I found a nice update on the ISO 639-3 website ..
http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/default.asp is where you can even find a
nice introductory page on the next version of this standard. For the
hardcore language nuts among us there is even a nice download available
including instructions on how to create an SQL table.
In the first public genuine Wikidata outing, we will show you the GEMET
data in a true Wikidata environment. For those who do not know, GEMET is
a thesaurus with ecological content produced for/by the European Union.
Our aim is to be able to have this on line before Christmas, it will be
a read only implementation.
We will also include the ISO-639-3 codes. As you may know, Wiktionary
has the explicit aim to include all words of all languages. Ultimate
Wiktionary (UW) shares this aim and shares the practice with the many
wiktionary that we explicitly intent to include all lexicological
content. As UW intends to eat its own dog food, we want to have
localised labels for the languages chosen by the user for the User
Interface. When localisation for a term is not available, we will have
English as the lingua franca of this day and age.
The consequence is that there will be a clear difference between the
user interface of Ultimate Wiktionary and the user interface of
Mediawiki. UW does not intent to endorse a language for new projects,
but it is likely that people will be stimulated to work on the Mediawiki
user interface in order to have a user interface that is completely
localised. I expect that people appreciate this difference.
In the ISO-639-3 codes there will be languages that have not been
recognised. Having ISO-639 recognition is not necessary for inclusion in
Ultimate Wiktionary.. There is only one thing that we will insist on,
the acceptance of a code for this language, dialect or orthography that
is acceptable for potential projects within the Wikimedia Foundation.
Again, it is not to be seen as an endorsement for a language to have a
project, it is intended to make sure that such a code has been
I usually don't read the postings of Mark Williamson (only the answers
to his) but now I accidentally saw that he has forwarded the private
email of another wikipedian to the list. Add to this the frequent
flame-wars and attacks on people... Watching the list degrade into
endless fights about absurd language proposals, in my opinion it's
enough. I switched his account to moderated now.
Dear Wiki*edians & especially polyglots :
In the spirit of Thanksgiving, being thankful as ever for these
polylingual projects (I just won a bet with a Chilean about his home
town, referencing spanish wp articles :), I would like to propose a
new one (gasp!) : an all-language wiki devoted to language overviews,
language proposals, interface localization (text, images, &c), and
translations of core Wikimedia and MediaWiki messages. Similar
proposals have been floated before, with little discussion; here is
another attempt on the theme.
* Name : babel.wikimedia.org ?
* Main Page : a list of languages by, say, # of native
speakers/readers , with prominent links to other views (by
language-cluster, by geographic region, by article-count, by reader
popularity...), information on translators & translation, and language
* Content : All localizable MediaWiki strings, in 200+ languages .
Portals for each language, describing work being done to develop that
language, with portal-content in a few core language + the lang in
question. All localizable custom strings for Wikimedia projects, in
those languages. Key strings and messages (such as site-wide notice
templates) which are used regularly and needed in every language.
Policy and discussion pages about new language creation.
** Optional content : Other translation efforts, such as global press
releases, which work through a high volume of content (thousands of
edits in dozens of languages) in a short period of time.
** Related project : a specific "interface-translation wiki" for the
latest MediaWiki installation, which auto-updates the localizable
strings in the latest MW version.
Please comment or indicate support for the idea on meta:
 Not just readers; if there's no written language, audio output and
input are excellent ways to transfer information... we've been doing
that for eons longer than we've been passing around printed bytes
 % completion of interface translation; # of self-identified
'translators' in and out of the lang; full list of wikimedia projects
in that lang w/origin-dates, article and active-editor counts; links
to key pages on target wikis
 Eventually significantly more than 200.
[3'] It may be useful to have one template/page per string per
language, to facilitate automatic conversion from wiki to other
formats; multiple views of l10n strings (e.g., 2 langs side-by-side on
one page as in Special:Allmessages). ~200 languages x (200 custom
strings x 5 Wikimedia Projects + 1000 standard strings) = O(500K)
pages, worth its own project.
 These ideas could be merged; or that project (say, at
language.mediawiki.org) could offer ways to pull content from the
appropriate section of the Babel wiki (and more security safeguards).
i know this topic keeps reoccuring and so my point may not be very
it has been said that wikipedia is "work in progress" and will probably
continue to to so. on the other hand it ails from the fact that at no
given point in time you can be certain to have a 1. consistent , 2.
unvandalized and 3. correct throughout wikipedia. (compared to those
three points the shortcoming of non-completeness dwindles to almost
let me draw your attention to the fact that the construction plans for
roads to stability - or at least local optima - have long been laid out
by physics. heat a dynamic system quickly then let it cool down in a
slower and controlled fashion, allowing less and less dramatic changes
to take place as time passes. simulated annealing
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_annealing) is the magic spell
that might work for wikixyzs in a way similar to that in the real world.
the rationale behind my suggestion is of course that articles that have
matured over time are statistically speaking less likely to improve when
large modifications are made than relatively new ones. some of the
articles have reached a stage where well-meant editing effectively mucks
up the inner structure and logic. what i think reasonable is to lift the
threshold for substantial edits, maybe not by limiting access but by
asking for more substantial background information from the authors
(references, printed, electronic,...) than the simple comment line.
