Larry Sanger has again written at length about the history of Wikipedia in two articles posted on Slashdot.
Part I : http://features.slashdot.org/features/05/04/18/164213.shtml?tid=95
Part II : http://features.slashdot.org/features/05/04/19/1746205.shtml?tid=95&tid=...
Some blogworld commentary is at http://www.corante.com/many/archives/2005/04/18/sanger_on_wikipedia.php
- including a follow-up by Sanger, giving his take on the "was he or wasn't he the co-founder" debate, in particular
"I was virtually always referred to as a co-founder until last year. What has changed?
Wikipedia was my idea (in the very robust sense explained in my memoir), its main founding principles were in large part mine and enforced by me, and I did more than anyone to organize it. It simply would not have existed if I had started it, indeed while being employed by Jimmy. It was on that basis that I was for several years credibly and repeatedly called "co-founder" of the project.
The fact that I was Jimmy's employee, which I freely admit, does not mean I was not also a co-founder of the project.
Until last year, again, this was my honorific, and until this year, nobody has bothered questioning it. I wonder why."
Pete
Perhaps people began questioning it when they notice that he only uses the honorific to get press for his criticisms of a project that he does not contribute to, and in fact seems to have only contributed to when it was financially useful to him to do so.
-Snowspinner
On Apr 19, 2005, at 5:14 PM, Pete/Pcb21 wrote:
Larry Sanger has again written at length about the history of Wikipedia in two articles posted on Slashdot.
Part I : http://features.slashdot.org/features/05/04/18/164213.shtml?tid=95
Part II : http://features.slashdot.org/features/05/04/19/1746205.shtml? tid=95&tid=149&tid=9
Some blogworld commentary is at http://www.corante.com/many/archives/2005/04/18/ sanger_on_wikipedia.php
- including a follow-up by Sanger, giving his take on the "was he or
wasn't he the co-founder" debate, in particular
"I was virtually always referred to as a co-founder until last year. What has changed?
Wikipedia was my idea (in the very robust sense explained in my memoir), its main founding principles were in large part mine and enforced by me, and I did more than anyone to organize it. It simply would not have existed if I had started it, indeed while being employed by Jimmy. It was on that basis that I was for several years credibly and repeatedly called "co-founder" of the project.
The fact that I was Jimmy's employee, which I freely admit, does not mean I was not also a co-founder of the project.
Until last year, again, this was my honorific, and until this year, nobody has bothered questioning it. I wonder why."
Pete
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Pete/Pcb21 wrote:
Larry Sanger has again written at length about the history of Wikipedia in two articles posted on Slashdot.
[snip]
- including a follow-up by Sanger, giving his take on the "was he or
wasn't he the co-founder" debate, in particular
I don't think any reasonable person would object to calling Larry a "co-founder of Wikipedia". To call one troll on a blog comment a "debate" is to blow things extraordinarily out of proportion.
Larry hasn't been involved in the project in some three years (3/4 of its lifetime), and most Wikipedians today have had little or no interaction with Larry. As a result, he's seen now as an outsider, and his criticisms are easily (mis)interpreted as attacks against a community he's not part of.
I've only skimmed these posts, but they seem to boil down to historical trivia ("we had 24 articles not 12!") and saying we should do things that are already on the roadmap (eg, a more formally-vetted release in addition to the rough-and-tumble development Wikipedia).
It'd be nice if people could avoid making a mountain out of a molehill over this. Larry's not our enemy.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Hasn't Jimbo indicated a preference for not calling Larry a co-founder?
-Snowspinner
On Apr 19, 2005, at 5:40 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
Pete/Pcb21 wrote:
Larry Sanger has again written at length about the history of Wikipedia in two articles posted on Slashdot.
[snip]
- including a follow-up by Sanger, giving his take on the "was he or
wasn't he the co-founder" debate, in particular
I don't think any reasonable person would object to calling Larry a "co-founder of Wikipedia". To call one troll on a blog comment a "debate" is to blow things extraordinarily out of proportion.
Larry hasn't been involved in the project in some three years (3/4 of its lifetime), and most Wikipedians today have had little or no interaction with Larry. As a result, he's seen now as an outsider, and his criticisms are easily (mis)interpreted as attacks against a community he's not part of.
