On Sunday 28 July 2002 03:00 am, The Cunctator wrote:
> What are the articles this person has been changing?
20:08 Jul 27, 2002 Computer
20:07 Jul 27, 2002 Exploit
20:07 Jul 27, 2002 AOL
20:05 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
20:05 Jul 27, 2002 Leet
20:03 Jul 27, 2002 Root
20:02 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
19:59 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
19:58 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
19:54 Jul 27, 2002 Principle of least astonishment
19:54 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
19:52 Jul 27, 2002 Trance music
19:51 Jul 27, 2002 Trance music
20:20 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
20:19 Jul 27, 2002 Hacker
Most of these were complete replacements with discoherent statements.
Such as "TAP IS THE ABSOLUTE DEFINITION OF THE NOUN HACKER" for Hacker.
For the specifics follow http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Special:Ipblocklist
and look at the contribs.
Most of you would be aware of some of the discussions that have occurred
around Wikipedia in the Norwegian languages. Since the last round of
discussions on this list, there has been a lot of internal debate, as
well as what seems to be a fairly widely accepted agreement following
This e-mail intends to, after a brief recap on Norwegian language and
wikipedia issues, take those interested through the latest development
and will stake out the road ahead. It is also intended to inform the
international community about the current agreement on no.wikipedia, so
as to prevent misunderstandings in the future.
Finally, we will mention an unfortunate reaction to the vote by a small
number of users at the Norwegian Bokmål/Riksmål (no:) wikipedia who want
to disregard the result of the voting and are planning to create a
_third_ Norwegian wikipedia with the sole mission of mixing the contents
of the two current Norwegian versions.
== A short language history of Norway ==
Spoken Norwegian ("norsk") (ISO 639-2 alpha-2 code "no") is in a fairly
unique situation compared to most other languages of the world in that
it has two widely accepted written standards, Bokmål (ISO 639-2 alpha-2
code "nb") and Nynorsk (ISO 639-2 alpha-2 code "nn"). By national
legislation they are both regarded as official written forms of
Norwegian. In addition, many people still make a distinction between
Bokmål and its precursor which still is in use, Riksmål.
Briefly speaking, Bokmål and Riksmål are descendants of the Danish
written language. Until the 1800s, Danish was the only widely used
written language in Norway as a result of four centuries of union with
Denmark. With increasing independence came a wish to norwegianise the
Danish standard, with Knud Knudsen at the forefront for changing parts
of the vocabulary and orthographics. Thus, Riksmål, and later Bokmål,
resulted. These forms together are today probably used by about 90% of
Norway's population, or somewhere around 3,500,000 people.
Parallel to this development, a new written standard was created by Ivar
Aasen. He travelled extensively throughout Norway, and based his new
language, landsmål, on the grammar and vocabulary of dialect samples
from around the country. This was later renamed Nynorsk. Modern Nynorsk
differs significantly from modern Bokmål, and may be linguistically
looked upon as as different (or as similar if you like) as Swedish is to
Danish. For English or Dutch/German speakers, the differences may be
likened to those between (Lowland) Scots and English or Low German and
Dutch. Today it is estimated that about 500,000-600,000 people have
Nynorsk as their first written language.
More information about the Norwegian language history can be found in
English, German, French, Spanish or Portuguese on the website of the
Norwegian Language Council:
== A short history of Wikipedia in Norwegian ==
The first Norwegian wikipedia started 26 November 2001 on the subdomain
no.wikipedia.org. As most wikipedias, its contributor and article count
started really picking up around the end of 2003. At the time, it
accepted all written standards of Norwegian, although the amount of
Nynorsk was minimal. There were already several debates about the
feasibilty and appropriateness of keeping the two languages united on
one Wikipedia. On 31 July 2004 a Wikipedia for Nynorsk was created.
The creation of nn:, however, split the community at no: wikipedia. Many
felt that given that Nynorsk now had its own wikipedia, no: should
become a Bokmål/Riksmål Wikipedia only. Others disapproved and claimed
that there was no need to change and that it should continue its
language policy of accepting all and keep its interwiki link name of
Nynorsk Wikipedia soon proved a success, as it within the next few
months gathered several people who had felt uncomfortable in the
(mainly) Bokmål environment at no:. The name displayed in interwiki
links became "Norsk (nynorsk)" (languages are not spelt with upper case
in Norwegian). To date it continues to be one of the fastest growing
wikipedias, with a steady article increase, now at over 6000 articles
and >50 editors with more than 10 edits since arrival.
== Votes ==
The issue of no:'s language policy has come up time and again, and a
vote was held in March ([[:no:Wikipedia:Målform]]) as to which policy to
adapt. Independent of the method of the tally (whether or not to include
new contributors etc.) there was a majority for switching to a
Bokmål/Riksmål only language policy (50% for Bokmål/Riksmål, 43.2% for
Bokmål/Riksmål/Nynorsk/Høgnorsk, and 6.8% for the official variants
Following this result, there is now going to be a vote on which
interwiki link name will most appropriately reflect the current language
policy of no:. The result of this vote will most likely be either "Norsk
(bokmål)" or "Norsk (bokmål/riksmål)".
