"The Militia, 20 users granted sysop status by Larry, defend the users
visions to the near-death (well, maybe a really drunken stupor with a head
injury or two from falling on the ground in drunken camraderie) and all of
these best cases are realized, and none of the threats come to pass."
24 seems to be feeding on our inaction so far.
Also from [[m:Best cases]]
".....Wiki gradually evolves into the center of discourse on controversial
topics because of its vaunted fairness, and its commitment to evolving as
close to a [[m:natural point of view]] as the [[w:Neutral point of view]] of
the target [[m:three billionth user]] will permit. Other encylopedias
gradually give up or are bought out by donors who like wiki - and wiki rather
than a search engine becomes the first stop for most researchers in the
world. Gradually, universities kind of fade away as centers of research but
flourish as centers of ethical training, moral example, brainstorming, wild
and uninhibited art, and true creative vision. Nobel Prize winners thank
wiki on the stand as they accept their rewards - and historians credit it
with breaking down barriers between academic, populist, and economic views of
the world - coming slowly to a consensus... "
Can anyone say CRACKPOT! This person seems to have MAJOR plans for the
'pedia. We all better bow down and kiss this person's feet before he/she has
the "Anti-globalization movement .... flood [wikipedia] with 3000 versions of
[[m:natural point of view]] all at once." This is dangerous folks, I think we
have, as Larry recently pointed out on the meta, 'fed the troll' way too much
24 has stated before that he/she has no ideology -- I would counter that this
person is one of the most ideological people that I have come across. Both
24 and mirwin want to subvert the project to their own purposes. Mirwin is
mostly harmless but 24 is most certainly not.
"The status quo is a report on how far, right now, we have slid towards the
[[m:worst cases]]. It incidentally makes note of progress towards [[w:best
cases]], and may use terminology or commentary from [[m:threats]] or
links like [[Winter Olympic Games|Winter Olympics]], since the
redirects are "invisible", while the pipe-linking is an ugliness
on the edit side (especially when they accumulate).
Another reason that redirecting is better is because it reduces
duplication of work--instead of everyone having to write
[[democracy|democratic]] every time they want to link "democratic",
a single redirect allows everyone to just write [[democratic]].
But I'd also like the REDIRECT functionality improved.
I'd argue for the compromise of letting users decide case-by-case
instead of have a rigid uncompromising technological solution, since
there are times where the piping is better, at least in the current
> > 3. Marking [broken links]] and [[more broken links]
> > 4. Optimizing external links with too many  (like
> > [[http://www.google.com]])
Both of those things are nice.
> > 5. Optimizing [[link|links]] to [[link]]s
> Please don't! Not only is the result very ugly, but it would lead to
> inconsistent link appearance for irregular and regular plurals
> ([[foot|feet]] vs [[hand]]s), never mind the issue of other languages.
The new software renders [[hand|hands]] and [[hand]]s the same
as a single link (try it!), so it would be a nice optimization on the
edit side to use the latter. Again, I like the reduction of pipes
as much as possible.
> > I am sure you can think of some more details that have always bugged you,
> > but that were (be themselves) not important enough to call for a function;)
> > We could use this for rather fancy things as well:
> > 7. In the preview, mark words (or word combinations) that are currently
> > plain text, but that do exist as a topic in the database (to find pages one
> > could link to).
> > 8. In the preview, mark all numbers that could be dates (more link
> > candidates).
> > 9. Automatically put the title phrase in bold if it appears in the first
> > paragraph.
I'd say instead of this being in the preview, it should be a separate
command of AutoText.
that the upload function gets abused, while general Wiki pages do not.
In another Wiki, I added a quick input box at the bottom of each page,
where any reader could input a question that would be added to the end
of the page, without passing through the normal edit form. That
feature got abused too (or maybe users mistook it for a search form),
so I had to remove that feature. Seems there are some cases where
open contributions work and some where they don't, as if pressing the
"save" button makes people think twice.
Perhaps the uploads should be visible in the RecentChanges list?
Perhaps there should be a "view other versions" for each upload?
Perhaps a Wikipage in the upload: namespace for each uploaded object?
were going to continue to allow subpages on personal
pages and ditch them on the regular wikipedia. Are
there any plans to put them back in on personal pages?
Also, when are you going to give back privileges to
edit the Homepage to trusted users? I made it my
responsibility to update the new language wikipedias
when they came in and now I can't. I think an
unprotected homepage is better than a protected
homepage that only two people can edit... now that's a
Come to my homepage! Venu al mia hejmpagxo!
Venu al la senpaga, libera enciklopedio
esperanta reta! http://eo.wikipedia.com/
Do You Yahoo!?
Información de Estados Unidos y América Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias.
Visítanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com
What's he looking for?
Ah, now we see. Unsatisfied with our offerings, he tries one last time,
searching in the wikipedia search engine for...
No more clicks after that, so I guess Wikipedia didn't have what he wanted.
* http://www.nupedia.com/ *
* The Ever Expanding Free Encyclopedia *
like in nupedia for me seems robust enough to stand the tide.
mit freundlichen Gruessen
StefanRybo in Wikipedia
apologies for any language errors (please correct)
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: wikipedia-l-admin(a)nupedia.com
> [mailto:email@example.com]Im Auftrag von Larry Sanger
> Gesendet am: Dienstag, 19. Juni 2001 07:51
> An: Wikipedia-l(a)nupedia.com
> Betreff: [Wikipedia-l] License question
> Re http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?25_Etudes_op.60
> I have a few questions:
> # What is the nature of http://musicaliberata.org/ 's license?
> # Did MarkVdB get permission from musicaliberata.org to get the images of
> the music from their server from our server?
> # Shouldn't we set up some protocol on Wikipedia whereby this constantly
> recurring issue can be systematically resolved?
> To manage your subscription to this list, please go here:
set of rights that is belonging to this particular publication. And
therefore all people who want to use material of others have to find out
what specific rights is belonung to a specific published work (and to them
having a copy of this).