You Wrote:
At 2002-09-10 18:09 -0700, koyaanisqatsi@nupedia.com wrote:
Jaap wrote: Yes, it would be possible. It, however, will not be practiced, at least by the person you are directing this part of your message to. I have very particular reasons to mind my privacy, none of which I'll discuss, thank you, because I won't be convinced otherwise.
This sentence doesn't contain a valid argument.
It does. You don't agree with it.
I certainly don't expect anyone who's done their homework to believe that koyaanis qatsi is my real name,
That's not the issue.
You're right. The issue is this: 1) you want me to use my real name, or a less obvious pseudonym. 2) I don't care.
kq
Hi 'title of a movie',
At 2002-09-10 19:19 -0700, koyaanisqatsi@nupedia.com wrote:
You Wrote:
At 2002-09-10 18:09 -0700, koyaanisqatsi@nupedia.com wrote:
Jaap wrote: Yes, it would be possible. It, however, will not be practiced, at least by the person you are directing this part of your message to. I have very particular reasons to mind my privacy, none of which I'll discuss, thank you, because I won't be convinced otherwise.
This sentence doesn't contain a valid argument.
It does. You don't agree with it.
I certainly don't expect anyone who's done their homework to believe that koyaanis qatsi is my real name,
That's not the issue.
You're right. The issue is this: 1) you want me to use my real name, or a less obvious pseudonym. 2) I don't care.
kq
I think that if Wikipedia is to grow into a serious movement, nay institute even, it's essential that people adhere more to netiquette.
I don't care which babysteps are made by whomever but that things are improved in general. That's why I'd like to point out some issues that can be improved. If you have considered my arguments and decide that you still have a legitimate reason to use a pseudonym, so be it. You will not be taken as seriously at face value, so you'll have to try harder to be respected, but if you choose that road, you have my blessing.
Jaap
At 10:02 PM 9/12/02 +0200, someone calling himself Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
Hi 'title of a movie',
At 2002-09-10 19:19 -0700, koyaanisqatsi@nupedia.com wrote:
You Wrote:
At 2002-09-10 18:09 -0700, koyaanisqatsi@nupedia.com wrote:
Jaap wrote: Yes, it would be possible. It, however, will not be practiced, at
least by the person you are directing this part of your message to. I have very particular reasons to mind my privacy, none of which I'll discuss, thank you, because I won't be convinced otherwise.
This sentence doesn't contain a valid argument.
It does. You don't agree with it.
I certainly don't expect anyone who's done their homework to believe
that koyaanis qatsi is my real name,
That's not the issue.
You're right. The issue is this: 1) you want me to use my real name, or
a less obvious pseudonym. 2) I don't care.
kq
I think that if Wikipedia is to grow into a serious movement, nay institute even, it's essential that people adhere more to netiquette.
Netiquette doesn't demand real names, in part because it's very hard to tell which names are real. At one point over on Usenet, someone angrily demanded that another poster use his "real name". The person of whom the demand was made was, in fact, using his full legal name. Conversely, I have no way of knowing, online, whether you're really named Jaap van Ganswijk.
At 2002-09-12 17:24 -0400, Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
At 10:02 PM 9/12/02 +0200, someone calling himself Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
Hi 'title of a movie',
At 2002-09-10 19:19 -0700, koyaanisqatsi@nupedia.com wrote:
You Wrote:
At 2002-09-10 18:09 -0700, koyaanisqatsi@nupedia.com wrote:
Jaap wrote: Yes, it would be possible. It, however, will not be practiced, at least by the person you are directing this part of your message to. I have very particular reasons to mind my privacy, none of which I'll discuss, thank you, because I won't be convinced otherwise.
This sentence doesn't contain a valid argument.
It does. You don't agree with it.
I certainly don't expect anyone who's done their homework to believe that koyaanis qatsi is my real name,
That's not the issue.
You're right. The issue is this: 1) you want me to use my real name, or a less obvious pseudonym. 2) I don't care.
kq
I think that if Wikipedia is to grow into a serious movement, nay institute even, it's essential that people adhere more to netiquette.
Netiquette doesn't demand real names, in part because it's very hard to tell which names are real. At one point over on Usenet, someone angrily demanded that another poster use his "real name". The person of whom the demand was made was, in fact, using his full legal name. Conversely, I have no way of knowing, online, whether you're really named Jaap van Ganswijk.
Would you really like to know?
I have been checked out by several secrets services, so i'm quite sure i know what I am.
Have you been checked out by as much secret services?