Understandably, there has also been a debate as to whether the subdomain
should change from "no" to "nb", as this is the correct representation
of Bokmål according to ISO 639-2. However, there is some resentment
towards such a move and currently a general acceptance in letting the
Bokmål wikipedia stay at "no". The alternative some have suggested is a
server-side redirect from "no" to "nb", in the same way that "nb" today
is a server-side redirect to the equivalent page on "no".
== Summary of the problem ==
Unfortunately, a small group of users (who all write Bokmål/Riksmål) are
ignoring the results from the vote, and are claiming they want to
re-establish a wikipedia for all written standards of Norwegian. They
claim they have been in touch with people centrally in Wikimedia
(developers? stewards?) and that they have so far received positive
comments. With this email, we would like to state the fact that there
have been no official decisions about creating a third Norwegian
wikipedia containing both Bokmål and Nynorsk, it is merely an unofficial
initiative from a small group of users which started a sign-on list at
[[:no:Bruker:Norsk_Wikipedia]]. A spontaneous list with signatures
against this activity was immediately created at
[[:no:Wikipedia-diskusjon:Fellesnorsk]]. The process of creating a third
Norwegian wikipedia has not gone through a voting process in any of the
two existing Norwegian wikipedias (no: and nn:) and can not be
considered as a decision by the Norwegian Wikipedia community.
We believe the creation of a third wikipedia under the Wikimedia
foundation would have a serious and unfortunate impact on the existing
wikipedias in Norwegian, no: and nn:, and would undermine Wikipedia's
reputation in Norway. This being said, we are all for extensive co-
operation between the four Scandinavian language wikipedias (including
Swedish and Danish), as evident by the recent creation of
[[:meta:Skanwiki]], the Scandinavian meta-pages, and the use of featured
articles from neighbour wikipedias.
== Conclusion ==
Hopefully, this letter will help people better understand the
complicated language situation of the Norwegian Wikipedia community, so
as to give a background on which discussion can take place on this list
in the future, such as the inevitable debate following a possible
request for a re-establishment of the common (and third!) Norwegian
>From the community of no.wikipedia.org and nn.wikipedia.org,
Bjarte Sørensen [[:meta:User:BjarteSorensen]] (Administrator/bureaucrat on nn:)
Lars Alvik [[:no:User:Profoss]] (Administrator/bureaucrat on no:)
Øyvind A. Holm [[:no:User:Sunny256]] (Administrator on no:)
Onar Vikingstad [[:no:User:Vikingstad]] (Administrator on no:)
Jon Harald Søby [[:no:User:Jhs]] (Administrator on no:)
Chris Nyborg [[:no:User:Cnyborg]] (Administrator on no:)
Guttorm Flatabø [[:no:User:Dittaeva]] (Administrator on nn:)
Gunleiv Hadland [[:meta:User:Gunnernett]] (Administrator on nn:)
Jarle Fagerheim [[:nn:User:Jarle]] (Administrator on nn:)
Øyvind Jo Heimdal Eik [[:en:User:Pladask]] (Administrator on nn: and no:)
Kristian André Gallis [[:nn:User:Kristaga]]
Vegard Wærp [[:no:User:Vegardw]]
Nina Aldin Thune [[:no:User:Nina]]
Thor-Rune Hansen [[:no:User:ThorRune]]
Claes Tande [[:no:User:Ctande]]
Arnt-Erik Krokaa [[:no:User:AEK]]
Rune Sattler [[:no:User:Shauni]]
This is in response to the somewhat silly English-language press we've
had lately. I'll be sending copies of this out to the sources of
recent articles on the subject that got it precisely backwards.
The following is, I understand, technically accurate, based on text
from Amgine, Phillipp Birkin (de:wp), Jimbo and Mathias Schindler (I
think), and comcom discussions (press relations being part of that
job). Corrections welcomed - you have about five minutes.
(and geni, I expect you to ask how this makes the new patrollers' jobs
easier - by having what's effectively a feed of new-editor and
anonymous edits, is what I was thinking of.)
"Approved" versions on Wikipedia FAQ
* What is changing?
We want to open up editing without damaging the reader's experience.
We want to be more wiki and let editors edit freely, which is where
all the good things come from. At present a small percentage of
articles (a few hundred out of 1.5 million on the English language
Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/) are locked or partially locked
from editing. We want to open these up. But Wikipedia is a top 20
website (Alexa ratings, no. 17 on 3 month average; no. 15 on 30 August
2006 - http://www.alexa.com/), so we must keep it good for the
The new feature will mean that edits from new or anonymous editors
will be delayed before being shown to readers - they will see a
'flagged OK' version by default, with a link to the live version. The
idea is to enhance the *reading* experience, and free us to enhance
the *editing* experience. If vandalism can't be seen by the general
public, there will be less motivation to vandalise.