I've only skimmed these posts, but they seem to boil down to historical trivia ("we had 24 articles not 12!") and saying we should do things that are already on the roadmap (eg, a more formally-vetted release in addition to the rough-and-tumble development Wikipedia).
It'd be nice if people could avoid making a mountain out of a molehill over this. Larry's not our enemy.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com) _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 4/20/05, Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Hasn't Jimbo indicated a preference for not calling Larry a co-founder?
FWIW,
"It is not correct to say that 'With Larry Sanger, Wales in 2001 founded...' I founded Wikipedia, Larry just worked for me. The idea for using a wiki orginally came to me from an employee -- Jeremy Rosenfeld. I am adding a note to the Bomis article's talk page about this one as well." --Jimbo Wales 18:52, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jimmy_Wales#I_wa%20s_.2Athis_close.2A_to_e...
On Apr 19, 2005, at 5:40 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
Pete/Pcb21 wrote:
Larry Sanger has again written at length about the history of Wikipedia in two articles posted on Slashdot.
[snip]
- including a follow-up by Sanger, giving his take on the "was he or
wasn't he the co-founder" debate, in particular
I don't think any reasonable person would object to calling Larry a "co-founder of Wikipedia". To call one troll on a blog comment a "debate" is to blow things extraordinarily out of proportion.
Larry hasn't been involved in the project in some three years (3/4 of its lifetime), and most Wikipedians today have had little or no interaction with Larry. As a result, he's seen now as an outsider, and his criticisms are easily (mis)interpreted as attacks against a community he's not part of.
I've only skimmed these posts, but they seem to boil down to historical trivia ("we had 24 articles not 12!") and saying we should do things that are already on the roadmap (eg, a more formally-vetted release in addition to the rough-and-tumble development Wikipedia).
It'd be nice if people could avoid making a mountain out of a molehill over this. Larry's not our enemy.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com) _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Brion Vibber wrote:
I've only skimmed these posts, but they seem to boil down to historical trivia ("we had 24 articles not 12!") and saying we should do things
Actually the article is a lot better than that. It's an important piece of history in the writing. I'm looking forward to the book. Larry is very careful to point out that he is Wikipedia's friend and I see no conflict.
He started it as a test, and it snowballed out of control. Nobody could predict its popularity. Larry to me seems like a hesitant Martin Luther who says "wait, I didn't want to start a new church, only reform the old one!" But nobody wants to wait.
Lars Aronsson wrote:
He started it as a test, and it snowballed out of control. Nobody could predict its popularity. Larry to me seems like a hesitant Martin Luther who says "wait, I didn't want to start a new church, only reform the old one!" But nobody wants to wait.
The original idea for a wiki for Wikipedia was not proposed by Larry, but by Jeremy Rosenfeld.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Lars Aronsson wrote:
He started it as a test, and it snowballed out of control. Nobody could predict its popularity. Larry to me seems like a hesitant Martin Luther who says "wait, I didn't want to start a new church, only reform the old one!" But nobody wants to wait.
The original idea for a wiki for Wikipedia was not proposed by Larry, but by Jeremy Rosenfeld.
Heh. Imagine:
Jimbo: "OK, guys. What should we call our new project?" Larry Sanger: "How about 'Wikipedia'?" Jimbo: "That sounds cool. But how is it going to work?" Jeremy Rosenfeld: "I have an idea! Let's use a wiki!" Jimbo: "Brilliant! Jeremy, you're the man!" Larry Sanger: "But it was *my* idea!"
...
Timwi wrote:
Heh. Imagine:
Jimbo: "OK, guys. What should we call our new project?" Larry Sanger: "How about 'Wikipedia'?" Jimbo: "That sounds cool. But how is it going to work?" Jeremy Rosenfeld: "I have an idea! Let's use a wiki!" Jimbo: "Brilliant! Jeremy, you're the man!" Larry Sanger: "But it was *my* idea!"
