Stirling Newberry schrieb:

I'm looking to interview various wikipedians for bopnews.com, if anyone is interested drop me an email.

Hi,

why don't you open a page on meta.wikipedia.org and ask your questions. That's how we did once in the past for a newspaper article and it did work.

Mathias

If I can be of any help, drop me a word at anthere7@yahoo.com.

ant

Stirling Newberry a écrit:

On Sep 14, 2004, at 2:01 PM, Mathias Schindler wrote:

...

Stirling Newberry schrieb:

...

I'm looking to interview various wikipedians for bopnews.com, if anyone is interested drop me an email.

Hi,

why don't you open a page on meta.wikipedia.org and ask your questions. That's how we did once in the past for a newspaper article and it did work.

Mathias

I may try the experiment at some point, but not at the present time.

On Sep 15, 2004, at 3:02 PM, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:

Stirling Newberry wrote:

...

I'm looking to interview various wikipedians for bopnews.com, if anyone is interested drop me an email.

Of course, I am always available for interview, 727-644-1636, I am on US east coast time, but don't let that worry you too much, I'm basically working on wikipedia stuff 12-16 hours a day these days.

--Jimbo (wikipedia founder) _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

I was hoping you would be interested - is there a time on Thursday or Friday that would be good to call?

On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 08:18:25AM -0700, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:

Oh, great, how clever of me to post my phone number on the net.

After you are allways traveling around Europe as it seems, it should bother you ;-)

ciao, tom

--- "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" jwales@wikia.com wrote:

Oh, great, how clever of me to post my phone number on the net.

Clever, clever marketer you...

BTW, wuzzup -> wikia?

===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/

__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Daniel Mayer wrote:

--- Benedikt Mandl benedikt.mandl@gmx.at wrote:

...

WikiSpecies in currently in the process of being launched as an official wikimedia project with an initial interface and basic functions at www.wikispecies.org/

A big thank you to everybody who contributed to the project so far, from the constructive discussion to the technical support. I hope that the interest in wikispecies will remain as high as it seems to be right now.

In order to allow an efficient communication between all those who are interested in wikispecies, a mainling list was created. To register at this mailing list, please go to:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikispecies-l

I hope many of you register and want to become part of an evolving wikispecies! Best,

What the hell is this? There was a lot of opposition to setting up a separate project. Who the hell authorized this?

This is NOT the way to set up a new project.

-- mav

_______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

Yes, you opposed it. The wikimedia board approved it; all votes were in favour. There was discussion, the arguments were weighed. What is your problem ?

Wikispecies is not a fork. It is not intended as a fork, it will prove not to be a fork.. Encyclopedic information is in the Wikipedias, Wikispecies will refer to the other projects as much as the other projects may refer to Wikispecies.

Thanks, GerardM

http://www.bopnews.com/archives/001558.html

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Daniel Mayer wrote:

Then what the hell is this:

http://species.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification

Looks like a fork of the English Wikipedia's article on scientific classification to me.

-- mav

I wasn't opposed to wikispecies' creation, but I am with Mav with this. As long as wikispecies is nothing more than a data repository it's ok, but if it starts to have detailed articles about classification and such that's clearly fork.

Of course an article like this is useful for wikispecies, if anything to clearly explain what's this wiki about. But it should redirect readers to the relevant Wikipedia article (english or otherwise).

Alfio

Why not observe the fact that there are hundreds of scientific classification of many disciplines called nomenclatures, or taxonomies or clssifictaion systems on living things and dead things (objects) and properties and relations, to name a few.

An unsorted load just snatched from the net for your kind information .

http://anthro.palomar.edu/animal/default.htm

Az élolények osztályozásáról szóló honlap, ismerteti a taxonómia elveit

az emberi osztályozás kategóriáira való koncentrálással. Sok link, és szakszószótár.

http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/iau-spec.html

A naprendszeren kívülrol érkezo csillagászati sugárzás források jelölésére szolgáló specifikációk

&

http://www.ciser.cornell.edu/ASPs/search_athena.asp

dot fájlok csak tagok számára

&

http://classweb.loc.gov/Auto/

kongresszusi könyvtári osztályozási rednszer,

elofizetéses használat

&

http://completedb.ttc.lv/%22%22+url+"'

