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
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
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/
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
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
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)
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
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
Hoi,
Sorry to bother you with this; many wikimedians use skype for Voice over
IP (internet telephony) it is great software. It is really cool to be
able to speak to someone in Australia and it costing nothing. Anyway,
there is a new version for both the Macintosh and the Windows platform.
The quality of service has improved.
If you already use skype, look under help and check if there is a newer
version.
If you do not have skype, give it a spin. It is cool.
Thanks,
GerardM
skype: gerardmeijssen