[Sorry for the resend, screwed up the headers when I sent this on Friday.]
For your review and or comment! :)
[[ http://reagle.org/joseph/2005/06/neutrality.html
* Is the Wikipedia Neutral? - an (early draft) extension of A Case
of Mutual Aid: Wikipedia, Politeness, and Perspective Taking to
tease apart what is meant by something being neutral, and is it
the right term to describe Wikipedia efforts:
Claims of neutrality and accusations of bias are common themes of
contemporary discourse about the media, government, education, and
technology. In this essay I extend earlier work on the
collaborative culture of Wikipedia (an on-line and free
encyclopedia) to specifically focus on the fundamental but often
misunderstood notion of neutrality.... This essay is inspired by
earlier debates on neutrality of technical standards, literature on
bias in technical systems, my present fascination with this
Wikipedia norm and a change in my belief that while an important
concept, the label of neutrality was an unfortunate coinage in the
Wikipedia context.
]]
Some documentarists who came to Wikimania last month are interested in
developing ways for community members to develop their own
documentaries and shorts from their raw footage. (~20 hours of film,
including many interviews) They are also developing a piece of their
own, but are increasingly excited about the idea of a "wikimentary" --
seeing what the community would do with the material.
On top of their material, Fuzheado captured a number of interviews
with Wikimedians around the world, we have full video capture of
around 20 sessions, we have a Public-Domain micro-documentary from
Soufron, et al...
Some early discussion about a wikimentary :
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimentary
There are lots of technical and interface issues to work out, some of
which touch on boundaries we are already pushing when we share and
collaborate on images and sound files. What audio/video projects on
the projects should be alerted to this?
++SJ , filmmaker wannabe
Hi all,
Currently there is a sysop election on mowiki, where 3 candidates are
pitted against each other rather than being voted on separately: Me,
Dmitriid, and Jeorjika.
I have 131 contributions in the main namespace, Dmitriid has 10, and
Jeorjika has 0.
Now, there are a number of issues here which I wish to consult with
the wider community over.
First of all, who is allowed to vote.
As it stands now, everybody who has already "expressed an opinion"
about the Wikipedia may vote. The majority of people who have
"expressed an opinion" are ro.wikipedians, with a minority of
Moldovans and others (including people such as Oleg Alexandrov,
Landroni, Dmitriid, Jeorjika, Gabix who are Moldovans, OldakQuill,
Monedula, who are from elsewhere).
This has always seemed unfair to me, since most of these people have
less than 10 contributions total, and only a few of them have any
contributions in the main namespace.
When suggesting that only people with a certain number of
contributions prior to a certain date (say, 10) be allowed to vote, I
was labelled as antidemocratic. When an "outsider", Christopher
Sundita, attempted to vote, his vote was deleted on the grounds that
he had not previously "expressed his opinion".
To be perfectly clear, the main issues in this election are
unreasonable and have nothing really to do with sysops. Currently, it
has been painted by one user, Goie (whose total contributions to ALL
Wikipedias are small), as more of an election for president.
It seems that those who are against the existance of mo.wikipedia are
voting for Jeorjika, while those who understand that these elections
are for "janitors" rather than "presidents" seem to be planning to
vote for me (notably, Oleg Alexandrov and OldakQuill).
Currently, there are over 200 articles on the Moldovan Wikipedia.
Jeorjika said, in his campaign, that "under node", the Moldovan
Wikipedia hasn't progressed fast enough (!). Apparently, it is the
responsibility of the sysop to make sure that a Wikipedia grows at a
certain rate, or else... sort of like Speed 3: Wikipedia.
The main issue seems to me that the criteria of who can vote, and who
cannot, are difficult to determine. Of course, it's best to always let
the community handle such things, but in this case it's not clear who
is and isn't part of the community -- most of the people who are
eligible to vote have not made even a tiny peep on this Wikipedia for
months, while I, Gabix, and a few dedicated anons have written
articles.
Mark
Dear Wikipedia Group,
Do you think it would be a good idea if we had a wiki portal for a specific state/province/area of a country (examples could be: Madison, WI, Negev, Israel, Nunavut, Wales, and etc.)? Maybe even in other languages (like Tel-Aviv could also be in hebrew, yiddish, russian, arabic, not only in english, etc.). We could make it be like a hub, we have main events listed, etc. Write me back what you think.
Sincerely,
Daniel Hoz
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I have not gotten any list mail for several hours. Is the list down?
- --
Phroziac | /"\
Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
OpenPGP key ID: 0xC2AF5417 | X Against HTML email & vCards
http://tinyurl.com/anya2 | / \
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFDQBdAVLzO3sKvVBcRApWaAJ9jh0RbEUMqouz0PBHPos6+jsvXmgCgiTbo
hMYTKyNFVBad6kk0/QvaXio=
=ai1B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hello,
I proposed the creation of an Ilokano Wikipedia in the "Requests for new
languages" page. This is not in the List of Wikipedias and I was instructed
to ask someone in the mailing list to "create one," which I assume is the
template. I am not new to Wikipedia, but I am in new territory as far as
starting a new language version, so please bear with me. I would appreciate
advice and input. Let me know if I need to do anything else (I am now
translating pages offline). Thanks much.
Cheers, Oliver
User:Oavcacananta
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
I could not resist informing you on the outcome of the vote on fair use
images on the french wikipedia.
There were 3 choices
Fair use never accepted 81 votes 48.8 %
Fair use always accepted 7 votes 4.2 %
Fair use accepted under certain rules 78 votes 47 %
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:Le_Bistro/1_octobre_2005#R.C3.A9sult…
This is consensus no ?
Ant
Dear Wikipedia Group,
Do you think it would be a good idea if we had a wiki portal for a specific state/province/area of a country (examples could be: Madison, WI, Negev, Israel, Nunavut, Wales, and etc.)? Maybe even in other languages (like Tel-Aviv could also be in hebrew, yiddish, russian, arabic, not only in english, etc.). We could make it be like a hub, we have main events listed, etc. Write me back what you think.
Sincerely,
Daniel Hoz
:-) -Daniel- :-)
Dear all,
My name is Dennis Dikkerboom and since a couple of days I'm the new
ambassador of the Frisian Wikipedia. Since the new version of wikimedia (3th
of July) changed the format of dates and times to an American style, like
this: 22:10, 2005 jul 4 (UTC). We wondered if we could change it somehow
back to the original style, like this: 23.02, 1 jul 2005 (UTC).
Best regards,
Dennis Dikkerboom
At one of the wikipedias, the one in Swedish, a discussion has arisen if it
would be possible to elect admins on a term of, say, one year. Admins whose
actions often are questioned would then have little chance of getting
re-elected, and choosing not so perfect admins would not be such a big
problem as it currently is.
At a previous stage, soneome at svwiki said that this would simply not be
possible, since it is so difficult to get someone de-admined. Today there is
a functioning structure of stewarts, and I wonder - if svwiki started this
system, where admins aren't elected forever but for a term of a
predetermined time, would "the international" object? Would stewarts get
tired of demand after demand from svwiki to take the admin rights from
admins whose one year term run out, or would it be seen as OK?
It is difficult to puch the question, as long as we don't know if the
argument "it would not be allowed" is correct or not.
Best,
Hanna