complete ttc database

lett egyetem többnyelvu szótára

&

http://dbhs.wwusd.k12.ca.us/Nomenclature/Nomenclature.htm

Kémiai nommenklatúra kollégium

feladatainak tartalomjegyzéke

&

http://dir.yahoo.com/Science/Biology/Systematics_and_Taxonomy/

/Zoological_Nomenclature/

&

dot

dictionary of ocupational titles

már kommerszializálódott

&

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binominal_nomenclature

Wikipedia

többnyelvu enciklopédia

Bionimal nomenclature

biológiában a fajok megnevezésének szabványa

&

http://ep.llnl.gov/msds/orgchem/nomenclature.html

Nomenclature

linkgyüjtemény

&

http://fp.bio.utk.edu/mycology/Nomenclature/nom-intro.htm

Botanikai nómenklatúra

egyetemi bevezeto tananyag

&

fttp.dcs.shef.ac.uk/share/ilash/Moby/

a Moby projekt nyilvánosságra hozott

eredményei

moby hyphenator

moby language

moby part-of-speech

moby pronounciator

moby thesaurus

moby words

rpoject gutenbeng

http://gutenberg.net/browse/BIBREC/

&

google directory

subject-specific schemes

&

http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/taxonomy.html

A bológiai nómeklatúra különlegességei

&

http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/lab/TaxonomyLab.html

the nuts and bolts of taxonomy and

classification

tannyag

&

http://les.aston.ac.uk/extdic.html

external dictionaries and term bank links

többnyelvre

&

http://lheawww.gsfc.nasa.gov/users/allen/spectral_classification.html

the classification of stellar spectra

&

http://library.thinkquest.org/17940/atomic_nomenclature/atomic_nomeclature.h...

atomic nomenclature

könyvtári tájékoztató anyag

&

http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/lex/

lexical and classification resources

linkgyujtemény szótárakról és osztályozási

rendszerekrol

&

http://people.ouc.bc.ca/woodcock/nomenclature/index-2.htm

Basic Organic Nomenclature

alapveto szervesanyag nómenklatúra

&

http://planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov/

a bolygók nómenklatúrája

&

http://planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov/asteroids/gaspTOC.html

USGS

GASPRA Nomenclature

bolygk földrajzi nevei?

&

http://publish.aps.org/PACS/pacsgen.html

cikk az APS Journals-ban

Physics and Atsronomy Classification Scheme

(PACS)

letöltheto

&

http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/ts/my-zshop/

intelligent entertainment

oxford english dictionary

&

http://science.widener.edu/svb/pset/nome_b.html

Vegyi nómenklatúra

chemical nomenclature

&

http://ln.fi.edu/tfi/units/life/classify/classify.html

osztályozási tananyag, multimédiás,

gyerekeknek

&

http://tsk.fi/en/index.html

the finnish centre for technical terminology

&

http://us.expasy.org/enzyme/

Enzyme nomenclature database

&

http://uscode.house.gov/uscct.htm

amerikai törvéynek

united states code

classification tables

&

http://uwasa.fi/comm/termino/collect/

terminology collection

online dictionaries

&

http://vizier.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/Dic

Az égitestek nómenklatúra szótára

&

http://www.acdlabs.com/iupac/nomenclature/

IUPAC szerves kémia nómenklatúra

&

http://www.acm.org/class/1998/

The ACM computing classification sstem

(1998-as változat)

érvényes 2003-ban

&

http://www.acog.org/from_home/departments/dept_web.cfm?recno=6

ACOG

Coding and Nomenclature

american college of obstetricians and

gynecologists

&

http://www.ams.org/mathweb/mi-mathbyclass.html

matrials organized by mathematical subject

classification

&

http://www.amsta.leeds.ac.uk/~charles/statlog/

machine learning neural and statistical

clasfication

könyv letöltheto, eu projekt

&

http://www.amw.org/msc/

2000 Mathematics Subject Classification

&

http://www.andrews.com/kysc/terms.html

Nautical Nomenclature

vitorlázási szakkifejezések szószedete

a glossary of sailing terminology

&

http://www.arev.org

többnyelvu portál az eu sjogszabályokhoz

az európai bortermelo

régiók gyulése (arev)

&

http://www.astrolog.org/labyrinth/glossary.htm

labiirintus szótrá

labirintus algoritmuosk is vannak

&

http://www.bacterio.cict.fr/

baktétium nevek jegyzéke a nómenklatúrában

elfoglalt helyükkel együtt

&

http://www.bgbm.org/iapt/nomenclature/code/tokyo-e/default.htm

Botanikai nómeklatúra nemzetközi

kódja (a Tókió kód) aktuális változat neve

St. Louis Code

&

http://www.biodiversity.soton.ac.uk/sp2000/DynamicChecklistSearch.html

organizmusok tudományos nevét lehet

fobb cosportokban megkérdezni

&

http://www.biosis.org.uk/zrdocs/codes/codes.htm

Codes of Nomenclature

ide a woedbol az aktuálisakat

&

http://www.biosis.org.uk/zrdocs/zoolinfo/syst_tax.htm

Biosis

sytematics, taxonomy and Nomenclature

&

http://www.bls.gov/soc

US department of labour

standard occupational classification (soc)

system

feor

&

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/icd9.htm

National center for Health statistics

classifications of diseases and functioning

and diability

&

http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/naicod02htm

az ipari kódszámok és megnevezések

&

http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/naics.html

NAICS

North American Industry Classification system

&

http://www.chem.qmul.ac.uk/iupac/2carb/

Szénhidrátok nómenklatúrája

&

http://www.chem.qmw.ac.uk/iubmb/enzyme/

NC-IUBMB

enzim nómenklatúrája

&

http://www.chem.umr.edu/~poly/nomenclature.html

POLY - Nomenclature Committee

&

http://www.chem.vt.edu/RVGS/ACT/notes/Nmenclature.html

egyetemi jegyzet a vegyészeti

nómenklatúráról (nyelvrol)

&

http://www.chemqmw.ac.uk/iupac/

IUOPAC

elméleti és alkalmazott kémia

nemzetközi úniója

javaslatai

a szerves, biokémiai nómenklaúrára, jelekre

és terminológiára, stb.