Greetz, Jaap
At 11:48 PM 9/12/02 +0200, someone who has yet to contribute to Wikipedia wrote:
At 2002-09-12 17:24 -0400, Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
At 10:02 PM 9/12/02 +0200, someone calling himself Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
Hi 'title of a movie',
At 2002-09-10 19:19 -0700, koyaanisqatsi@nupedia.com wrote:
You Wrote:
At 2002-09-10 18:09 -0700, koyaanisqatsi@nupedia.com wrote:
Jaap wrote: Yes, it would be possible. It, however, will not be practiced, at
least by the person you are directing this part of your message to. I have very particular reasons to mind my privacy, none of which I'll discuss, thank you, because I won't be convinced otherwise.
This sentence doesn't contain a valid argument.
It does. You don't agree with it.
I certainly don't expect anyone who's done their homework to believe
that koyaanis qatsi is my real name,
That's not the issue.
You're right. The issue is this: 1) you want me to use my real name,
or a less obvious pseudonym. 2) I don't care.
kq
I think that if Wikipedia is to grow into a serious movement, nay institute even, it's essential that people adhere more to netiquette.
Netiquette doesn't demand real names, in part because it's very hard to tell which names are real. At one point over on Usenet, someone angrily demanded that another poster use his "real name". The person of whom the demand was made was, in fact, using his full legal name. Conversely, I have no way of knowing, online, whether you're really named Jaap van Ganswijk.
Would you really like to know?
Since it appears that either you are using a handle for the Wikipedia--in which case you have no credibility in this discussion--or have never bothered to sign in, I don't think it matters. I have an encyclopedia to write and edit.
Netiquette, at least as far as I have seen, does not say that everyone has to use their real names in on-line communities. In fact it supports the opposite, that we should respect individuals requests for privacy and treat them with respect that every individual disserves. I have been in the on-line community for many years (before the web and most people knew what the Internet was I ran in BBS circles) and handles (pseudonyms) have always been respected where appropriate. A community like this is a perfect example of such an appropriate use of handles.
Granted some people do not like to use handles, but that is their CHOICE. If they choose a handle or not should not effect our opinion in a community. You raise the point of financial transactions, but we are all volunteers here. No one is paying anyone money.
In a community setting like this absolute identity is not necessary. In fact, in some ways I prefer dealing with people who use an obvious handle / pseudonym because then I don't wonder if that is really their name or if they are trying to deceive me.
I have only been here a short time, but most of your posts seem more aimed at making waves then building an encyclopedia. But that is just my opinion.
At 10:02 PM 09/12/2002 +0200, Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
I think that if Wikipedia is to grow into a serious movement, nay institute even, it's essential that people adhere more to netiquette.
I don't care which babysteps are made by whomever but that things are improved in general. That's why I'd like to point out some issues that can be improved. If you have considered my arguments and decide that you still have a legitimate reason to use a pseudonym, so be it. You will not be taken as seriously at face value, so you'll have to try harder to be respected, but if you choose that road, you have my blessing.
--- Jim McKeeth jim@mckeeth.org wrote:
I have only been here a short time, but most of your posts seem more aimed at making waves then building an encyclopedia. But that is just my opinion.
The technical term is "trolling". ;-)
Stephen Gilbert
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! News - Today's headlines http://news.yahoo.com
On Thu, 2002-09-12 at 21:02, Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
I think that if Wikipedia is to grow into a serious movement, nay institute even, it's essential that people adhere more to netiquette.
Huh? I've been using the internet for nearly 10 years now and i've never seen *ANY* interpretation of 'netiquette' which obliged people to post under their real-life identity. Where do you dig such an idea up from?
Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
Hi 'title of a movie',
I think that if Wikipedia is to grow into a serious movement, nay institute even, it's essential that people adhere more to netiquette.
I don't care which babysteps are made by whomever but that things are improved in general. That's why I'd like to point out some issues that can be improved. If you have considered my arguments and decide that you still have a legitimate reason to use a pseudonym, so be it. You will not be taken as seriously at face value, so you'll have to try harder to be respected, but if you choose that road, you have my blessing.
Our KQ has already proved himself.
Too bad he's already go the name though, the Hopi language term might have suited Jaap better.
On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 10:02:46PM +0200, Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
I think that if Wikipedia is to grow into a serious movement, nay institute even, it's essential that people adhere more to netiquette.
Can somebody explain *exactly* what the problem with pseudonyms is? I use a pseudonym on wikipedia, but my full name is available on my User: page. It's just a convenient identifier, rather than an attempt to obscure my identity. If anything, I'm *more* identifiable by "Khendon" than I am by "Jason Williams", since it's far easier to find out about by me using the former name than the latter.
So... is the objection one of transparent identity, or of aesthetics, or some other issue?
Jason Khendon Williams wrote:
On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 10:02:46PM +0200, Jaap van Ganswijk wrote:
I think that if Wikipedia is to grow into a serious movement, nay institute even, it's essential that people adhere more to netiquette.
