The proposed deletion of these pages is quite outrageous. Meta is a place
to prepare content for Wikipedias, in this case, future Wikipedias. I don't
think the intention of the pages on Meta is to actually build a Scots/Voro
site there, but it is merely a showcase.
Anyway, the consensus on Meta seems to be to keep those pages. I hope that
anything that has been deleted is restored as soon as practicable (there's
nothing in the log though, the pages have probably just been moved). But
yeah, I think that these showcases are quite good ideas, and I'd hate to see
them destroyed by rules lawyers on Meta.
PO Box 764
Ashgrove, Q, 4060
http://www.halo-17.net - Australia's Favourite Source of Indie Music, Art,
Sorry to keep on about this, but I'm still not clear as to whether this
will be on in 1.5 - it's not on the 1.5 test wiki. (Brion switched it on
and everything broke, so he switched it off again.)
What will it take for it to be switched on in 1.5 on Wikipedia? Or at least
(I ask in particular because if it's going on then we need to work out what
things to rate articles on, debug the interface and so on.)
Hi everyone, just forwarding this mail concerning MediaWiki.
Rough translation: MediaWiki nominated for "special php prize" on a
french contest (no, we haven't won yet :p).
We'll hopefully coordinate in France so someone can go there on the
26th for prize.
-------- Message original --------
Sujet: [Wikimediafr-l] Les Trophées du Libre - votre nomination
Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 17:30:30 +0200
De: Christophe Ballihaut <christophe.ballihaut(a)nexenservices.com>
Répondre à: Discussion à propos de l'association Wikimédia en France
Organisation: Nexen Services
votre project a été nominé pour le prix Special PHP des Trophées du Libre.
Il a été élu parmis une 40 de projets par un jury composé de:
* Rasmus Lerdof (Créateur de PHP)
* Bård Farstad(co-fondateur eZ Systems)
* Benoît Thieulin (Attaché au cabinet du Premier Ministre)
* Damien Seguy ( co-fondateur de Nexen Services et Nexen.net).
Je souhaite organiser la venue d'un représentant officiel du projet
en France lors de la remise des prix le 26 mai 2005 à Soisson.
Pouvez vous rentrer en contact avec moi pour gérer cela.
Pour information, le projet a été soumis par brion(a)pobox.com
et le Prix est sponsorisé par Nexen Services.
tél: +33 1 46 67 72 95
12 rue du Moulin des Bruyères
Retrouvez toutes nos offres d'hébergement Open Source sur:
Retrouvez toute l'actualité et les dossiers d'experts sur le PHP et
Retrouvez tous les mois l'information dédiée aux professionnels du PHP
Wikimediafr-l mailing list
On 5/20/05, Angela <beesley at gmail.com> wrote:
>On 5/20/05, Sulev Iva <juvasul at ut.ee> wrote:
>> The place where our Wikis are listed for deletion.
>> Where must we move now?
>Something's gone very wrong when playing chess on the wiki
>acceptable but creating a demo Wikipedia in a new language is not.
>If this does not survive VfD, and you want a temporary small wiki,
>you're welcome at <http://scratchpad.wikicities.com/>. For a longer
>term Wikicity, you need consensus within Wikipedia that this language
>can *not* exist within Wikimedia.
That's a good offer, Angela. Thank you. We may have to take you up on that.
I too feel that its crazy that these articles have been placed on Meta:Rfd when
the main purpose of Metapedia is (and has always been) to discuss the
direction of the Wikipedia/WikiMedia projects and to help co-ordinate work on
existing and new editions. These test-wikis were set up to demonstrate
commitment and to thrash out any problems which might impede their
development before committing a developer to the task of setting them up
properly. This is in order not to waste developer time on creating wikipedias
which sound good in principle but aren't viable in practice and I would say that
it falls under role three of the four roles described on Meta:About. However if
we are going to be "run out of town" before we have had a chance to get
properly started, I can only urge that the new wikipedias be set up properly
immediately without a test period on Meta so that we have somewhere to run
Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals
Due to a very high volume of spam hitting this list in the last couple
days (several hundred), I've changed the list configuration to
automatically discard posts from addresses not subscribed to the list
instead of holding them in the moderation queue.
If your posts aren't going through, make sure you're subscribed with the
address you're posting from. (Note that you can subscribe and disable
mail delivery, if you prefer reading through the archives or news gateway.)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Through my participation in the schools debate, it has come to my
attention that there are wikipedians who believe that we should
include everything which is verifiable and NPOV, with no standard of
notoriety applied. My perspective is that while that might be a good
set of criteria for a dictionary of trivia, it is not a good criteria
for an encyclopedia, even one made out of tiny bits of magnetized
composits rather than paper.
I don't wish to bring the school debate to this list right now.
However, I would like to discuss the include-everything view that I
have seen being used to justify including schools.
When I have exchanges like this:
** David, as we discussed on IRC, this rule would allow for the
creation of articles for a huge number of roadway intersections in the
US.. Plenty of official documentation at the city and state offices,
and Federal records in many cases, plus newspaper reports of
construction and accidents (just like schools). We could fill an
article up with trivia such as the frequency of accidents, time of
first construction... Photographs. Is this really acceptable in the
inclusionist agenda? Sure intersections are verifyable and NPOV, but
the vast majority of them are not notable. I encourage all who support
David's proposed rules, or similar proposed rulesets to reply. :)
--[[User:Gmaxwell|Gmaxwell]] 15:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
** Actually that sounds pretty cool. [[m:Wiki is not paper]]. Accident
data on road intersections could be very, very encyclopedic. Not sure
how feasible it would be, however. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony
Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 15:31, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
I must question if I really understand the point of Wikipedia.