&

http://www.classification-society.org/

international federation of classification

societies honlapja

&

www.clres.com/

Cpmputational lexicons research

naygon fontops anyagok

&

http://www.clres.com/singlex.html

acl special interest group

association for computational linguistics

nagyon jó linkek, resources

&

http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/~wn/

wordnet

a lexical database for the english language

online lexical refernce system

http://ftp-veluftp.cogsci.princeton.edu/pub/wordnet/

&

www.dagostini.it/patclass/patclass

olasz szabadalmi szám kereso hatnyelven

&

http://www.dsmz.de/bactnom/bactname.htm

DSMZ

legújabb baktréium nómenklatúra

&

http://www.dsmz.de/dsmzhome.htm

German Collection of Microorganisms and Cell

Cultures

&

http://www.econlit.org/subject_descriptors.html

econlit subject descriptor

gazdasági témakörök taxonomiája

&

http://www.english.bham.ac.uk/drc/

birmingham i egyetem

dictionary research centre

&

http://www.ens-lyon.fr/LBMC/laudet/nomenc.html

Nuclear Receptor Nomenclature Homepage

&

http://www.fgdc.gov/standards/status/sub5_8html

biologiai nómeklatúra és taxonómiai adat

szabványok

&

http://www.gene.ucl.ac.uk/nomenclature/

HUGO Gene

Nomenclatúra bizottság

minden emberi génnek értelmes nevet adó

szervezet

&

http://www.gene.ucl.ac.uk/nomenclature/guidelines.html

Guidelines fo Human gene Nomenclatue (2002)

&

http://www.gutenberg.net/

free online literature

&

http://www.gutenberg.net/

free online literature

&

http://www.hgvs.org/mutnomen/

Nomenclature for the description of sequence

variations

&

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/NNV/UN-NNV_ABC.html

Nomenclature of Naval Vessels

és hajózási értelmezo szakszótár

&

http://www.ibiblio.org/patents/

Index to manual classification of patents

&

http://www.iczn.org

Zoológiai nómenklatúra nemzetközi

bizotságának nómenklatúrája

a www.iczn.org/code.htm helyen

&

http://www.ifla.org/VII/s29/sci.htm

classification and indexing section of

international federation of library

associations and instituions

&

http://www.imm.ki.se/CYPalleles/

Human Cytochrome P450 (CYP) Allele

nómenklatúra bizottság

&

http://www.inform.umd.edu/PBIO/fam/revfam.html

Vascular Plant Family Nomenclature

&

http://www.inform.umd.edu/PBIO/pb250/nomc.html

PBIO 250 jegyzet

Nomenclature

nemzetközi botanikai névtan ICBN

&

http://www.informatics.jax.org/mgihome/nomen/

Mouse Nomenclature

Home Page

MGI MOuse Genome Informatics

&

http://www.ishs.org/sci/icralist/icralist.htm

Directory of ICRAs

International Cultivar

Authorities

ISHS Commission Registration

ISHS

International Society for Horticultural

Science and Nomenclature

&

http://www.iupac.org/divsions/IV/IV.1/

IUPAC

sucommittee on macromolecular terminology

&

http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/lcco/lcco.html

Library of congress classification outline

&

http://www.lub.lu.se/metadat/subject-help.html

controlled vocabularies, thesauri and

classification systems available in the www.

dc subject

dublin core

&

http://www.ma.hw.ac.uk/~chris/MR/MR.html

1991 mathematics subject classification

&

http://www.nauticom.net.users/jihall/bill/ions.htm

ion nómenklatúra

&

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ICTV/intro_to_universal/virus_nomenclature.html

Virus Nomenclature

&

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/nlmclassif.html

national library of medicine

nlm classification online

&

http://www.nps.gov/legacy/nomenclature.html

nemzeti park egységeinek rendszerbe foglalt

kategóriái, értelmezo szótár az egységekrol

&

http://www.nursingworld.org/ojin/tpc7_1.htm

ápolási módokról cikk és osztályozási

kategóriák

&

http://www.oclc.org/dewey/

Dewey Services

Dewey decimal Classification

&

http://www.opm.gov/fedclass/

office of peronnel management of the US gov

federal classification systems

munakkörök, foglalkozások besorolása

&

http://www.osha.gov/oshstats/sicser.html

Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)

system Search

occupational safety and health administration

US department of labor

iparágak foglalkozási ágak, tevékenységek

&

http://www.peterme.com/archives/00000063.html

cikk inovation in classifictaion

petermemes

&

http://www.pitt.edu/~csna/csna.html

Classification Society of North America

&

http://www.redsun.com/type/classification/

betutípusk osztályozása

&

http://www.rtpcompany.com/info/data/number.htm

RTP Company muanyaggyártó

compounded thermoplastic products

RTP product numbering

company nomenclature syntax

&

http://www.shodor.org/unchem/basic/nomen/

Nomenclature

egyetem tananyag

kémiai

&

http://www.sid.camac.uk/bca/bcahome.htm

bliss clasification association

honlapja

&

http://www.sidwell.edu/us/science/vlb4/Labs/Classification_Lab/classificatio...