Can somebody explain *exactly* what the problem with pseudonyms is? I use a pseudonym on wikipedia, but my full name is available on my User: page. It's just a convenient identifier, rather than an attempt to obscure my identity. If anything, I'm *more* identifiable by "Khendon" than I am by "Jason Williams", since it's far easier to find out about by me using the former name than the latter.
So... is the objection one of transparent identity, or of aesthetics, or some other issue?
Don't worry about it Jason... there IS no issue! I agree with you too - if you do a google search for 'Karen Johnson' you'll come up with a million hits, almost none of which are actually ME. A search for Kajikit however, will give you a lot more info than my full name. In fact, you'll find out a heck of a lot more about me than I realised!
I just did a search for Kajikit and at the top of the list is my website Kajikit's Corner, followed by my Yahoo profile, a couple of bulletinboards I'm registered on, my writing in other people's websites and a bunch of my usenet posts! I didn't know that so many people had websites that tracked newsgroups... you can find out everything except my mother's maiden name with these hits, so I hope nobody decides to use it against me! Searching for Karen Johnson, on the other hand, brings up a good million hits but the only ones that are me are #11, #50, #52 and #89. The other million are just there to confuse the issue :)
I choose to use my full name on the wikipedia because I feel it is a project that I am proud of, and I WANT to be associated with it in public. In general internet use, the use of a full name is extremely unusual, so I use my normal web ID, which is the one in my sig. They're both me...
Karen,
Your Google search comment got me thinking so I did a search for me.
My handle "Cybermancer" returns 314, most all of which are not me (I see 2 out of the first 50)
My name "Jim McKeeth" returns 67, and all of them are me. There used to be more, but I had some technical difficulties and lost my personal page.
Looking at this list of hits is interesting. It is amazing to see which pages get indexed by the search engines and which do not.
I guess it pays to have a less common last name. Interestingly I created that handle over 12 years ago and thought it would be unique. Guess I was wrong.
-Jim
At 10:22 PM 09/13/2002 +1000, Karen AKA Kajikit wrote:
Don't worry about it Jason... there IS no issue! I agree with you too - if you do a google search for 'Karen Johnson' you'll come up with a million hits, almost none of which are actually ME. A search for Kajikit however, will give you a lot more info than my full name. In fact, you'll find out a heck of a lot more about me than I realised!
could someone with more tact and diplomacy than me point out nicely to user Tucci528 that in many of his recent articles he has spelt "received" as "recieved"? I hesitated to do this myself yesterday when I corrected some of them -- if I mention it to him he'll probably think I'm biting his head off. It looks like he may become a regular, I don't want to scare him away! (I hope he's not on the list yet!) thanks
tarquin
tarquin wrote:
could someone with more tact and diplomacy than me point out nicely to user Tucci528 that in many of his recent articles he has spelt "received" as "recieved"? I hesitated to do this myself yesterday when I corrected some of them -- if I mention it to him he'll probably think I'm biting his head off. It looks like he may become a regular, I don't want to scare him away! (I hope he's not on the list yet!) thanks
tarquin
The name "Tucci" sounds Italian to me, so English may not be his first language. If it bothers you that much it's perfectly OK to tell him politely. I would normally just make that correction and go on with life.
BTW By using the search function I found three articles with "recieve" in them, just in case you were looking for something to do.
Ray Saintonge wrote:
BTW By using the search function I found three articles with "recieve" in them, just in case you were looking for something to do.
I've been pondering. There are some typos and common spelling mistakes which are no-brainers to catch and fix, but require a lot of grunt work. Would it be possible, or desirable, to have a system which does a search for one particular error at a time, eg "recieve", and corrects all the pages it finds in batches, of say 20, to avoid loading the server? Obviously, this will deal with only a fraction of the overall typo checking, since many things depend on context (eg "its" / "it's").
Would this be best implemented as a system tool, or as a seperate script (like the Eason's Bible Dictionary import)?
-- tarquin
tarquin wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
BTW By using the search function I found three articles with "recieve" in them, just in case you were looking for something to do.
I've been pondering. There are some typos and common spelling mistakes which are no-brainers to catch and fix, but require a lot of grunt work. Would it be possible, or desirable, to have a system which does a search for one particular error at a time, eg "recieve", and corrects all the pages it finds in batches, of say 20, to avoid loading the server?
Would we use an American or British spell-checker?
On 13 Sep 2002, Ray Saintonge wrote:
There are some typos and common spelling mistakes which are no-brainers to catch and fix, but require a lot of grunt work. Would it be possible, or desirable, to have a system which does a search for one particular error at a time, eg "recieve", and corrects all the pages it finds in batches, of say 20, to avoid loading the server?
Would we use an American or British spell-checker?