Can we work a secret porn business into the script somehow? =]
-Mark
On 4/25/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Timwi wrote:
Heh. Imagine:
Jimbo: "OK, guys. What should we call our new project?" Larry Sanger: "How about 'Wikipedia'?" Jimbo: "That sounds cool. But how is it going to work?" Jeremy Rosenfeld: "I have an idea! Let's use a wiki!" Jimbo: "Brilliant! Jeremy, you're the man!" Larry Sanger: "But it was *my* idea!"
Can we work a secret porn business into the script somehow? =]
-Mark
Shhh, don't say the p-word! Gmail filtered your e-mail as spam! Maybe it'll start doing the same with the rest of wikipedia-l mails once it sees the connection ...
Bjarte Sorensen
Another reason not to say the p-word: It will invoke the wrath of Jimmy Wales for using "porn" and "Wikipedia" in the same e-mail.
Bjarte, my suggestion is to add a reverse-filter so that all e-mails from Wikipedia-l are safe.
Anyhow back to my point. Wikipedia is somehow related to Bomis historically, right? This is a well-established fact, no? It says it pretty much everywhere.
Jimbo himself admits that Bomis deals in porn (although it accounts for less than 10% of their revenue), and people who are having troubles finding the actual porn as opposed to just the Babe Report are advised to go to http://premium.bomis.com (a pay site).
Thus, I don't see where he gets the idea that the things people are saying are wrong. And why did he just say "you're wrong" instead of explaining, even after Ant asked him for an explanation? He has sent me increasingly rude private e-mails as well rather than discuss it calmly on the list.
Mark
On 25/04/05, Bjarte Sørensen bjarte.sorensen@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/25/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Timwi wrote:
Heh. Imagine:
Jimbo: "OK, guys. What should we call our new project?" Larry Sanger: "How about 'Wikipedia'?" Jimbo: "That sounds cool. But how is it going to work?" Jeremy Rosenfeld: "I have an idea! Let's use a wiki!" Jimbo: "Brilliant! Jeremy, you're the man!" Larry Sanger: "But it was *my* idea!"
Can we work a secret porn business into the script somehow? =]
-Mark
Shhh, don't say the p-word! Gmail filtered your e-mail as spam! Maybe it'll start doing the same with the rest of wikipedia-l mails once it sees the connection ...
Bjarte Sorensen _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Mark Williamson wrote:
Anyhow back to my point. Wikipedia is somehow related to Bomis historically, right? This is a well-established fact, no? It says it pretty much everywhere.
Jimbo himself admits that Bomis deals in porn (although it accounts for less than 10% of their revenue).
Thus, I don't see where he gets the idea that the things people are saying are wrong. And why did he just say "you're wrong" instead of explaining, even after Ant asked him for an explanation? He has sent me increasingly rude private e-mails as well rather than discuss it calmly on the list.
One needs to make a distinction between the historical past and its consequences.
I have no personal knowledge of the underlying facts, but for the sake of argument I'm willing to accept that what you say is all true. It then comes down to a matter of "So what?"
At the rate you're going we shouldn't be recognizing Australia as a country because it was established by convicts.
Ec
It's quite different than your Australia example actually.
I have acknowledged that it makes no particular difference to me either way, but as I said I favour a policy of full disclosure.
The biggest difference is is that Australia is recognised by most Australians even to have been founded by convicts and those who worked to support the prison system, while Jimbo steadfastly denies what I have said.
He has told me how shocked he is that I'd say something like that, how wrong I am, how I shouldn't say things when I don't know what I'm talking about, and has even said that I have accused him publicly of being a pornographer.
Yet, while telling me how wrong I am and that I don't know what I'm talking about, and how he's shocked that I would say such things, he quietly sits not divulging exactly how it's wrong and what the right version is, and until such time as he does so I see no reason to not tell people the same old story over and over - without an explanation, why should I believe that what he says is real? As I said before there is an undeniable connection that Jimbo seems to want to deny: Bomis sells porn (although it gets "less than 10%" of its revenue from it), and Bomis was involved in the beginning of Wikipedia. That doesn't mean Wikipedia is a pornographic encyclopedia, or an encyclopedia of porn, or an encyclopedia founded by pornographers and supported mostly by money from porn sales - all it means is just that: the company that was the primary involved party in the beginning of Wikipedia, and in which Jimmy Wales still plays a large part, does have a "premium" website where it sells access to pornographic images. That doesn't mean anything about the objectivity of Wikipedia, on the contrary Wikipedia (at least en:) seems to be turning into Wikipedia - The Prudish Encyclopedia.