osztályozástani tananyag

&

http://www.snomed.org

SNOMED International

a College of ASmerican Pathologists (CAP)

részlege

szabványos nyelv a betegségek leírására

&

http://www.ss.astro.umd.edu/IAU/csbn/

IAU Division III

Committee on Small Body Nomenclature

&

http://www.statsoftinc.com/textbook/stclatre.thml

classification trees

tananyag

&

http://www.udcc.org

az eto honlapja

&

http://www.ukoln.ac.uk./metadata/desire/classification/

desire re 1004

te role of classification schemes in internet

resource description and discovery

&

http://www.uspto.gov/go/classification/

usa szabadalmi hivatalnak osztályozási

rndszere

együtt van a védjegyekkel

&

http://www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus/roman_names.html

Római (név) nómenklatúra

&

http://www.vt.tuwien.ac.at/biobib/nom.html

biobib

nomenclature of biofuel names

&

http://www.wave.net/upg/immigration/sic_index.html

standard inustrial classification (sic) ndex

&

http://www.wipo.int/classifications/fulltext/new_ipc

ipc 7 english version

IPC Nice Vienna Locarn

nemzetköz szabadalmi osztályozás IPC

&

http://www.worldagroforestrycentre.org/Sites/TreeDBS/Botanic/botanic.html

Botanikai mónemklatúra a fákról, tudomnyo és

köznevek

&

http://www.worldprintmakers.com/english/nomencla.htm

Glossary of printmaking nomenclature and

abbreviations

&

http://www.zoonome.net/

Zoonomen

Zoológiai nómeklatúra gyujtemény

&

http://www23.hhrdc-drhc.gc.ca/

national occupational classification

&

http://www23.hrdc_drhc.gc.ca/2001/e/generic/welcome.shtml

national occupational classification

of canada

&

http://xml.coverpages.org/classification.html

resource description and classification

xml forrás

&

---

Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Benedikt Mandl wrote:

Hi Alfio!

You are of course right. I am sorry about this incident, I don't know who set up that link but I guess it was meant to fill just something on the interface. I changed the article to an external link to wikipedia. Please be patient and give wikispecies a chance. Things like that will settle in the very near future.

No problem, it just seems that wikispecies gets a lot of surveillance after all the discussion on the mailing list :-)

Alfio

The wiki is there to allow discussion to take place and to evolve what features are needed. Like the Wikimedia Commons, the software does not yet match what the project needs, but we felt it would be beneficial to start with a wiki for discussion on the project until the time that the needed features can be implemented.

This is most definitely not a fork of Wikipedia. Wikispecies is more about collecting data than writing articles. This data will be saved in a way that allows all Wikipedias, not just the English one, to use the data. As a project, Wikispecies has different aims to Wikipedia. It is aimed at the needs of scientific users rather than general users. Integrating Wikispecies into Wikimedia prevents a fork.

We believe the project may have a good impact on the way we are perceived by academics, which according to another thread on this list right now, a lot of people seem to think would be a good thing.

The board met at the start of this month, and the notes from this meeting are on Meta and the Foundation wiki. Four members voted to support the following points:

1. We set up the WikiSpecies wiki for biologists to begin organizing the project. 2. We ask that Benedikt transfer the domain name to Wikimedia. 3. We propose that as the software is developed, it should work to strongly support integration with wikipedia, to help avoid duplication of effort. 4. We ask the participants on wikispecies to particularly think about how their work should differ from a generalist encyclopedia

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Board_meetings/5_September_2004

I apologize to those who had not seen the above report already. Perhaps we need to find a way of ensuring that people who do not follow either of those wikis are aware of meetings that take place such as this one.

Angela

--- Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:

<snip></snip>

Daniel Mayer (who is now seriously re-evaluating his participation in Wikipedia and Wikimedia)

When mav says things like this, I don't have to go read 25+ posts to know that something has gone horribly wrong.

I suggest that we: --Just build a free encyclopedia --Work with each other respectfully --Leave the rest of the ideas for another project, another year.

PS: If we all even get close to becoming another ICANN, I'll be out the door with mav.

===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/

_______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com

John Lee wrote:

The sentiment is dittoed here. I don't have a clue what all this hoo-ha is about, but that fact alone seems to suggest that something clandestine occurred. From what I understand, this is something that, if worked out correctly, *could* be beneficial to all the Wikipedias. So why haven't I heard anything about this on en.wikipedia.org? It's not even on the Community Portal. And the fact that someone as even-headed as mav is even thinking about quitting makes me wonder just what's going on.

John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]] on En)

Christopher Mahan wrote:

...

--- Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:

<snip></snip>

...

Daniel Mayer (who is now seriously re-evaluating his participation in Wikipedia and Wikimedia)

When mav says things like this, I don't have to go read 25+ posts to know that something has gone horribly wrong.

I suggest that we: --Just build a free encyclopedia --Work with each other respectfully --Leave the rest of the ideas for another project, another year.

PS: If we all even get close to becoming another ICANN, I'll be out the door with mav.