[[List of battles 1401-1800]] before British spell-checker:
"1775 Battle of Lexington and Concord? Apr. 19 Patriots lose 8 and with guerrilla action kill British"
[[List of battles 1401-1800]] after British spell-checker:
"1775 Battle of Lexington and Concord? Apr. 19 Rebels lose 8 and with guerrilla action kill British" ;)
On Fri, Sep 13, 2002 at 11:12:03PM -0500, Tesla Coil wrote:
[[List of battles 1401-1800]] before British spell-checker:
"1775 Battle of Lexington and Concord? Apr. 19 Patriots lose 8 and with guerrilla action kill British"
[[List of battles 1401-1800]] after British spell-checker:
"1775 Battle of Lexington and Concord? Apr. 19 Rebels lose 8 and with guerrilla action kill British" ;)
ITYMM "Rebel terrorists lose 8..." ;-)
Anyway, to make this a more worthwhile email - wouldn't it be nice if there was an option whereby you could have pages you edit automatically put into your watch list?
At 01:54 PM 9/14/02 +0100, you wrote:
Anyway, to make this a more worthwhile email - wouldn't it be nice if there was an option whereby you could have pages you edit automatically put into your watch list?
-- Khendon (Jason Williams)
Once you've written on a few controversial articles like [[Scotland]] or [[History of England]] or, God help us, [[Law]] your watchlist will be a full plate without adding in hundreds of routine pages.
Fred
Fred Bauder wrote:
At 01:54 PM 9/14/02 +0100, you wrote:
Anyway, to make this a more worthwhile email - wouldn't it be nice if there was an option whereby you could have pages you edit automatically put into your watch list? -- Khendon (Jason Williams)
Once you've written on a few controversial articles like [[Scotland]] or [[History of England]] or, God help us, [[Law]] your watchlist will be a full plate without adding in hundreds of routine pages.
Exactly the problem. I've made many minor uncontroversial spelling corrections to articles, and there's no way that I would want to watch all those.
Ec
That already happens: see the "this user's contributions" link,
Fred Bauder wrote:
At 01:54 PM 9/14/02 +0100, you wrote:
Anyway, to make this a more worthwhile email - wouldn't it be nice if there was an option whereby you could have pages you edit automatically put into your watch list?
-- Khendon (Jason Williams)
Once you've written on a few controversial articles like [[Scotland]] or [[History of England]] or, God help us, [[Law]] your watchlist will be a full plate without adding in hundreds of routine pages.
Fred
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
At 07:24 AM 14/09/02 -0600, Fred Bauder wrote:
At 01:54 PM 9/14/02 +0100, you wrote:
Anyway, to make this a more worthwhile email - wouldn't it be nice if there was an option whereby you could have pages you edit automatically put into your watch list?
-- Khendon (Jason Williams)
Once you've written on a few controversial articles like [[Scotland]] or [[History of England]] or, God help us, [[Law]] your watchlist will be a full plate without adding in hundreds of routine pages.
Two fixes come to mind: making the autowatching trigger for major edits only, and giving the autowatch a time duration. For example, I would love a feature that would automatically add pages I've made major edits to to my watchlist for 7 days (or 30 or whatever), after which they drop off the list (unless I've made a new major mod myself). That way, I'd be able to see what sort of responses and modifications are made immediately after I've made a major contribution to an article, but it's not there forever.
Of course, manually-added page watches would have an indefinite duration, as currently happens.
Of the 5 nobel prize pages, 3 start from the present day, 2 go forward from 1901.
I found a page on filmographies etc which suggest that lists start from the most recent item: http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia_talk:Filmographies_and...
A comment on the talk page Wikipedia talk:Filmographies and Discographies raises the fact that this order may have been influenced by the IMDB's filmographies.
IMO lists of prize awards or works are in a sense timelines, and as such should go forwards. what are your opinions?
tarquin wrote:
Of the 5 nobel prize pages, 3 start from the present day, 2 go forward from 1901.
I found a page on filmographies etc which suggest that lists start from the most recent item: http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia_talk:Filmographies_and...
A comment on the talk page Wikipedia talk:Filmographies and Discographies raises the fact that this order may have been influenced by the IMDB's filmographies.
IMO lists of prize awards or works are in a sense timelines, and as such should go forwards. what are your opinions?
I agree with you on this. I shared the work to put all the academy award pages in normal time line order, and I am sometimes tempted to fix the Nobel Prize pages in the same way.
The article which you cite suggests that copyright may be an issue. Original ways of arranging material can be copyright, but there is nothing original about a basic chronological or alphabetical sequence going either forwards or backwards. That issue's a red herring.