Mark
On 25/04/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Mark Williamson wrote:
Anyhow back to my point. Wikipedia is somehow related to Bomis historically, right? This is a well-established fact, no? It says it pretty much everywhere.
Jimbo himself admits that Bomis deals in porn (although it accounts for less than 10% of their revenue).
Thus, I don't see where he gets the idea that the things people are saying are wrong. And why did he just say "you're wrong" instead of explaining, even after Ant asked him for an explanation? He has sent me increasingly rude private e-mails as well rather than discuss it calmly on the list.
One needs to make a distinction between the historical past and its consequences.
I have no personal knowledge of the underlying facts, but for the sake of argument I'm willing to accept that what you say is all true. It then comes down to a matter of "So what?"
At the rate you're going we shouldn't be recognizing Australia as a country because it was established by convicts.
Ec
He has told me how shocked he is that I'd say something like that, how wrong I am, how I shouldn't say things when I don't know what I'm talking about, and has even said that I have accused him publicly of being a pornographer.
Yet, while telling me how wrong I am and that I don't know what I'm talking about, and how he's shocked that I would say such things, he quietly sits not divulging exactly how it's wrong and what the right version is, and until such time as he does so I see no reason to not tell people the same old story over and over - without an explanation, why should I believe that what he says is real? As I said before there is an undeniable connection that Jimbo seems to want to deny: Bomis sells porn (although it gets "less than 10%" of its revenue from it), and Bomis was involved in the beginning of Wikipedia. That doesn't mean Wikipedia is a pornographic encyclopedia, or an encyclopedia of porn, or an encyclopedia founded by pornographers and supported mostly by money from porn sales - all it means is just that: the company that was the primary involved party in the beginning of Wikipedia, and in which Jimmy Wales still plays a large part, does have a "premium" website where it sells access to pornographic images. That doesn't mean anything about the objectivity of Wikipedia, on the contrary Wikipedia (at least en:) seems to be turning into Wikipedia - The Prudish Encyclopedia.
Mark,
Why do you presume (as you apparently do) that Jimmy owes you or anyone else any explanation? You admit that the nature of Bomis' business has nothing to do with Wikipedia's content and goals. Why do you find it necessary to tell *any* story to others? Is there any need to go beyond what is contained in [[W:en:Bomis]]?
Substitute "pornography" for "erotic images" if you prefer...the distinction often seems to be POV anyway. Why does more need to be said?
What I'm asking is, why is this so important to you? Up until now I have been only an observer in this thread...and it seems like you're just trying to stir up controversy. I don't *believe* that's what you're doing, but I sure am puzzled as to what your motive actually is.
-- Rich Holton
[[W:en:User:Rholton]]
On 25/04/05, Richard Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
He has told me how shocked he is that I'd say something like that, how wrong I am, how I shouldn't say things when I don't know what I'm talking about, and has even said that I have accused him publicly of being a pornographer.
Yet, while telling me how wrong I am and that I don't know what I'm talking about, and how he's shocked that I would say such things, he quietly sits not divulging exactly how it's wrong and what the right version is, and until such time as he does so I see no reason to not tell people the same old story over and over - without an explanation, why should I believe that what he says is real? As I said before there is an undeniable connection that Jimbo seems to want to deny: Bomis sells porn (although it gets "less than 10%" of its revenue from it), and Bomis was involved in the beginning of Wikipedia. That doesn't mean Wikipedia is a pornographic encyclopedia, or an encyclopedia of porn, or an encyclopedia founded by pornographers and supported mostly by money from porn sales - all it means is just that: the company that was the primary involved party in the beginning of Wikipedia, and in which Jimmy Wales still plays a large part, does have a "premium" website where it sells access to pornographic images. That doesn't mean anything about the objectivity of Wikipedia, on the contrary Wikipedia (at least en:) seems to be turning into Wikipedia - The Prudish Encyclopedia.
Mark,
Why do you presume (as you apparently do) that Jimmy owes you or anyone else any explanation? You admit that the nature of Bomis' business has nothing to do with Wikipedia's content and goals. Why do you find it necessary to tell *any* story to others? Is there any need to go beyond what is contained in [[W:en:Bomis]]?