there is to much unproven and partially unprovable information in the
wp. that could have been prevented long ago by obliging the authors to
give references for their information. besides, this task would make it
successively harder to simply put established statements upside down.
whereas scientific journals have peer review, wp only offers the weak
weapons of discussion pages and reverts - by others, mostly admins, i
guess. why not confer a little bit more of responsibility to the
authors? he/she could be aided by predefined lists, checkboxes,
comboboxes (for ref. type, etc.)
i find myself increasingly involved in hunting down vandals and their
work - partly due to the ease of use wp offers for non-serious edits,
too, and i can't help feeling that a larger and larger part of wp keeps
a larger and larger part of the community busy with just keeping up the
On Thu, 1 Dec 2005, Delirium wrote:
> Perhaps we should make the disclaimers more prominent? There are plenty of
> possible ways people could be damaged other than libel---for example, someone
> could rely on a wholly made-up bit of medical advice.
Let us by all means make disclaimers more prominent. It is too late for
the project not to be successful -- from a position of strength the
community can afford to be more self-critical, and even to start
generating our own harsh statistics on how [in]accurate or [un]referenced
our content is.
More suited to wikipedia-l, since we're talking about that; re-adding it
to the Cc: list.
A little sweet something, since only the ones in the back of the room see those.
Chosen extracts from OTRS (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS)
Names of people, places and emails have been removed.
Have a smile. ;-)
You All at Wikipedia kick some serious ASS!! I was trying to figure
out how to site
a page from your website, when low and behold I found that you not
only had citation
information, but you also already had the MLA format ready to go.
I just wanted to say thank you for making my citation soooo easy!!
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!
I wanted to thank you for creating such a wonderful and accessible product,
and would like to suggest to you...
[snip good suggestion]
Thanks again for making me smarter,
my name is [snip] and I'm from Slovakia.
I'm using your site only a few weeks(since I connected to the
Internet),but I think is great! Great idea, great posts, great site,
WIKIPEDIA IS GREAT !!!
For me it's unvaluable source of informations. When I will earn some
money, I will donate.
Stay as you are in present - don't change to one of information-traders.
!!! THANKS FOR HELPING WORLD - THANKS FOR WIKIPEDIA !!!
Subject: Just a thank you
I just wanted someone in your organization to know that I love your website!
I do not know who invented it, but it is most often the website I go to when
I want to know something about a subject. It is a place to start for almost
Hello. I just wish to say how very great such a site as Wikipedia is.
Kudos to all within the organisation, and keep up the great work.
Thank you really.
Dear creators of this website,
I am a 21 year old Political Science major at the University of
[snip]. I would just like to comment on this website, because its
There is so much information, and it is always accurate. I use this website
often when doing research for essays, and the information based on the world
wars is fantastic. Please keep up the good work, because you are making the
lives of students like me much easier.
You people (ie, Wiki
administrators) really are among the most efficient
I've ever dealt with! Keep up the fantastic work, and
have a great weekend!!
M. - (Attorney at Law)
These are just a few I could whip out, but I thought it would help us
remember that we are *also* doing a good job.
On 11/28/05, Steve Block <steve.block(a)myrealbox.com> wrote:
> In it Jimbo seems to argue that the addition of fair use images does not
> mean that the images become GFDL, but rather that the usage of the
> specific images in such a way become compliant with the GFDL. At least
> that is my reading of the comments.
By the way, this sentence contains at least one common misconception
about copyleft. Images only "become GFDL" if they are released by
their copyright holder under the GFDL. They don't automatically
become released under the GFDL.
On 11/25/05, Justin Cormack <justin(a)specialbusservice.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 15:19 +0100, Uwe Brauer wrote:
> > Hello
> > I just found the following image
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:RFJesus.jpg
> > which seems to be under a different sort of license, if I am not
> > mistaken.
> > I would like to include that image, in the corresponding German
> > wikipedia article, however so far people hesitated since they believe
> > that this license as expressed in the above url, would/could violate
> > the GDL. I find it odd that different wikipedias have different
> > standards concerning the license politics.
> > What can be done? May the simplest solution would be to contact the
> > artist (if he/she can be find) and ask for explicit permission.
> > Any comments, suggestions?
> This is typical of en-w's "flexible" approach to licensing.
> Someone is pretending that because it was printed in some
> newspapers under terms that we know nothing about somehow this
> gives us permission to use it under some unknown terms even though
> we dont accept pictures where we are explicitly given permission
> any more.
> Currently its not worth trying to get rid of these pictures from en
> as there are still thousands of more dubious ones (no source for
> example). It might get picked up at some point in the fair use
> You cant use it in de: only real free images, sensible policy.
Is this really how it works in the German Wikipedia (and other
non-English Wikipedias)? I assume you must allow some form of fair
dealing, as it's difficult to think of a photo of the real world that
doesn't contain *some* copyrighted materials incidently. Does the
German Wikipedia have many pictures of celebrities and big events? Do
you find that not allowing non-free images detracts significantly from
the encyclopedia (ignoring, if you can, the benefits of the images
I think a big part of the hesitation of really embracing being a free
encyclopedia is the fear that the encyclopedia would be so much less
useful without fair use images. I guess I can get a rough idea of the
answers to these questions just browsing the sites on my own, and
maybe looking at some statistics if I can find them, but it'd be nice
to hear from the perspective of someone who really spends a lot of
time on those Wikipedias.