One other advantage of a forward chronological list is that it makes some annotations about the award much easier. Using [[Academy Awards]] as an example, it is much easier to insert something like "This year the name of this award changed to ..." in a forward context than by trying to go up on the down escalator.
Eclecticology
Ray Saintonge wrote:
tarquin wrote:
Of the 5 nobel prize pages, 3 start from the present day, 2 go forward from 1901.
I found a page on filmographies etc which suggest that lists start from the most recent item: http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia_talk:Filmographies_and...
A comment on the talk page Wikipedia talk:Filmographies and Discographies raises the fact that this order may have been influenced by the IMDB's filmographies.
IMO lists of prize awards or works are in a sense timelines, and as such should go forwards. what are your opinions?
It's the same as listings of an author or artist's works (eg.paintings, books). A few weeks ago somebody went to the trouble of making a listing of books by Dianna Wynne Jones - in alphabetical order, which meant that somebody else had to go through and painstakingly re-order it to be chronological.
I would like to be bold here and to suggest that ALL lists involving dates in any way should be chronological.
Karen AKA Kajikit wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
tarquin wrote:
Of the 5 nobel prize pages, 3 start from the present day, 2 go forward from 1901.
I found a page on filmographies etc which suggest that lists start from the most recent item: http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia_talk:Filmographies_and...
A comment on the talk page Wikipedia talk:Filmographies and Discographies raises the fact that this order may have been influenced by the IMDB's filmographies.
IMO lists of prize awards or works are in a sense timelines, and as such should go forwards. what are your opinions?
It's the same as listings of an author or artist's works (eg.paintings, books). A few weeks ago somebody went to the trouble of making a listing of books by Dianna Wynne Jones - in alphabetical order, which meant that somebody else had to go through and painstakingly re-order it to be chronological.
I think it might have been appropriate to copy the list and reorder the copy in accordance with the new preference. If the lists are then appropriately titled the reader can select the best for their purposes.
I would like to be bold here and to suggest that ALL lists involving dates in any way should be chronological.
There may be places where multiple indexing schemes are appropriate.
For example: If a researcher is looking for background on a specific satellite or space mission, and they have a mission or spacecraft name, they may not wish to scan a chronological list of all human space missions from the early 50s on to find it.
In this case, an alphabetical index works best for the reader.
If they are looking for space based earth surveys then a subject index may work best.
If they are looking for research done in the late 60s or early 70s then a chronological index may be most useful.
If a Wikipedian exists who is willing to create a specific type of index, then I see no benefit to the reader from other Wikipedians displacing this contribution rather than adding another method to it.
regards, Mike Irwin
--- "Michael R. Irwin" mri_icboise@surfbest.net wrote:
There may be places where multiple indexing schemes are appropriate.
For example: If a researcher is looking for background on a specific satellite or space mission, and they have a mission or spacecraft name, they may not wish to scan a chronological list of all human space missions from the early 50s on to find it.
In this case, an alphabetical index works best for the reader.
A search would work even better.
If they are looking for space based earth surveys then a subject index may work best.
A search would work here too.
If they are looking for research done in the late 60s or early 70s then a chronological index may be most useful.
If a Wikipedian exists who is willing to create a specific type of index, then I see no benefit to the reader from other Wikipedians displacing this contribution rather than adding another method to it.
Maintaining multiple manual indexes of the same material is next to impossible. I've tried. An advanced search function (which Lee mentioned as one of his priorities) would allieviate the need for such lists.
Stephen Gilbert
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! News - Today's headlines http://news.yahoo.com
The system seems to have developed a new bug!
I can be properly logged in and occupied for a time when I try to go to another page, and it appears as though I had logged out. If this has happened while I was working on a longer edit, it means that the edit is then credited to my URL rather than my pseudonym.
This is a really annoying bug.
Ec
The system seems to have developed a new bug!
I can be properly logged in and occupied for a time when I try to go to another page, and it appears as though I had logged out. If this has happened while I was working on a longer edit, it means that the edit is then credited to my URL rather than my pseudonym.
This is a really annoying bug.
Ec
Yes, we seem to be timing out, and as I use 3 different browsers on 2 different computers to access wikipedia I notice odd differences in how each of them handles it. Practically it means having to log in over and over despite having checked the little box, keep me logged in on this computer. As I have noted before eBay sometimes exhibits exactly the same bug so Lee is in some good company. I am disorganized enough that off the top of may head I couldn't say exactly what happens with each browser on each computer, but the timing out affects them all.
Fred
At 09:38 AM 16/09/02 -0700, Ray Saintonge wrote:
The system seems to have developed a new bug!
I can be properly logged in and occupied for a time when I try to go to another page, and it appears as though I had logged out. If this has happened while I was working on a longer edit, it means that the edit is then credited to my URL rather than my pseudonym.
