Hi, as much as I am informed (tell me if I am wrong) on 20th of March is
the recurrence of the Persian New Year.
So I would like to take this occasion to wish a Happy New year to
everyone who would like to accept this wish.
And of course I would very much appreciate your adding the translation here:
http://it.wiktionary.org/wiki/Felice_Anno_Nuovo%21
As well as a neat .ogg file with the pronunciation to
http://commons.wikipedia.org
Ciao, Sabine
--
Sabine Cretella
Translations
s.cretella(a)wordsandmore.it
Meetingplace for translators
http://www.wesolveitnet.com
*****
Vuoi la parola del giorno nella tua casella di posta?
Invia un'e-mail vuota a:
laparoladelgiorno-subscribe(a)yahoogroups.com
J.F. de Wolff wrote:
> Perhaps the image uploading page should have a dropdown box that lets
> the uploader select a copyright format. "Possibly unfree" is NOT an
> option.
Yes, we're long overdue for this, as well as a required field for
entering source information.
--Michael Snow
Stan Shebs wrote:
> Michael Snow wrote:
>
>> J.F. de Wolff wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps the image uploading page should have a dropdown box that
>>> lets the uploader select a copyright format. "Possibly unfree" is
>>> NOT an option.
>>
>> Yes, we're long overdue for this, as well as a required field for
>> entering source information.
>
> -------------------------------
> Source (required field): | sfsoifjpvoiaf joey is gay |
> -------------------------------
Yes, yes, I know. But that just means that when this feature fails in
its intended purpose, it has the handy side benefit of encouraging
vandals to flag their contributions for easier identification and
removal. So either way, it would be good to have.
--Michael Snow
For what it's worth, the Voice of America runs a Pronunciation Guide
for names at http://names.voa.gov/
I think it might be public domain, as is all other VOA material, and
if so, could be used at Wikipedia.
-ilya
> Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 16:00:09 +0100
> From: Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: [Wikipedia-l] Pronunciations of things foreign
>
> Hoi,
> There is this joke about these Americans asking for the "tjamps
> ilajsies" in Paris, and nobody ever heard of it... Many words cannot be
> properly pronounced by people not speaking the language. Many news
> organisations have their presenters trained in pronouncing foreign words..
>
> When we write about things foreign, there is often no difinitive word
> for the subject in the language that the article is written in. So often
> we try to find something that will do. Most often we use what others
> used before us, often it is a transliteration or a transcription to yet
> another language. With our digital encyclopedia, it is easy to add
> pronunciation of words in the local language. We often add how it is
> written in another script and, it would make equal sense to add the
> pronunciation in the local language as well.
>
> As an example I have done this in the wikipedias for "Jaap de Hoop
> Scheffer" and for "Silvio Berlusconi". I have also pronounced and
> uploaded the category of Dutch politicians from the en:wikipedia to
> Commons... Could an American please pronounce and upload George W. Bush
> and a Chinese 胡é"¦æ¶› ??
>
> Thanks,
> GerardM
Sounds to me like it would be a sort of "expert" system. Consider:
The Wikipedia article Anne Frank could have tags at the bottom like
{WasBorn:1929}
(IsA:Woman}
{Wrote:The_Diary_Of_A_Young_Girl}
{BornIn:Germany}
you get the idea. These facts or relationships tie together different articles in a more structured way. Presumably a user interface system could then be written that would take all the data and be able to do things like list off all the female german authors of the twentieth century.
Since facts aren't tied to one language, the "relationship database" could span all languages (since there is already a system for linking articles on the same subject to different languages). A relationship would have a certain ID internally with "translations" to different languages. So after typing in: {BornIn:Germany} in the english version, the computer would find the french equivelent of the relationship -BornIn- and the french equiv of Germany and update the french Anne_Frank article accordingly.
Anyway, I'm no specialist in the area, I do know that there are some internet projects of this sort trying to teach computers "common sense" {Lion IsA Animal} I don't know how much success they've had. It might be usefull, but I'm not so sure it fits into wikipedias mandate.
Just my three cents.