---

Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

Not hearing things on en:wikipedia is akin to not hearing it on nl:wikipedia. En:wikipedia may be the biggest wikipedia, it is not the platform for discussions regarding Mediawiki. It is Meta's purpose to discuss these things. The suggestion that something "clandestine" occured does speak of little respect for the integrity of people like Jimbo, Angela, Anthere ..

Thanks, GerardM

Andrew Lih wrote:

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 11:57:20 +0200, Gerard Meijssen gerardm@myrealbox.com wrote:

...

...

The sentiment is dittoed here. I don't have a clue what all this hoo-ha is about, but that fact alone seems to suggest that something clandestine occurred. From what I understand, this is something that, if worked out correctly, *could* be beneficial to all the Wikipedias. So why haven't I heard anything about this on en.wikipedia.org? It's not even on the Community Portal. And the fact that someone as even-headed as mav is even thinking about quitting makes me wonder just what's going on.

I've no reason to doubt the good intentions of the board. However, the place where it should have been announced or discussed before a vote (m:Goings-on) didn't have it, nor was there a any significant call on EN. So there has been a breakdown somewhere along the line in terms of due process, and it does seem a dark cloud hangs over the new project.

One of the benefits of wikis, and why we love them so, is exactly the elimination of process. Clay Shirky talks about this specifically (http://www.corante.com/many/20030801.shtml)

However, when it comes to major extra-wiki decisions, such as creation of new projects, or board level decisions, process should be defined and followed. We're all breaking new ground here with the board and its role, so let's learn from this and "reboot" in an appropriate manner, even if it means suspending Wikispecies and going back to obtain some kind of quorum (if not consensus).

Two things *This mail suggests that I said things that I did not. See the mailing list history. *You suggest that it is up to the en:wikipedia to decide things. It is not, neither is it up to de:wikipedia or nl:wikipedia (or nl:wiktionary to be absurd).

Meta exists already for a long time this is where the discussions about mediawiki occur. Procedures have been defined, responsibilities have been defined, the board has been chosen. And apparently when something is decided that you do not like it is "undemocratic". The United States chose a president that was not elected by a majority of the voters, his majority had to be decided by a court and he has acted with little regard for the bigger half of the American electorate. He can, because he is the president of the United States. Equally, the board was elected everybody was invited to vote, these people are really eager to do the "right" thing, they have within Wikimedia a great reputation, they spend most of their time listening to what people have to say and they do it voluntarily! Give them slack, give them credit !

I think it appalling that when they make a decision people start talking about "clandestine" when they do not like the result. Do you understand why Wikispecies is a good idea? Have you actually given it a thought? What are the arguments against it short of mav feeling annoyed?

Thanks. GerardM

Andreas Hoerstemeier wrote:

The content covered by Wikispecies is a project worth doing, it being separate from Wikipedia might turn out to be not a fork, yet the way it was created leaves a bad taste.

I agree completely, I have apologized to Mav and made some peace there, and pledge that we will take much more careful steps in the future to make sure that this sort of miscommunication and misunderstanding will not happen.

Of course, human relations being what they are, troubles will always happen somehow. But we can try our best, and that's what I hope to do.

--Jimbo

Andrew Lih a écrit:

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 11:57:20 +0200, Gerard Meijssen gerardm@myrealbox.com wrote:

...

...

The sentiment is dittoed here. I don't have a clue what all this hoo-ha is about, but that fact alone seems to suggest that something clandestine occurred. From what I understand, this is something that, if worked out correctly, *could* be beneficial to all the Wikipedias. So why haven't I heard anything about this on en.wikipedia.org? It's not even on the Community Portal. And the fact that someone as even-headed as mav is even thinking about quitting makes me wonder just what's going on.

I've no reason to doubt the good intentions of the board. However, the place where it should have been announced or discussed before a vote (m:Goings-on) didn't have it, nor was there a any significant call on EN.

Point 8 : I think the intention of the founders of this project is not that it stays english entirely. Obviously, it should be a multilingual database. Consequently, I see not why there should be a significant call on en and not on other projects. Again, we have grown too big to spend our time to go to each of the 50 projects in turn to ask people their opinion. This is just impossible. Some time ago, I suggested that we have a system to publish an message on all wikipedia at the same time, precisely for these types of general message; it basically met no answer but one. How do you suggest that we warn each project in turn ? What is the reason of being of this list if not precisely to be a place where all those interested by meta issues to gather ? What should we be doing differently to warn perhaps 10 000 people at the same time ?

So there has been a breakdown somewhere along the line in terms of

due process, and it does seem a dark cloud hangs over the new project.

One of the benefits of wikis, and why we love them so, is exactly the elimination of process. Clay Shirky talks about this specifically (http://www.corante.com/many/20030801.shtml)

However, when it comes to major extra-wiki decisions, such as creation of new projects, or board level decisions, process should be defined and followed. We're all breaking new ground here with the board and its role, so let's learn from this and "reboot" in an appropriate manner, even if it means suspending Wikispecies and going back to obtain some kind of quorum (if not consensus).

