proper interwikilinks makes no sense. If I remember well, links to wiktionary were deleted from wikipedia as "not relevant" ... but links from wiktionary to wikipedia were welcome (strange behavior ... against the spirit of all collaborative projects). So: or you create a proper structure with proper links for people who are interested in recipes if you don't like the actual structure and propose it or you let those work who are obviously interested in it. Just deleting and saying: do wherever you'd like to do it, or saying just "go there" without proposing on how to connect, but don't work here is not an answer. If you say a description of a dish is OK, but not the recipe then from this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Night Lyrics should be taken to wikisource There's no difference between the description of a song and the lyrics and the description of a dish and the recipe. Now you say: but lyrics are unique - this is not true - Silent Night in Italian has three different versions of lyrics ... so three recipes for the same dish (music) When I first saw the recipes on wikipedia some weeks ago searching for Christmas stuff I liked it and passed the link to some cooking-groups that were simply delighted. If someting is interesting for an enyclopedia always depends on the people you ask so ask the right people and you will have as many positive or negative answers as you need. If you want to pass recipes to a section in wikibooks you need to present a proposal on how to show this "clearly" as an interwiki-link and not just below the article with "for further information please see" ... (that probably is then going to be deleted as someone starts to think it is not relevant and the same discussion starts over again). Instead of writing thousands of negative words please start to think positive and create something out of this discussion. We are not here to work one against the other but to work together. Sorry, but I was thinking about so many words written here that could have been used for articles, improvements etc. - or to create the proposal of a structure. Ciao, Sabine

8 9

add language Valencianish
by ?scar Selfa 25 Jan '05

25 Jan '05

Escribo en espa?ol para solicitar que se a?ada un idioma que no est? en la lista de wikipedia: Valenci? - "Valenciano" en espa?ol. Alguien puede pensar que no es necesario porque cree que es un dialecto, pero he visto que s? hay otros presuntos dialectos que ni siquiera son oficiales en sus territorios, mientras que el valenci? si que lo es en la Comunitat Valenciana. M?s informaci?n en: www.gva.es (Generalitat Valenciana) www.racv.es (Real Acad?mia de Cultura Valenciana) www.avl.gva.es (Acad?mia Valenciana de la Llengua) Somos ya un grupo de amigos interesados en hacer funcionar este proyecto. Muchas gracias, Moltes gr?cies. ?scar Selfa Perona http://usuarios.lycos.es/gueboscar chequetraca(a)hotmail.com osip(a)ono.com

1 0

os.wikipedia.org -- Ossetic wikipedia request
by V. Ivanov 25 Jan '05

25 Jan '05

I'd like to ask for starting Ossetic Wikipedia. Ossetic is spoken in several territories (mostly in Russia) by half-a-million people. Wikipedia in the language could help keep the language actual. About me: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A3%D1%87%D0%B0%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%… http://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikipediisto:Slavik_IVANOV Sl. Ivanov, Russia -- Esperu cxiam!

2 1

Wikimedia Foundation : le ver dans le fruit ?
by Traroth 25 Jan '05

25 Jan '05

Sorry if I don't translate in english... Sur ma page personnelle (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Traroth), j'ai posté le texte suivant : "Wikimedia Foundation : le ver dans le fruit ? Lors de l'assemblée constituante de l'association Wikimedia France, il a été dit que Jimmy Wales et Wikimedia Foundation lui refusait le droit d'utiliser les marques qu'elle détenait (Wikimedia, Wikipedia, Wktionary, Wikibooks...) si la Foundation n'avait pas un droit de veto (le terme a fait débat) sur les décisions que prendrait la fondation française. Parrallèlement, lors de la création de Wikimedia Foundation, Jimmy Wales a imposé 3 sièges sur 5, en se réservant le siège de président, les 2 sièges restant étant pourvu par élection ( ce qui a conduit à 4 membres anglophones sur 5). Ce sipositif ne devait pas être reconduit, et une election réellement démocratique devait avoir lieu cette année (c'est ce qui avait été dit à l'époque). On apprend maintenant que Jimmy Wales a l'intention de continuer à se reserver le siège de président, avec probablement un droit de veto sur les décisions. Moins démocratique, ça parait difficile. Le décalage d'une année n'a donc été qu'un moyen de noyer le poisson. Ces manières de faire poussent à se poser un certain nombre de questions : * À quoi servent ces fondations ? * Les donateurs n'ont-ils pas un droit de regard sur l'usage qui est fait de l'argent qu'ils ont donné ? * N'est-ce pas tromper les gens que de faire croire qu'une fondation veille aux interêts de Wikipedia, alors qu'il ne s'agit que d'une organisation-croupion, sans pouvoir réel de décision ? * N'est ce pas tromper les gens que de se donner les apparences de la démocratie, sans l'être le moins du monde ? * Que fera la communauté si Jimmy Wales prend des décisions contraire à l'opinion de la majorité, comme il se pourrait que cela soit le cas sur le sujet de la publicité (Jimbo ne s'est jamais prononcé clairement contre) ? Répondre "Y a qu'à faire un fork", c'est gifler les donateurs en pleine face. Entendons-nous bien : je n'ai rien contre Jimbo, et j'aurais été le premier à voter pour lui en 2004, et ce, aussi longtemps qu'il aurait été prêt à rester président. Ça n'aurait été qu'une formalité. Aujourd'hui, je serais plus circonspect. De quoi a-t-il peur exactement ? Certain(e)s ont répondu : qu'un Board qui prendrait justement des décisions contraire à la volonté de la majorité. Outre le fait que c'est en contradiction complète avec la notion même de démocratie, le système actuel ne nous met pas à l'abri. Simplement, ce "privilège" est réservé à une seule personne. Personnellement, j'avais l'intention de m'impliquer assez fortement dans l'activité de l'association française, mais maintenant, je suis à deux doigts de tout envoyer pêter. Ça serait déjà fait si Wikipédia et les autres projets n'étaient pas en GFDL, ce qui veut dire qu'ils n'appartiennent pas à la Foundation. Sans hostilité, j'aimerais travailler à une uvre collective, et non à une espèce de monument à la gloire de Jimmy Wales, quels que soient ses mérites. Traroth" Si vous voulez y réagir, faites le sur ma page de discussion (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Utilisateur:Traroth) ou sur cette liste. Traroth Découvrez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail : 250 Mo d'espace de stockage pour vos mails ! Créez votre Yahoo! Mail sur http://fr.mail.yahoo.com/