If he is going to continue to tell me I am wrong, don't know what I'm talking about, that he's shocked that I would say such things, he had better either tell me what the truth is or just learn to live with the currentversion cemented in my mind which I tell all who ask about the history of Wikipedia.
So, if he didn't tell me I was wrong or didn't know what I'm talking about, or that he's shocked, or whatever, but just that "I don't really remember it that way, but you can tell it as you'd like", I'd not expect any sort of explanation from him.
Substitute "pornography" for "erotic images" if you prefer...the distinction often seems to be POV anyway. Why does more need to be said?
Sure. But if I recall correctly the term Jimbo used to say that less than 10% of Bomis' revenue is from that... portion of their business, he said "pornography"... but I honestly don't remember.
What I'm asking is, why is this so important to you? Up until now I have been only an observer in this thread...and it seems like you're just trying to stir up controversy. I don't *believe* that's what you're doing, but I sure am puzzled as to what your motive actually is.
My motive is that, Jimbo has told me to quit telling falsehoods, that I am wrong, I don't know what I'm talking about, and even that he's shocked that I would say such things, yet refuses to tell me what the actual truth is. If this thread goes dormant, I'm not going to just keep adding e-mails onto the end until he tells me, but as long as there are still messages that I feel warrant a response, I will probably reply to them.
If you'll recall correctly, all I said originally was some short barely-a-sentence thing about "believe it or not". Then Jimbo made a fuss - so remember, it's Jimbo who turned this into a ruckus, not me - and refused to explain himself. If he is going to go around telling me I'm wrong, I think I have a right to know how I'm wrong, otherwise he will have to learn to live with the status quo.
Mark
Mark Williamson a écrit:
Another reason not to say the p-word: It will invoke the wrath of Jimmy Wales for using "porn" and "Wikipedia" in the same e-mail.
Bjarte, my suggestion is to add a reverse-filter so that all e-mails from Wikipedia-l are safe.
Anyhow back to my point. Wikipedia is somehow related to Bomis historically, right? This is a well-established fact, no? It says it pretty much everywhere.
Jimbo himself admits that Bomis deals in porn (although it accounts for less than 10% of their revenue), and people who are having troubles finding the actual porn as opposed to just the Babe Report are advised to go to http://premium.bomis.com (a pay site).
Thus, I don't see where he gets the idea that the things people are saying are wrong. And why did he just say "you're wrong" instead of explaining, even after Ant asked him for an explanation? He has sent me increasingly rude private e-mails as well rather than discuss it calmly on the list.
Mark
I am quite confident that he will explain it to me one day, perhaps in France in front of a beer this summer. I am preparing the grass (mostly weeds actually) and the flowers (these are neat) and the outside wood-table (this one is perfect now) so that the environnement is good for talking of such things.
The list might not be the perfect place to talk about it possibly ?
May I suggest that you drop the matter for now Mark ? I think it is getting a bit heavy possibly and visibly you wont get any more answers by asking more.
I think.
Cheers
Anthere
I am quite confident that he will explain it to me one day, perhaps in France in front of a beer this summer. I am preparing the grass (mostly weeds actually) and the flowers (these are neat) and the outside wood-table (this one is perfect now) so that the environnement is good for talking of such things.
I have no trouble imagining the scene except for one jarring detail -- beer?!? A conversation over a wooden table in a French pastoral setting may include vin ordinaire, sure; un petit café, certainly; but beer is all wrong for that mise en scène.
Please correct this detail in your final draft.
Sean Barrett a écrit:
I am quite confident that he will explain it to me one day, perhaps in France in front of a beer this summer. I am preparing the grass (mostly weeds actually) and the flowers (these are neat) and the outside wood-table (this one is perfect now) so that the environnement is good for talking of such things.
I have no trouble imagining the scene except for one jarring detail -- beer?!? A conversation over a wooden table in a French pastoral setting may include vin ordinaire, sure; un petit café, certainly; but beer is all wrong for that mise en scène.