I've had this happen to me every once and a while too. I'm not sure if it's exactly the same bug, though. Here's the basics;
*I never, ever get this problem on my home computer. I'm running Mozilla 1.1 and I've set my login to be remembered across sessions. *I occasionally get this problem when editing articles on a computer in the university computer lab. I use Netscape 6 there, and I _don't_ set my login to be remembered across sessions just in case I forget to log out. Also, since Netscape 6 doesn't have tabbed browsing, I usually have many browser windows open. I'm not sure whether length of article is related, it doesn't happen often enough for me to have developed a strong pattern.
I'm thinking that the problem may likely be something to do with single-session logins getting lost prematurely. Which way do you log in, multiple or single session?
Bryan Derksen wrote:
I can be properly logged in and occupied for a time when I try to go to another page, and it appears as though I had logged out. If this has happened while I was working on a longer edit, it means that the edit is then credited to my URL rather than my pseudonym.
I've had this happen to me every once and a while too. I'm not sure if it's exactly the same bug, though. Here's the basics;
I'm thinking that the problem may likely be something to do with single-session logins getting lost prematurely. Which way do you log in, multiple or single session?
I generaly have used an automatic login. I haven't had the problem since Lee has made his adjustment yesterday. I also double-checked to make sure that I was remembering the log-in across sessions. Hopefully the problem is gone forever.
Ec
Bryan Derksen wrote:
I can be properly logged in and occupied for a time when I try to go to another page, and it appears as though I had logged out. If this has happened while I was working on a longer edit, it means that the edit is then credited to my URL rather than my pseudonym.
I've had this happen to me every once and a while too. I'm not sure if it's exactly the same bug, though. Here's the basics;
I'm thinking that the problem may likely be something to do with single-session logins getting lost prematurely. Which way do you log in, multiple or single session?
I generaly have used an automatic login. I haven't had the problem since Lee has made his adjustment yesterday. I also double-checked to make sure that I was remembering the log-in across sessions. Hopefully the problem is gone forever.
Thanks
Ec
I haven't had the problem since Lee has made his adjustment yesterday. I also double-checked to make sure that I was remembering the log-in across sessions.
Hopefully
the problem is gone forever.
Someone reported the same problem one hour ago on the German Wikipedia: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Beobachtete_Fehler
Kurt
tarquin wrote at last:
IMO lists of prize awards or works are in a sense timelines, and as such should go forwards. what are your opinions?
Why must we choose a standard? Since we're mixed up now, and either method is clearly usable, let this be like British vs American spelling. We could even add to the Manual of Style that either is OK, to help head off edit wars and arguments in Talk pages. (One can still argue in a Talk page why that particular article is special, and needs to go one way or another.)
That said, I prefer going forward, if we do pick something.
-- Toby
This has been hanging around for some time, with most people in favour, and only 1 1/2 objections.
In answer to Toby, I think we should choose a standard because consistency of presentation is important in a body of work such as an enclyclopedia. (The information itself is more important, of course.) If I found in a paper encyclopedia that the list of Nobel Laureates went one way, but Pulitzer Prizes went the other, I would be pretty unimpressed.
In asnwer to LDC, chronological lists are a form of potted history. The Nobel lists give a quick overview of developments in a field such as Physics; sports records such as the 100m show how human sporting achievement has progressed over the last century. Likewise, lists of novels or films show the development of the artist in question. I think the difference with film biog sites that give lists starting from today is that these sites seek to give a "current snapshot" -- the star as they are *today*. An encyclopedia, though, seeks to show the complete history of that person, how they develop to become who they are at the time of writing.
Anyway, we have bigger fish to fry on this list, so since this had only minor objections, I think we can say it's Manual of Style policy (allowing for exceptions, of course), and move on.
I'll work on the Nobel lists at some point -- one of them (physics I think) is *really* nicely laid-out, with details of *what* the prize was awarded for, as well as the recipient. I'd like to make the others look the same.
Toby Bartels wrote:
tarquin wrote at last:
IMO lists of prize awards or works are in a sense timelines, and as such should go forwards. what are your opinions?
Why must we choose a standard? Since we're mixed up now, and either method is clearly usable, let this be like British vs American spelling. We could even add to the Manual of Style that either is OK, to help head off edit wars and arguments in Talk pages. (One can still argue in a Talk page why that particular article is special, and needs to go one way or another.)
That said, I prefer going forward, if we do pick something.
tarquin wrote:
I'll work on the Nobel lists at some point -- one of them (physics I think) is *really* nicely laid-out, with details of *what* the prize was awarded for, as well as the recipient. I'd like to make the others look the same.