4 4

picture themes
by Lars Aronsson 25 Jan '05

25 Jan '05

When I'm looking for a translation or explanation of a terms such as "Sub-Lieutenant" (a military rank), "jackdaw" (a bird) or "zucchini" (a vegetable), it makes a lot of sense to see them in contrast to what they are not, for example a list of other military degrees, or a group of similar but different birds or vegetables. But I think Wikipedia today is too much focused on describing each item on its own, and not enough on connecting or contrasting concepts to each other. The current (English Wikipedia) article on [[zucchini]], even though it has fine pictures, doesn't really help me to tell it apart from a cucumber or an eggplant. The "higher level" article [[vegetable]] doesn't group vegetables into those of similar kinds. There is such a grouping in [[list of vegetables]], though, where the group is named [[squash (fruit)]]. There is actually a link from [[zucchini]] to [[squash (fruit)]], but that link is hidden in the middle of the text and doesn't stand out as the next-higher-level concept. If I didn't already know what a zucchini is, I might get quite confused. This is not a critique of these particular articles or even of the English Wikipedia. The same pattern appears everywhere, more or less. The article [[jackdaw]] doesn't immediately help me to tell this bird apart from other black species of the genus Corvus, such as rooks or ravens. The article [[Crow (animal)]] lists these other species, and each of them has descriptions and photos (which is excellent, of course), but I don't get the overview picture that most modern printed encyclopedias would give me. Note that the German, Netherlands, and Polish jackdaw articles have other photos of the same bird. This must be one of the most commonly seen birds of these countries, and apparently everybody already had a picture of them laying around. All are fine photos, but all are pictures of this species alone. The Japanese picture actually has a jackdaw and another bird, the very different looking European magpie (of the same family corvidae, but of the genus pica, not corvus). The picture doesn't help me tell the jackdaw from other black crows. [[Sub-Lieutenant]] (the Canadian rank) redirects to the article [[Lieutenant]] and [[Sub Lieutenant]] (the British rank) redirects to the article [[Lieutenant, junior grade]], which both contain the explanation in the text. The fact box at the bottom of these articles and the page [[comparative military ranks]] actually provide the context that I'm looking for, but they don't describe which extra authorities the next higher rank has. How does a Sub-Lieutenant earn his promotion and what does that give him or her? An army corporal is not an officer rank, not expected to become promoted, but exactly what is expected from a Sub-Lieutenant? What does it mean if a character in a novel was "an old Sub-Lieutenant"? Should the reader expect that he would normally have been promoted before the age of 27 and does the fact, that he did not, provide a clue about something? Terms such as sub-lieutentant should be described in contrast to other ranks, or else we will understand very little. Again, this is not a criticism of these particular articles. I know nothing about the navy, and I'm learning tons already. I know where Wikipedia was three years ago, and I'm impressed every day. But there is still more work we can do. Now to one particular solution. One idea applied within the "LEXIN" project (dictionaries for immigrants) of the immigration authorities of Sweden, Norway, and some other small countries is a common set of picture themes to which words are connected. A good online example (in English) is found at http://decentius.hit.uib.no/lexin.html?ui-lang=eng&dict=eng If you look at "5. groceries and purchasing", you will find groups of groceries, vegetables being one of them, where a zucchini is painted next to an eggplant and a cucumber. You can click either in the picture or in the dictionary to your left (if the Javascript works for you). Theme 26 is birds and the jackdaw is near the center of that picture theme. Then go to Kurdish (kurmanji) and learn that "26. birds" is "26. balinde" and jackdaw is "qira zeytûnê, qira helezî". Of course, the purpose here is for Kurdish immigrants to learn Norwegian, but you get the idea. That is why only typical Swedish and Norwegian birds are depicted in the first place (there are no balded eagles or ostriches around here). I don't know if or where such picture themes could be a good idea for Wikipedia or Wiktionary, but the example is there for anybody to get inspiration from. You don't have to be a painter, of course. You could just take a photo of a zucchini, a cucumber, and an eggplant in a way that shows the difference between them. Perhaps the entire vegetable desk of some grocery store? And once the picture is there in Wikimedia Commons, it can be reused for any language, just like the LEXIN pictures are. Has this been tried in any Wikimedia project? Should we make a list of which picture themes we need? At first, it might seem that picture themes would be of little use in explaining the concept of sub-lieutenant, except perhaps for the insignia. But imagine a picture of a battle ship having a organization chart next to it populated with small figures, showing one admiral (?) at the top, and in the 4th row showing twelve sub-lieutenants each managing their own division of sailors. I have no idea of the actual numbers, but I think the concept could be a lift to Wikipedia. We'll need a hundred people that can draw really good and who are willing to put their artwork under a free license. And if they aren't experts on navy ranks themselves, they'll need to be able to read instructions for what to draw, or interview experts by chat. The LEXIN dictionary project is described at http://decentius.hit.uib.no/lexin.html?ui-lang=eng -- Lars Aronsson (lars(a)aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se