Already the next database dumb of cur will likely be too big to fix
gzipped on my Zarus (a pocket sized computer. The prior one just fit
it's 1gb SD card and I find it amazingly useful ... I'm going to need
to come up with some kind of filter to reduce the size for the next
one)..... Soon we will begin brushing the size of what we can fit on
a DVD, so what of access to our work by people in disconnected
communities and third-world nations? As our working-set grows past the
amount of ram we can reasonably expect to put in our caches and
database servers, our performance will become increasingly diskbound.
I think that many people mistake the the claim that [[m:Wiki is not
paper]] with a claim that we have boundless storage without
Most of the facts that are in Wikipedia (though to not all) were
available elseware on the internet prior to Wikipedia, but often a
quick google search wouldn't find them because they were in a wash of
cruft, random inaccurate uncorrectable information, and
advertisements. Today much of that information is easier to find
because of Wikipedia, a beautiful accomplishment, but one which may be
lost if we lower the barrier to entry to be sufficiently low as to
include anything that anyone can cite.
I think it would be useful to have a universal repository for
verifiable and neutrally reported trivia, but just as we use
Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia for word definitions and wikisources
for freely licensed reference works, we should put material which is
not substantially notable in it's own project which can cater to the
special needs of that material and the special costs of providing that
I didn't just choose the intersection example because I thought it was
a good strawman, ( :) ), I also choose it because I'm aware of the
level of information available, and could actually create a lot of
these articles myself. Since I used to work for a county government in
Florida, still have a copy of most of the GIS database, and know the
right people in a few other counties, I could patch together a bot to
create thousands of such articles, complete with aerial photographs,
construction dates, and in many cases some level of traffic
information (I have traffic counters for all the arterial/arterial
intersections with the data I have). ... The point is that I haven't
spammed wikipedia with this data because I believe it is completely
inappropriate for an Encyclopedia, and I imagine many other people
have a similar ability to produce endless quantities of non-notable
material if that what we thought wikipedia was supposed to contain.
... Such trivia would only be useful as a raw reference, why not
wikisource if any of the preexisting wikis?
So, I'd really appreciate some commentary on this... Am I in a
minority in expecting a criteria of notability to be used in our
judgement of encyclopedic merit, or should we really be including
every fact we can cite?
This is for Wiktionary! This is very exciting!
This is a major award froma major US computer magazine.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: PCMag.com Top 100 Awards
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 15:05:07 -0400
From: Cappella, Emily <Emily_Cappella(a)ziffdavis.com>
To: undisclosed-recipients: ;
PC Magazine's April 26th issue features "2005's Top 100 Sites You Didn't
Know You Couldn't Live Without" awards, where the magazine's editors
source the Web and award the best 100 sites in ten major categories.It's
my distinct pleasure to notify you that you have been selected within
the Education, Information & Reference category as a web site we would
be lost without!
Click here to see PC Magazine's review of the top 100 Education,
Information & Reference sites <http://go.pcmag.com/2005bestwebsites>
Read PCMag.com's review of your site within your respective category!
*Highlight your achievement and display the logo above on your Web site
with a link back to our page or, if you prefer, link your review with*
"Named to PCMag.com Top 100 Sites for 2005, Education, Information &
Reference Category <http://go.pcmag.com/2005bestwebsites>." PCMag.com
congratulates you on your accomplishment and wishes you continued
success in the future! If you would prefer not to receive further emails
regarding this promotion or have any questions, please contact me:
Emily Cappella, Ziff Davis Internet
(Note that other uses of the logo, such as for print or email
promotional purposes, do require a licensing fee. For information
regarding Rights & Permissions issues, contact Olga Gonopolsky at
Terms and ConditionsBy using the Top 100 logo or reviews you agree to
the following terms and conditions: Ziff Davis Media Inc. ("we", "our")
will retain all ownership rights in and to the Top 100 icon, logo,
button or graphic image (collectively, the "Top 100 Logo") and the
PCMagazine.com website (including, all content thereon and associated
trademarks). You will not modify the Top 100 Logo, or combine the Top
100 Logo with any other icon, logo, or graphic image, without our
written authorization. You will not challenge or assist others to
challenging our rights in and to the Top 100 Logo or the registration
thereof or attempt to register any trademarks, marks or trade names
confusingly similar to the Top 100 Logo. We will retain the sole right
and control over the content and conduct of the PCMagazine.com website
and we may periodically make changes to the organization, content, d!
esign, and features of the PCMagazine.co! m website in our sole
discretion. You will not reproduce, publish or display any content
contained on the PCMagazine.com website without our written
authorization. We disclaim any and all warranties, express or implied,
promises, and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular
purpose, title and/or non-infringement concerning the Top 100 Logo or
PCMagazine.com website. We reserve the right to revoke this permission
to use the Top 100 Logo at any time upon notice to you. Ziff Davis
Media, 28 East 28th Street, New York, NY 10016
This e-mail message and any attachments to it are for the sole use of
the intended recipients and may contain confidential and privileged
information. This e-mail message and any attachments are the property of
Ziff Davis Media Inc. or its affiliates. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure, or distribution of this e-mail message or its attachments is
prohibited. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the
sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message
and any attachments. Thank you.