Physics and Peace. The latter also shows where the winners came from, which is another bit of information that people like to know.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Two fixes come to mind: making the autowatching trigger for major edits only, and giving the autowatch a time duration. For example, I would love a feature that would automatically add pages I've made major edits to to my watchlist for 7 days (or 30 or whatever), after which they drop off the list (unless I've made a new major mod myself). That way, I'd be able to see what sort of responses and modifications are made immediately after I've made a major contribution to an article, but it's not there forever. Of course, manually-added page watches would have an indefinite duration, as currently happens.
Now *this* is a feature that I could definitely use! 7 days sounds right for me, please.
While we're on the subject, I'd dearly like a secondary watchlist that listed all the pages that I'm watching, in alphabetical order, with no further information about them (no database lookup necessary). An analogy: [[Watchlist]] : [[Recentchanges]] :: my request : [[Allpages]]. For extra gratitude from me, include nonexistent but watched pages (which breaks the analogy somewhat).
-- Toby
At 04:27 PM 09/13/2002 -0700, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Would we use an American or British spell-checker?
We create our own spell checker, but then we make the corrections manual. This is similar to Google's spell checking feature. We first parse out all the words in every article and make a table with each unique word and the number of occurrences. This is typically a step in most indexed search engines, but MySQL is really fast without this.
It would be a safe a assumption that words that are used the most frequently are probably spelled correctly. True, "recieve" may be a very common miss spelling, but there are probably a lot more occurrences of "receive". So the flip side of this is that words that are used rarely are probably spelled wrong. Now we don't want to go off blindly replacing these words (mostly because we would know what with) but they are good words to look for for replacing.
So if we could have an automated script that took these "l;east frequently occurring words" and listed them for a human they could say "Ah, recieve should be receive, this is a miss-spelling." Then they enter in the correct spelling and we use the same method mentioned in my previous e-mail to approve each individual change.
I have found that by automating the mundane repetitive portions of tasks like this that humans are much more accurate. If you have to go through 10 of the same motions for every 1 that requires thought then you are more likely to not put any thought into that 1. But if it is only a 2:1 or even better 1:1 ratio then you will put much more thought into it.
Again I don't know if this is even remotely possible with the WikiPedia software. I'd hate to do this off-line since it would be too easy to get out of sync. Maybe an alternative interface for these kinds of edits.
It would be a safe a assumption that words that are used the most frequently are probably spelled correctly. True, "recieve" may be a very common miss spelling, but there are probably a lot more occurrences of "receive". So the flip side of this is that words that are used rarely are probably spelled wrong. Now we don't want to go off blindly replacing these words (mostly because we would know what with) but they are good words to look for for replacing.
I don't think this would work - I think there will be thousands, if not tens of thousands of words that are used exactly once. The great majority of these will not be mis-spellings, but (parts of) proper names and geographical names that happen to occur exactly once, words from other languages and reasonable neologisms.
As a test, here is the result from 20 pages got with 'Random page', looking at the count of those words I think might be unique:
Aratrum aujtovguon - Greek word used for lack of English equivalent phktovn - idem Mounce - name, although not proper or geographical Subtractive synthesis synthisizers - indeed a misspelling (*) highpass - jargon word Shocking Blue no unique words Conjugate base no unique words Cenozoic Caenozoic - given as an alternative spelling of the subject Aldo Moro Moro's - genitive form of a proper name (**) Freedom of speech no unique words Film genres no unique words Alexandre Fleming actibacterial - actual typo (*) Hydrogen cyanide no unique words ISDN no unique words 20-GATE no unique words Unspun unspun - name of a group (**) unspinning - logical neologism (**) Apu Nahasapeempatilon octuplet - logical neologism or normal word punchcard - might actually be considered a misspelling (*) Lua programming language no unique words Eros no unique words Scud Makeyev - name of an institute UDMH - jargon term (abbreviation) RFNA - jargon term (abbrevation) Academy Award for Writing Adapted Screenplay Herczag - proper name Siliphant - proper name Hauben - proper name Peploe - proper name Zaillian - proper name Gaghan - proper name Elie Ducommun no unique words Masamune Shirow Deunan - proper name (fictional character)
(*): As I happened upon this misspelling, I corrected it, so you'll have to go to the previous version of the page to see it. (**): Occurs several times, but just on one page.
Total: 16 proper singles, 3 misspellings, 3 cases (the ones with **) not counted.
On the other hand, I came across the following mis-spellings which DID occur more than once (also corrected): missles (5 times)
I have found that by automating the mundane repetitive portions of tasks like this that humans are much more accurate. If you have to go through 10 of the same motions for every 1 that requires thought then you are more likely to not put any thought into that 1. But if it is only a 2:1 or even better 1:1 ratio then you will put much more thought into it.
If my attempt above is any guideline, the actual ratio will be more like 1:5 or 1:6.