Point 9 : I do not wish to contradict any of what you say here, but wishes to add a thought. Mav indicated that in deciding whether to start the project or not, the board has overstepped its mandate. I really think the 3 of us thought that there was consensus enough to make that possible. Ultimately, when a new project is created, there are a couple of legal issues behind. Such as expansion of the Foundation role (in adding a new project), expansion of costs (more bandwidth and storing place on servers) or new domain names to purchase and manage. It seems to me that in spite what is said, declaring the starting of a new project is totally within the bounds of the board, because this is a LEGAL creation.

As for the rest of your comment, I recognise its validity and wiseness.

--- Sj 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:

We have a number of translators in each language who would be happy to spend 5 minutes a week translating important notices for their local projects. What we don't have, is a page (one per language) dedicated to brief, globally-interesting announcements, where contributors are careful to write simply (for translation), and which is translated actively. See [[m:Announcements]] for a somewhat silly example. [Goings-on is many things to many people, but it is not this place.]

If we move milestone announcements to a separate Meta page, then [[m:Wikimedia News]] (or [[m:Goings on]] but I really don't get the difference other than organization) could be used for this.

-- mav

__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

It was just an example. I was citing the English Wikipedia as an example because I frequent it the most, but my point was, why was such a useful change not mentioned anywhere on any Wikipedia? (I didn't even ask for the discussions to occur on any particular language's Wikipedia - that was putting words in my mouth.) Wouldn't announcing it make changes go more smoothly? I never implied this should be discussed on any Wikipedia. Note that the English Community Portal often links to meta discussions. If the change is as useful (or not) as it is, it should have at least been linked to on every Wikipedia so that people could have a chance to weigh in at meta, or at least be informed.

As for clandestine activities, that was another, well, I think you can only call it strawmanning. I never mentioned their names - I think highly of Jimbo and Angela (I don't know Anthere well enough). It's just rather odd and a bit annoying that the majority of editors who could and would benefit from this still aren't informed, because they don't subscribe to the mailing list.

Gerard Meijssen wrote:

John Lee wrote:

...

The sentiment is dittoed here. I don't have a clue what all this hoo-ha is about, but that fact alone seems to suggest that something clandestine occurred. From what I understand, this is something that, if worked out correctly, *could* be beneficial to all the Wikipedias. So why haven't I heard anything about this on en.wikipedia.org? It's not even on the Community Portal. And the fact that someone as even-headed as mav is even thinking about quitting makes me wonder just what's going on.

John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]] on En)

Christopher Mahan wrote:

...

<snip>

Not hearing things on en:wikipedia is akin to not hearing it on nl:wikipedia. En:wikipedia may be the biggest wikipedia, it is not the platform for discussions regarding Mediawiki. It is Meta's purpose to discuss these things. The suggestion that something "clandestine" occured does speak of little respect for the integrity of people like Jimbo, Angela, Anthere ..

Thanks, GerardM

John Lee wrote:

As for clandestine activities, that was another, well, I think you can only call it strawmanning. I never mentioned their names - I think highly of Jimbo and Angela (I don't know Anthere well enough). It's just rather odd and a bit annoying that the majority of editors who could and would benefit from this still aren't informed, because they don't subscribe to the mailing list.

When I first became involved it was mandatory that a person join the mailing list before he could become a sysop. It's unfortunate that that is no longer the case.

Each of us is limited in the number of lists and pages that he can monitor. Once we reach that limit we just stop looking for more things to monitor. The mailing lists alone now provide me with close to 100 messages per day. There are also several in-project pages that I look at regularly that are more specific to the tasks that I have accepted. I can't take the time to monitor everything that happens on meta or the foundation pages or on Wikipedia's Village Pump, or to fully participate in the endless debates and votes about policy minutiae. This does not reflect a lack of interest, but a lack of time.

Perhaps a more serious look needs to be taken at how general communications are handled to insure that those who should know about something are properly informed. At the very least all sysops for all projects should be required to join a general mailing list. (Just which list may still be an open question.)

Ec

Hmmm, okay. I think you guys have concerns, and we need to adress them. So I will try to answer the best I can.

First point. Since I was part of the discussion on wikispecies on wikipedia-l, and had an opinion on the matter, I wish to insist that I was not the promoter of the decision making. However, I thought it was a good idea to make that decision, hence I voted. I will come back on the reason why it was imho a good idea later.

Second point. For those who followed carefully the discussion, I, as an individual, am in favor of the project be separated from Wikipedia, though strongly integrated. I will not come back on my arguments, I already gave them 2 weeks ago. However, if I had had the feeling there was a strong consensus for NOT having a separated project, I would probably not have supported it on the board. I *can* vote in a way that I do not think is the best, but is more acceptable to the community, while still acceptable for me. In this case, it appeared to me there was no obvious consensus, but I felt the case was more supported on the "separated project" side, hence I voted along my heart.

John Lee a écrit:

The sentiment is dittoed here. I don't have a clue what all this hoo-ha is about, but that fact alone seems to suggest that something clandestine occurred.

Point 3: The fact you do not know of the topic should not suggest that things are done in a clandestine way. The whole project got huge, and it has become impossible for anyone to know any time what is going on everywhere. Just as no human being may know everything, but each of us know a bit.