Please correct this detail in your final draft.
depends of the hour...
during lunch, that would be rose wine After lunch, café during dinner, when it is already dark, red wine
Before lunch or dinner, in summer, I would rather choose a pastis with a bit of sirop d'orgeat. And ice. Right, I lived in Marseille ;-)
But in the afternoon... a beer, or even a little pcb is nice...
After dinner, strong alcoohol, but usually, by then... I am cooked.
note...pcb stands for picon citron bière... picon is a traditional mixture of plants. When there is only regular beer left in the fridge, that is a good solution...
Anthere wrote:
But in the afternoon... a beer, or even a little pcb is nice...
:-) !
[..] note...pcb stands for picon citron bière...
Oh, :-(.
Actually PCB is a very versatile little TLA - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCB
Pete/Pcb21
Pete/Pcb21 a écrit:
Anthere wrote:
But in the afternoon... a beer, or even a little pcb is nice...
:-) !
[..] note...pcb stands for picon citron bière...
Oh, :-(.
Actually PCB is a very versatile little TLA - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCB
Pete/Pcb2 1
Oh sorry ;-)
French people do drink a reasonable amount of beer per year... in particular belgium beer which is really tasty. Little comparison with american beer... I actually graduated from a school specialised in beer making...
....
by the way ... do you know the differnce between american beer and making love in a canoe ?
Anthere
by the way ... do you know the differnce between american beer and making love in a canoe ?
Yes, and I must confess that it's true.
Anthere wrote:
Pete/Pcb21 a écrit:
Anthere wrote:
But in the afternoon... a beer, or even a little pcb is nice...
:-) !
[..] note...pcb stands for picon citron bière...
Oh, :-(.
Actually PCB is a very versatile little TLA - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCB
Pete/Pcb2
Oh sorry ;-)
French people do drink a reasonable amount of beer per year... in particular belgium beer which is really tasty. Little comparison with american beer... I actually graduated from a school specialised in beer making...
"Reasonable" amount depends on your POV.
by the way ... do you know the differnce between american beer and making love in a canoe ?
Anthere
I've heard of the Monty Python similarity (rather than the difference). They're both fucking close to water.
For Canadians, whom Pierre Berton defined as people who "can make love in a canoe", drinking American beer would likely not have any effect on that ability.
Ec
Ray Saintonge a écrit:
Anthere wrote:
Pete/Pcb21 a écrit:
Anthere wrote:
But in the afternoon... a beer, or even a little pcb is nice...
:-) !
[..] note...pcb stands for picon citron bière...
Oh, :-(.
Actually PCB is a very versatile little TLA - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCB
Pete/Pcb2
Oh sorry ;-)
French people do drink a reasonable amount of beer per year... in particular belgium beer which is really tasty. Little comparison with american beer... I actually graduated from a school specialised in beer making...
"Reasonable" amount depends on your POV.
by the way ... do you know the differnce between american beer and making love in a canoe ?
Anthere
I've heard of the Monty Python similarity (rather than the difference). They're both fucking close to water.
For Canadians, whom Pierre Berton defined as people who "can make love in a canoe", drinking American beer would likely not have any effect on that ability.
E c
valuable second comment... :-)
Anthere wrote:
French people do drink a reasonable amount of beer per year... in particular belgium beer which is really tasty. Little comparison with american beer... I actually graduated from a school specialised in beer making...
Getting off-topic, but this isn't really true anymore unless you only look at Budweiser. The US is now among the world's largest producers of premium/specialty beers---just California alone produces more top-quality microbrews than most countries, and if current trends hold, the US will in not too long produce more Belgian beer than Belgium does.
More information at [[en:Microbrew]] and [[en:List of commercial brands of beer#USA]] :-)
-Mark
Delirium a écrit:
Anthere wrote:
French people do drink a reasonable amount of beer per year... in particular belgium beer which is really tasty. Little comparison with american beer... I actually graduated from a school specialised in beer making...
Getting off-topic, but this isn't really true anymore unless you only look at Budweiser. The US is now among the world's largest producers of premium/specialty beers---just California alone produces more top-quality microbrews than most countries, and if current trends hold, the US will in not too long produce more Belgian beer than Belgium does.