Andre Engels
At 03:23 PM 9/14/02 +0200, Andre Engels wrote:
It would be a safe a assumption that words that are used the most frequently are probably spelled correctly. True, "recieve" may be a very common miss spelling, but there are probably a lot more occurrences of "receive". So the flip side of this is that words that are used rarely
are
probably spelled wrong. Now we don't want to go off blindly replacing these words (mostly because we would know what with) but they are good words to look for for replacing.
I don't think this would work - I think there will be thousands, if not tens of thousands of words that are used exactly once. The great majority of these will not be mis-spellings, but (parts of) proper names and geographical names that happen to occur exactly once, words from other languages and reasonable neologisms.
As a test, here is the result from 20 pages got with 'Random page', looking at the count of those words I think might be unique:
Aratrum aujtovguon - Greek word used for lack of English equivalent phktovn - idem Mounce - name, although not proper or geographical
Thanks for the pointer; I've tidied the page some (the transcriptions are just plain weird here).
Andre Engels wrote:
It would be a safe a assumption that words that are used the most frequently are probably spelled correctly. True, "recieve" may be a very common miss spelling, but there are probably a lot more occurrences of "receive". So the flip side of this is that words that are used rarely are probably spelled wrong. Now we don't want to go off blindly replacing these words (mostly because we would know what with) but they are good words to look for for replacing.
I don't think this would work - I think there will be thousands, if not tens of thousands of words that are used exactly once. The great majority of these will not be mis-spellings, but (parts of) proper names and geographical names that happen to occur exactly once, words from other languages and reasonable neologisms.
I agree with Andre. I suspect that the distribution of mis-spellings and typos would be Zipfian, as would the finding and corrections for such words. "Antibacterial" occurs 4 times in Wikipedia. No amount of direct searching would have found "actibacterial"
One feature that would help for finding some common errors would be a search feature that allows optional searching for parts of words. Thus far we have spoken of "recieve" and "recieved", but being able to search the part word "reciev" would also catch "recieves", "reciever", "recievers", "recieving" and maybe other less common words with this root.
Alexandre Fleming actibacterial - actual typo (*)
Perhaps the article should be redirected to "Alexander Fleming" ;-) .
Apu Nahasapeempatilon octuplet - logical neologism or normal word punchcard - might actually be considered a misspelling (*)
Octuplet is a perfectly normal word. "Punchcard" is an acceptable (and IMHO preferable) variant of "punch card". It appears that way in the Oxford Dictionary. If I were to use the term in an article and someone else "corrected" it to two words, I would change it right back. Who will ever have the enthusiasm to check the spelling of Apu's surname?
Eclecticology
I would rather that we didn't implement such a feature. It seems like a good idea on the surface, but my experiences with "auto-correct" functions in word processors have been less than helpful.
Stephen Gilbert
--- tarquin tarquin@planetunreal.com wrote:
I've been pondering. There are some typos and common spelling mistakes which are no-brainers to catch and fix, but require a lot of grunt work. Would it be possible, or desirable, to have a system which does a search for one particular error at a time, eg "recieve", and corrects all the pages it finds in batches, of say 20, to avoid loading the server? Obviously, this will deal with only a fraction of the overall typo checking, since many things depend on context (eg "its" / "it's").
Would this be best implemented as a system tool, or as a seperate script (like the Eason's Bible Dictionary import)?
-- tarquin
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! News - Today's headlines http://news.yahoo.com
At 20:40 13.09.2002, tarquin argued thusly:
It looks like he may become a regular, I don't want to scare him away!
I hope he will become a regular - the sheer amount of knowledge he has on different characters of [[Greek mythology]] amazes me. His/her user page seems empty though, are there any replies on the user talk page?
regards, [[WojPob]]
--- tarquin tarquin@planetunreal.com wrote:
could someone with more tact and diplomacy than me point out nicely to user Tucci528 that in many of his recent articles he has spelt "received" as "recieved"? I hesitated to do this myself yesterday when I corrected some of them -- if I mention it to him he'll probably think I'm biting his head off. It looks like he may become a regular, I don't want to scare him away! (I hope he's not on the list yet!) thanks
tarquin
:-))) Please Tarquin, when I spell refered instead of referred and developped instead of developed, please tell me or add it in the comment box. I will never myself eat your head off.
Amicalement,
Anth�re
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! News - Today's headlines http://news.yahoo.com
--- Jason Khendon Williams jason@jasonandali.org.uk wrote:
Can somebody explain *exactly* what the problem with pseudonyms is?
There is absolutely no problem with using pseudonyms on Wikipedia. Many good contributors choose to use them for a number of reasons, and you should feel free to do so as well.
Stephen Gilbert
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! News - Today's headlines http://news.yahoo.com
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org