5 4

How to update LanguageXX.php in CVS?
by Alexander Sigachov 24 Jan '05

24 Jan '05

Hi After large update the language file LanguageRu.php corresponds to the last Language.php (revision 1.419). A lot of fixes and improvements (removed hardcoded links, renamed talk namespaces, new convertGrammar function, new messages etc). It was tested at local Mediawiki site (v1.4beta4). New translations was discussed at special Russian Wikipedia talk page (http://ru.wikipedia.org/Википедия_обсуждение:Языковой_файл). How to update LanguageRu.php in CVS and Wikipedia? (new langfile is located at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/LanguageRu.php) Page "Requests for languageXX.php update" at Meta is probably dead. Now in contains more than 30 requests. Yes, i know about MediaWiki, but: *new langfile has new translations of some namespaces (category and talks) *only Russian Wikipedia is well translated (in MediaWiki). Russian Wiktionary, Wikibooks etc use the old language file with mistakes which are not corrected in their MediaWikies. *in new wiki-projects (not Wikifoundation's projects) based on current MediaWiki software is translated only half of messages (because in old langfile many messages absent) Sorry for my English :( -- Cxion la plej helan, Alexander "Ajvol" Sigachev

1 0

Wikimedia at SoCal Linux Expo - volunteers needed
by Brion Vibber 23 Jan '05

23 Jan '05

There's going to be a Wikimedia/Wikipedia booth in the exhibition hall at the Southern California Linux Expo, coming up on February 12-13, 2005 at the Los Angeles Convention Center. More information on the expo in general: http://socallinuxexpo.com/ We'll have a computer set up for visitors to marvel at Wikipedia, and perhaps trundle out some fliers or a few CD-Rs of goodies. If you'd like to help out manning the booth, *please* sign yourself up here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Southern_California_Linux_Expo and drop me an e-mail. So far there's only one other guy listed and I have no contact information for him. -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

2 3

Re: Recipe
by Michael Snow 23 Jan '05

23 Jan '05

David Gerard wrote: >Michael Snow (wikipedia(a)earthlink.net) [050121 14:33]: > > >>Also, the way we traditionally handle certain types of POV - one of the >>main complaints about recipes - is by attributing that POV to a credible >>source (not by removing it entirely). A recipe from a standard cookbook >>for a given style of cuisine, or from a noteworthy cook (not your Aunt >>Tillie, in other words), can satisfy this angle too. >> >> >I think I am about to go wild with my (precioussssss) Bee Nilson. > > Who in the world is Bee Nilson, and why isn't there a Wikipedia article about her when I want to look her up? Sorry, playing the ignorant American for a bit there. But this just illustrates how woefully undercovered cooking topics are, along with almost all other traditionally "domestic" subjects, which is partly why we're having this whole debate over recipes for the nth time now. If we had decent encyclopedia articles about these things, which is almost never the case, then it would be less of an issue. I think a lot of the visceral objection to recipes is based on the fact that they frequently overwhelm the remaining content of the article, especially if the instructions are given in significant detail. --Michael Snow

8 8

Re: recipes
by Michael Snow 23 Jan '05

23 Jan '05

Magnus Manske wrote: > Mark Williamson schrieb: > >> There are many different encyclopedias. If I write "Encyclopedia of >> All the Molecules in Jimbo Wales' body, with a detailed biography and >> label for each", does that mean each article in there deserves a spot >> in Wikipedia? > > Of course! We can pipe these articles into my map software, and render > Jimbo for future generations to come! :-) Ah, the wiki approach to human cloning. --Michael Snow

4 4

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
...
13
Older →

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

Wikipedia-l January 2005