Point 4: I do not think it is reasonable to say that the topic was clandestine. A huge wikispecies occured on this very list just a few weeks ago, and it was unlikely to go on unnoticed. Since you are registered to that list, you should not have missed that discussion. Aside from this, many discussions occured on the irc channel, both on the #wikipedia (which I may suggest, should become #en.wikipedia, while #wikipedia become a more general channel) and on #wikimedia. Perhaps also on #mediawiki. The irc channels are public discussion place, and everyone is welcome to join anytime. Many of the discussions between Angela, Jimbo and I take place over there. If you are interested, you are most welcome :-) Finally, there were some report on meta, which you may find here : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Board_meetings/5_September_2004 Unless I am wrong, this link was also given on this ml.

From what I understand, this is something that, if

worked out correctly, *could* be beneficial to all the Wikipedias. So why haven't I heard anything about this on en.wikipedia.org? It's not even on the Community Portal.

Point 5 : Things that could be beneficial to all wikipedias do not belong to the english wikipedia. They belong to meta, or to wikipedia-l or on foundation-l. There are currently more than 50 active languages. We try to unite those interested by meta topics or by new projects in places where everyone can share. En.wikipedia is not one of these places. I also do not think it is fair to expect from the board to go and visit all 50 projects in turns, to put each and another information on the local portal page. Everyone should feel concerned by the need there is for information to be conveyed. Either some people for each project feel concerned and translate information, or interested people of each local project come hear to participate.

One attempt at centralizing information has been done on the meta goings-on : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Goings-on I regularly go there to update this page and a couple of people think of doing this as well. I had hoped that on projects where there are hundreds of contributors (such as en), someone will take the time to just COPY the information which is already in ENGLISH from meta to the english goings-on. I invite you to look at the current english goings-on, this is self explanatory : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AGoings-on

I understand your concerns, but I do not think there is a lack of information provided. I do not think either that there are not enough places to find the information. I just think that people need to be explained over and over and over where to find the information.

And the fact that someone as even-headed

as mav is even thinking about quitting makes me wonder just what's going on.

John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]] on En)

Christopher Mahan wrote:

...

--- Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:

<snip></snip>

...

Daniel Mayer (who is now seriously re-evaluating his participation in Wikipedia and Wikimedia)

When mav says things like this, I don't have to go read 25+ posts to know that something has gone horribly wrong.

...

I suggest that we: --Just build a free encyclopedia --Work with each other respectfully --Leave the rest of the ideas for another project, another year.

Point 7 : Some people here, like Benedikt, or Gerard, have other ideas and other dreams. Perhaps it is not treating them respectfully to tell them "just integrate this in Wikipedia" or to tell them "leave that aside for a year".

I have much respect for Mav opinions, but I also recognise there other ideas. That does not mean one side is wrong. But if people have the energy to have new ideas, that deserve attention.

...

PS: If we all even get close to becoming another ICANN, I'll be out the door with mav.

See Angela's "mail Wikispecies" mailing.

(what follows is my follow-up to some of Anthere's points)

Anyway, my issue was mainly that although quite a few people are active on the mailing list and IRC, a lot of people "on the ground" don't have an inkling. The board should not be handling this issue by posting a notice on every project - my concern was mainly that those in charge of the relevant projects seemed to not have posted any notification of this new project, which could be useful. Those who are doing the grunt work often can provide helpful feedback. As for missing the discussion, I only subscribed very recently after finding out about the Chinese Wikipedia issue, as I was curious about it.

John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]] on the English Wikipedia)

Marco Krohn wrote:

On Wednesday 15 September 2004 15:17, Anthere wrote:

...

Finally, there were some report on meta, which you may find here : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Board_meetings/5_September_2004 Unless I am wrong, this link was also given on this ml.

I searched my mailing list archive (last 6 months) and could _not_ find any reference to this board meeting.

Please publish the IRC log of this meeting.

best regards, Marco

Marco Krohn a écrit:

On Wednesday 15 September 2004 15:17, Anthere wrote:

...

Finally, there were some report on meta, which you may find here : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Board_meetings/5_September_2004 Unless I am wrong, this link was also given on this ml.

I searched my mailing list archive (last 6 months) and could _not_ find any reference to this board meeting.

Please publish the IRC log of this meeting.

best regards, Marco

The board meeting of the 4th of september (not the 5th) was a human meeting in Paris. It is no use looking for any irc log for this one, as we were sitting next to each other.

I do not think a journalist inadvertently recorded us, since they were busy recording Souffron.

Plus, I had found a hidden room in another building so that no one bugged us. Since it was not planned in advance, I guess no secret recorder was hidden in the trash can.

But who knows ?

PS : but seriously, I do think there is no legal requirement to publish private discussions between us.

Hi,

Le Wednesday 15 September 2004 16:21, Anthere a écrit :

The board meeting of the 4th of september (not the 5th) was a human meeting in Paris. It is no use looking for any irc log for this one, as we were sitting next to each other.

Anthere, the meeting in Paris was the 4th of July. ;o)

Yann

John Lee wrote:

The sentiment is dittoed here. I don't have a clue what all this hoo-ha is about, but that fact alone seems to suggest that something clandestine occurred.