Matt
---------------------------------
Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals
Taipei Times, a leading English-language daily in Taiwan, recently (I
think) added a function that allows on-line readers to "Wikipedia-ize" a
number of pre-selected keywords in its articles. The keywords do not
necessarily correspond to existing en: articles. I have not seen an
explanation posted regarding the thinking or motivation behind it (not
being a regular reader), but it would seem to be a push to have its
readers engage Wikipedia, perhaps conveniently incorporating or citing
the paper's contents along the way. For an example see
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/archives/2005/03/14/2003246212 (link
labeled "Wikipedia" on the right).
First, I would like to make some introduction (in my not so good English).
1. I am sure that I am not the only person which uses Wikipedia for his/her
own work. When I want to make some article about some part of history of
linguistics (in Serbian), I am using (Serbian) Wikipedia to do so. There are
a number of reasons for doing that, but two of them are crutial: (1) I want
to work inside of GNU FDL corpus and I don't want to make possibility that
my work becomes a propriety of some company or some academic institution.
(2) I want to popularize this kind of work; I want to involve other people
to work on GNU FDL documents.
This situation makes that (some parts of) my work depends on Wikipedia: (a)
I am using MediaWiki wiki syntax for marking text; (b) I am keeping my work
inside of my user-space at sr: ; (c) I am thinking that there si no metter
where I am if I have access to Internet (i.e., to Wikipedia content); etc.
Yes, I can make some "backup system" (and I have it) for that, but it is not
"ultimate solution".
2. We made some community at sr:. I am sure that bigger Wikipedias has not
only one community, but a lot more then one. So, it started do be some kind
of (sub)cultural place for gathering people who like the idea about free
encyclopedia. There is no such place when Wikipedia is down...
...
I am thinking a lot about solutions for that problem; this idea is not my
first idea how to resolve problem, ant it would not be the last.
I think that people around Wikimedia should make some kind of "active backup
network for Wikipedia content".
(For example, I can keep on my server backup for a number of smaller
Wikipedias (i.e., I can do it for Wikipedias from former Yugoslavia); as
well as I am sure that there are a number of people who can keep other
langauge based Wikipedias to his/her/their servers.)
Connection between xx.wikipedia.org and xx.exapmle.org can be made via bots
with some higher privileges (they should syncchronize user data, too).
Initially, xx.example.org would import xx.wikipedia.org via
download.wikimedia.org; and after that bots would start with
synchronization. People would be able to write and read on both
(xx.wikipedia.org and xx.example.org) and (for example) once per day bots
would synchronize xx.wikipedia.org and xx.example.org. Permissions, users,
etc. should be the same.
Of course, it would not be one-day-work. I know that it would make a lot of
job, but I think it is reasonable because it would relax Wikimedia
infrastructure.
As this would be some kind of external support to Wiki(p|m)edia, I think
that content policy should be Wikimedian; also, I think that people who give
"active backup servers" should say that it is their site.
And, of course, this idea is open for suggestions.
What do you think about that?
Yesterday I came across a beautiful panorama, one which any reference
work would be thrilled to have, which had been *casually* put up for
deletion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wuerzburg_panorama.jpg
This image had illustrated the article on Wuerzburg for a long while,
and was then removed by an anonymous edit in February.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=W%FCrzburg&diff=9939546&oldid=990…
It was soon afterward listed for deletion as one of hundreds of
"unverified orphans" [UOs] listed in recent months. Quoth an
enthusiastic UO deleter:
"I've been doing this for about a month, and it's been generally
well received."
Out of about 100 such images currently listed on Images for Deletion,
I found about 20 which were either clearly uploaded by their creators,
or seemed likely to have been (by virtue of composition, edit
summaries, image descriptions). Some of these could clearly be used
productively in articles, even if they aren't at present; in
particular the Wuerzburg image and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Xi%27an_city_wall.jpg
[ Detailed rant: http://tinyurl.com/4zpyb ]
This kind of careless deletion must stop. It should be unacceptable
to list a borderline image for deletion, and only afterwards notify
the uploader, who may not even visit Wikipedia every week.
A cardinal rule of image deletion should be : take every precaution
not to irreversibly delete beautiful, free content. Particularly so
long as we tolerate foolish debates about the unproven copyvio-status
of everyone's favorite autofellatio image.
--
+sj+