Anonymous or new-editor edits will need to be approved by a logged-in
editor. Of the thousands of editors on the large Wikipedias, many
concentrate on checking revisions and dealing with odd changes and
vandalism - this will assist their work and we do not expect new
We are also considering a related feature to flag particular versions
of articles as being of high quality. This is to a different end: a
high-quality finished product. This will likely be tested first on the
German language Wikipedia (http://de.wikipedia.org/), which has
already had three stable editions released on CD and DVD, which have
sold quite well. If the feature works there, it may be used on other
These features are not finished, so we don't have a lot of fine detail
as to how it will all work as yet. But we hope this change will allow
us to do things such as open up the George W. Bush article or even the
front page itself to full unrestricted editing.
* When was this proposed?
Jimmy Wales asked for a time-delay feature for casual readers in late
2004; after very fast editing on the Indian Ocean tsunami produced a
very high-quality article
quickly, but with some highly visible vandalism; we've hotly discussed
how to achieve stable high-quality editions of Wikipedia since almost
the start of the project, in 2001.
Gileki wikipedia have many supporters that want topromote it. We need a provider to develop it. Also does any committe or something like that have to approve it first?
I appreciate your help.It is over a month that I am sending these kind of emails around.
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail.
Can anyone think how to rephrase this better? Would it actually get
through to anyone who needs to hear it?
(I eagerly await all the people saying I should read what I wrote.)
These are the things we do that aren't actually codified. The feel of
the project. The social structure. This stuff is process too, but if
you contradict it you'll really upset people. Breaking a rule is just
breaking a rule; but breaking a cultural expectation is breaking
people's basic assumptions about the fabric of this small world of
ours. And upset volunteers fade away.
If you think you're keeping to the fundamental rules and the sensible
processes but repeatedly upset people in the same way, your approach
is ineffective. If you are in fact right, and cultural expectations
are getting in the way of writing the encyclopedia, you've got a hard
job ahead of you changing them. But that's the trouble with vision.
Just a heads-up; we're planning to move the backend hosting for Japanese,
Korean, Malay, and Thai Wikipedias from our Korean server cluster (yaseo) back
to the main servers in Florida (pmtpa) later this week.
They were hosted on the Korean servers for about a year as an experiment in
multi-cluster hosting, but in the end we're going to move them back. There are
several reasons for this:
* More reliable management.
Experience has shown that software updates and other issues are more likely to
have problems on the second cluster, which receives less attention from sysadmins.
These wikis will no longer be second-class citizens where math or timelines sit
broken for weeks after a change.
* More efficient use of resources.
As traffic increases, the limited number of servers we have in the yaseo cluster
are less able to handle the load. They now frequently overload during peak
access hours in Asia, and we can't add new servers as easily as we can in Florida.
Sharing the larger pool of application servers in Florida, and reusing the
remaining Korean machines for additional proxy caches, should provide better
performance during peak hours in Asia.
* Single-login preparation.
Hosting all the wikis together will let our unified login system work for these
wikis along with the others when we finally start it up.
Expected changes and disruptions:
There will be some read-only time for the wikis being moved later this week
during the actual transition, but other wikis should not be affected. We will
try to do this during off-peak hours in Asia.
URLs for uploaded images will change to use upload.wikimedia.org as on other
wikis; old URLs will redirect for compatibility so this should not disrupt anything.
Performance for the moved wikis should be better overall, though off-peak access
for logged-in users may be slightly slower due to lightspeed delays between
Korea and Florida.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Gileki language has been supported by many, and there are some organizations which want to promote the Gileki wiki once it get started. I have contacted few providers but did not get any response. Does any body know how I can find a provider to work on this case?
Do you Yahoo!?
Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.
Lovenworth and Dyas, two members of corporate law firm Dewey
Ballantine, tackle unresolved issues in an essay on enforcing
collaborative copyright (and suggest the need for a new class of
copyright. (Are they waiting for a GNU-blessed Wiki license to
emerge?) Someone should ask for a freely licensed version of the
"As ownership of collaborative works becomes increasingly diluted, a
common point of enforcement becomes more necessary. One solution is
to treat collaborative works in a similar manner as a joint work so
that certain contributors to the collaborative work can enforce its
copyright. Such a solution would do nothing, however, to ensure that
those contributors act with the interests of the collaboration in
mind. Consequently, until copyright law catches up with the
developments of the modern world, the ability to enforce copyright in
collaborative works will remain limited at best."
I consign this essay to the fiery depths of the project space.
/me dives for cover
Does this look useful? Is it something of practical use to you? (Not
"is it something you wish other people would read?" Though that's
useful too, I suppose. But half the point is that telling people stuff