More information at [[en:Microbrew]] and [[en:List of commercial brands of beer#USA]] :-)
-Mark
large amounts do not automatically implies a certain quality of heavyness... look at german beer ;-)
Well I would be happy to try that out next time I go in California... :-)
Delirium a écrit:
Anthere wrote:
French people do drink a reasonable amount of beer per year... in particular belgium beer which is really tasty. Little comparison with american beer... I actually graduated from a school specialised in beer making...
Getting off-topic, but this isn't really true anymore unless you only look at Budweiser. The US is now among the world's largest producers of premium/specialty beers---just California alone produces more top-quality microbrews than most countries, and if current trends hold, the US will in not too long produce more Belgian beer than Belgium does.
More information at [[en:Microbrew]] and [[en:List of commercial brands of beer#USA]] :-)
-Mark
large amounts do not automatically implies a certain quality of heavyness... look at german beer ;-)
Well I would be happy to try that out next time I go in California... :-)
I'll put up [[Full Sail Brewing Company]]'s seasonal [[Pilsener]] against [[Pilsner Urquell]] any day.
Oh, and thank you Anthere for your tactful opening of this door. It's an excellent example of the diplomatic skills required of a board member.
On 4/27/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Anthere wrote: The US is now among the world's largest producers of premium/specialty beers---just California alone produces more top-quality microbrews than most countries, and if current trends hold, the US will in not too long produce more Belgian beer than Belgium does.
As much as I love US microbrews, this is not quite a valid comparison. They've produced lots of good pale ales and stouts. However, Chimay, Duvel and other Trappist-style beers have a taste and appeal all their own that have no equivalent in the States.
I have a relative who used to be brewmaster at one of Budweiser's plants in the US. Needless to say, we don't talk much to that side of the family.
-User:Fuzheado
Andrew Lih wrote:
On 4/27/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Anthere wrote: The US is now among the world's largest producers of premium/specialty beers---just California alone produces more top-quality microbrews than most countries, and if current trends hold, the US will in not too long produce more Belgian beer than Belgium does.
As much as I love US microbrews, this is not quite a valid comparison. They've produced lots of good pale ales and stouts. However, Chimay, Duvel and other Trappist-style beers have a taste and appeal all their own that have no equivalent in the States.
There's actually quite a lot of quite good Trappist-style beers produced in the U.S., and it's one of the fastest-growing parts of the U.S. beer industry (since they're expensive beers that command high profit margins). Whether they are "equivalent" or not depends on your taste I suppose.... I've had very good and very bad Belgian-style beer in both the U.S. and in Belgium. Probably the easiest to find nationally are New Belgium Brewery's Abbey ales, but there are at least a dozen or so others. Some of Ommergang's beers are also fairly interesting blends of Belgian yeasts and techniques with American influences.
Err, I suppose this thread isn't about Sanger's memoirs anymore eh?
-Mark
Hi,
yesterday on the Italian television La7 during the 8pm News there was an interview to an Italian women about Wikipedia.
She very favourable presented it. She even said that Wikipedia allows to anyone copy some articles publishing them as own book.
Ciao, Nino
The Italian women thanks you :-)
Frieda
On 4/27/05, pinco pinco@kiesperanto.org wrote:
Hi,
yesterday on the Italian television La7 during the 8pm News there was an interview to an Italian women about Wikipedia.
She very favourable presented it. She even said that Wikipedia allows to anyone copy some articles publishing them as own book.
Ciao, Nino
-- http://www.vessella.it (italiano, esperanto, kiswahili, english) http://www.changamano.org (Iniziative di solidarietà per la Tanzania) http://www.lernado.it (Articoli di quotidiani della Tanzania, Corso di lingua swahili, Corso di lingua esperanto, Vocabolario esperanto-italiano, Jifunze lugha ya Kiesperanto, Kamusi ya Kiesperanto)
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 4/27/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Andrew Lih wrote:
On 4/27/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Anthere wrote: The US is now among the world's largest producers of premium/specialty beers---just California alone produces more top-quality microbrews than most countries, and if current trends hold, the US will in not too long produce more Belgian beer than Belgium does.
As much as I love US microbrews, this is not quite a valid comparison. They've produced lots of good pale ales and stouts. However, Chimay, Duvel and other Trappist-style beers have a taste and appeal all their own that have no equivalent in the States.
