---- Original message ----
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 12:31:36 -0800 From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Death to the comma count! To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org
Takuya Murata wrote:
Only my concern is that we should not make a decision in
the
place where people can't participate. Yes, every one can discuss here but only if they speak English. It seems most of wikipedians in ja.wikipedia knows almost nothing about what is going on the administration stage like here or village pump in en.wikipedia.
If you are talking about only en.wikipedia (since this mailing list is in English), forgive me about my misunderstanding.
My suspecion is that we should stop using universal system for all of editions. Different languages need different coordination. The couting artciels should depend on the language of edition. Therefore, the discussion here should be irrelevant and we should move this to each wikipedia's village pump.
There are very few rules that should apply across all
language
Wikipedias. Perhaps some very serious things like NPOV or
not insulting
each other, but in most areas I agree with your intent.
At the same time, the much larger number of participants in
the English
Wikipedia means that more subjects get discussed with a
wider range of
opinions.
Needless to say, we can't use this as excuse for ignoring the minority.
When much later an issue arises in one of the other
languages it would
be a good idea for somebody to translate a summary of the
English
discussion with a fair representation of all sides. After
that there is
no need to come to the same conclusion as the English
speakers.
I more like United Nations style than that of federal government and states in the United States. We probably should reflect the opinion of each edition not convey the central opinion to each.
Takuya Murata wrote:
I more like United Nations style than that of federal government and states in the United States. We probably should reflect the opinion of each edition not convey the central opinion to each.
Well, I think that this analogy is stretched, but some things like NPOV and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (not a joke book, not political propaganda, etc.) are non-negotiable. I'll also stick up for the rights of individual contributors to NPOV articles even under the risk of going against their government or popularity in their home country.
At the same time, I do recognize the need for local variation due to cultural differences, etc.
So I think that the "Federal" model is better than the "UN" model. But I really don't care for the analogy much, particularly not in these times of global tension.
--Jimbo
Takuya Murata wrote:
I more like United Nations style than that of federal government and states in the United States. We probably should reflect the opinion of each edition not convey the central opinion to each.
They both have flaws US system with electoral college? UN system with Security Council vetos? ☮ Eclecticology
Various topics - not page count (My responses with >>>)
SYSOP:JIM: But there is a side-effect that isn't good, i.e. the notion of sysops having special authority over non-sysop users.
I wouldnt worry too much about accusations of "tyrrany" - alot of these
come from the antagonist-anarchisticts.. who operate under their own assumptions about how the world and everything in it should or shouldnt work.
SYSOP: ED: (Danny?)I would also oppose giving out random sysop to everyone who posts here. Our most recently banned contributor, Clutch, was also a frequent poster on this list. Would that have made him a sysop too?
First of all, I think we need to have summaries written up as 'case
histories' for each user banned, written NPOV... so LIR's page would not be summed up by Zoe, for example, or anyone else who had animosities with.. Second, Clutch got out of hand, But then, once again so do others.. It was I who in large part suggested taking some action... and immediately after an edit war with me, he was banned.. I cant help but think that his political persuasions didnt help him any. His crime was nothing more than getting frustrated, and using increasingly POV language in articles...out of frustration with equally POV people.
IE:JIM: Generally, yes, but in terms of the actual details, he could probably use some help figuring out exactly what the license requires. I think it's sort of complicated.
Not to mention its overall purpose: Does it attract or detract from
Wikipedia?
IE:FRED: Will it fail? I certainly hope it is only a modest success, not sure I could afford a big success like Wikipedia.
Maybe.
PWS:JIM:"Segregation" implies a lot, in American English. It's not a very friendly word to use in a context like this.
Yeah, I used it.. And I did it not to stir up bees. I noticed there has
been no answer to my assertion that pressures on Susan, based on accusations of racism, were misplaced.
IMAGE USE:JIM: This is just wrong. I strongly encourage people not to follow this kind of advice here. What kind of permission is asked? The only acceptable permission for us is quite strong: the image needs to be released under the GNU FDL, or under some compatible conditions.
Understood. I guess this just means, WP will be light on images... a
better safe than sorry policy then?
SUSAN:TONY:pleaded to have Vera Cruz banned. She was driving me and a whole stack of other people absolutely crazy. But Susan Mason is doing OK. It's still early days and she's looked at that invisible line a couple of times, but not crossed it.
Very well said. And s a general rule; My degree of pissed doesnt
necessarily correlate with their degree of offense.
KANJI:JIM:The argument that people should learn Kanji at a young age is basically irrelevant in this context, since I've seen your Kanji, I know what they link to, but I have no idea what the Kanji themselves are.(1) ..... I for one would not. If I were writing in the Japanese wikipedia, I would write my name in katakana, (2) as a gesture of professionalism, kindness, and respect. But this is all pretty irrelevant, isn't it? (4.) Stevertigo is not doing this to preserve the traditions of his parents, but to be cutesy.
- accustomization. 2. Well thats you. 3. Its not worth even discussing.
4.) . cutesy? Hmm. I dont think exporing a 3000 year-old system of ideographs, and sharing this exploration in some small way with the community, however inconvenient, is "cutesy." As for heritage, what human heritage is not mine?
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org