There's actually quite a lot of quite good Trappist-style beers produced in the U.S., and it's one of the fastest-growing parts of the U.S. beer industry (since they're expensive beers that command high profit margins). Whether they are "equivalent" or not depends on your taste I suppose.... I've had very good and very bad Belgian-style beer in both
hijacking, but what exactly is Belgian style beer? (since I know at least 4 different styles in Belgium :))
As much as I love US microbrews, this is not quite a valid comparison. They've produced lots of good pale ales and stouts. However, Chimay, Duvel and other Trappist-style beers have a taste and appeal all their own that have no equivalent in the States.
If I may include our neighbors to the north, I'd say Unibroue gives Chimay a run for its money.
Ted
Lars Aronsson a écrit:
Brion Vibber wrote:
I've only skimmed these posts, but they seem to boil down to historical trivia ("we had 24 articles not 12!") and saying we should do things
Actually the article is a lot better than that. It's an important piece of history in the writing. I'm looking forward to the book. Larry is very careful to point out that he is Wikipedia's friend and I see no conflict.
He started it as a test, and it snowballed out of control. Nobody could predict its popularity. Larry to me seems like a hesitant Martin Luther who says "wait, I didn't want to start a new church, only reform the old one!" But nobody wants to wait.
Yo, I personally added the link to the retro page on meta two days ago. I think it is an important part of our history. Pov yes, but interesting.
Ant
Lars Aronsson wrote:
Brion Vibber wrote:
I've only skimmed these posts, but they seem to boil down to historical trivia ("we had 24 articles not 12!") and saying we should do things
Actually the article is a lot better than that. It's an important piece of history in the writing. I'm looking forward to the book. Larry is very careful to point out that he is Wikipedia's friend and I see no conflict.
The entire discussion is a perfect illustration of why we want to have a historian assemble all the individual and sometimes-conflicting accounts into a coherent story, publish it, then summarize *that* for WP's article about itself. Even though the events happened only a couple years ago, some of the relevant documents have apparently already disappeared, and everybody is having to dredge through their personal memories, which are less reliable.
Stan
Brion Vibber wrote:
I don't think any reasonable person would object to calling Larry a "co-founder of Wikipedia". To call one troll on a blog comment a "debate" is to blow things extraordinarily out of proportion.
Since Jimbo has explicitly objected to calling Larry a "co-founder of Wikipedia" several times, including in replies to one of Larry's Kuro5hin articles, I'm not sure how it's just "one troll". According to Jimbo, Larry neither co-founded Wikipedia nor proposed the idea of a wiki-based encyclopedia, but was merely an employee tasked with starting it up.
-Mark
Why, then, were there no objections from Jimbo before one year ago, at least that I know of?
Just because you have an idea, doesn't make you a founder.
Mark
On 19/04/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Brion Vibber wrote:
I don't think any reasonable person would object to calling Larry a "co-founder of Wikipedia". To call one troll on a blog comment a "debate" is to blow things extraordinarily out of proportion.
Since Jimbo has explicitly objected to calling Larry a "co-founder of Wikipedia" several times, including in replies to one of Larry's Kuro5hin articles, I'm not sure how it's just "one troll". According to Jimbo, Larry neither co-founded Wikipedia nor proposed the idea of a wiki-based encyclopedia, but was merely an employee tasked with starting it up.
-Mark
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Delirium a écrit:
Brion Vibber wrote:
I don't think any reasonable person would object to calling Larry a "co-founder of Wikipedia". To call one troll on a blog comment a "debate" is to blow things extraordinarily out of proportion.
Since Jimbo has explicitly objected to calling Larry a "co-founder of Wikipedia" several times, including in replies to one of Larry's Kuro5hin articles, I'm not sure how it's just "one troll". According to Jimbo, Larry neither co-founded Wikipedia nor proposed the idea of a wiki-based encyclopedia, but was merely an employee tasked with starting it up.
-Mark
Guys....
If it is to write in meta, just write Jimbo founded Wikipedia.
If it is to write in encyclopedia, respect NPOV and properly attribute opinion to each relevant person.
Use NPOV, even to report on us :-)
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org