Whatever may have happened here, it is not right to say that anything "clandestine" occurred. There was a large public discussion right here on this list, and the decision which was taken was carefully crafted (I thought) to carefully take into account each of the major concerns that were raised, including most specifically Mav's.

There are two separate issues here, I suppose. First, there's the specific "content" question of the appropriate answer to the wikispecies issue. I think it fairly clear that the correct decision was made _from the point of view of maximal accomodation to the community_. Mav's perspective has been accomodated to the maximal extent possible, and there is sufficient flexibility moving forward that Mav's input would be valuable in avoiding some of the bad consequences that he fears.

The second issue here has to do with how the decision was made, and clearly if Mav is upset, and if other people take mav's upset to be valid out of respect for him, then the decision should have been reached in a slightly different way. In particular, I should have reached out to mav privately to gain his support for the compromise proposal, and he should have been notified in advance and given an opportunity to give specific feedback.

What can't happen, because it makes everything impossible, is that a single person who is clearly out of step with the consensus of the community simply digs in his heels and stops forward progress.

--Jimbo

On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 03:17:00AM +0200, Erik Moeller wrote:

Daniel-

...

...

This is most definitely not a fork of Wikipedia. Wikispecies is more about collecting data than writing articles. This data will be saved in a way that allows all Wikipedias, not just the English one, to use the data. As a project, Wikispecies has different aims to Wikipedia. It is aimed at the needs of scientific users rather than general users. Integrating Wikispecies into Wikimedia prevents a fork.

...

*That* is what the Commons is for. Fork.

Mav is correct, in my opinion. It doesn't make much sense to have separate "data projects". Instead, we should pursue developing the Commons into a single such repository from which other projects can dynamically transclude their content. With one such project, it is very clear to every participant that the sole purpose is to store data. With many specialized projects, we risk that people come across something like Wikispecies and start treating it like it is Wikipedia.

I suggest supending species.wikimedia.org until it is clearer what direction this project needs to take. If no consensus can be found, a vote on Meta seems like a good idea (apologies if there already was one and I missed it).

Think-first act-later is the wrong order of actions. Every (and I mean literally every) successful project was act-first think-later. Wikipedia started this way too.

And what do you need consensus (or even worse - voting) for ? The Wikispecies is not interfering with other projects. If you don't want to work on it, you can ignore it.

On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 06:47:15PM -0700, Christopher Mahan wrote:

--- Tomasz Wegrzanowski taw@users.sf.net wrote:

...

Think-first act-later is the wrong order of actions. Every (and I mean literally every) successful project was act-first think-later. Wikipedia started this way too.

There was a lot of thinking done before wikipedia started. (lookup GNUpedia on google).

No, you got it wrong - what they came up with was completely unworkable Nupedia. Wikipedia started as a quick hack.

On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 07:26:53PM -0700, Christopher Mahan wrote:

Anyways, if someone wants to ge start their own project somewhere, there's freshmeat and soursceforge waiting with arms wide open. They don't have to use wikimedia resources.

Usage of resources is almost directly proportional to amount of content made. The only way they can significantly increase the load is by creating significantly more content than would be made without the Wikispecies. I don't think it would be a serious problem if they did.

Erik Moeller a écrit:

Daniel-

...

...

This is most definitely not a fork of Wikipedia. Wikispecies is more about collecting data than writing articles. This data will be saved in a way that allows all Wikipedias, not just the English one, to use the data. As a project, Wikispecies has different aims to Wikipedia. It is aimed at the needs of scientific users rather than general users. Integrating Wikispecies into Wikimedia prevents a fork.

...

*That* is what the Commons is for. Fork.

Mav is correct, in my opinion. It doesn't make much sense to have separate "data projects". Instead, we should pursue developing the Commons into a single such repository from which other projects can dynamically transclude their content. With one such project, it is very clear to every participant that the sole purpose is to store data. With many specialized projects, we risk that people come across something like Wikispecies and start treating it like it is Wikipedia.

I suggest supending species.wikimedia.org until it is clearer what direction this project needs to take. If no consensus can be found, a vote on Meta seems like a good idea (apologies if there already was one and I missed it).

Regards,

Erik

The point is, most people have not followed what wikispecies project was about, so it is not certain whether they would do an informed vote. This might be well one of these cases where voting is not a good idea Erik :-)

Another point would be this one. There are many people very interested in doing wikispecies.

If wikispecies is set up, it may be that part of its information is included in wikipedia, or it may be that the wiki is a wikimedia project.

If wikispecies is not set up, it may be that the wiki is set up somewhere else and it may be that part of its information is included in wikipedia from that free ressource.

Daniel Mayer a écrit:

--- Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:

...

... If wikispecies is not set up, it may be that the wiki is set up somewhere else and it may be that part of its information is included in wikipedia from that free ressource.

Nobody I know of is saying that we should not have it Anthere. I, for example, want a general solution by having this on the Commons.

Wikispecies would then be a Wikimedia Commons data project; along with Wikiwar, Wikichemistry, and anything else that would benefit from Commons technology.

It is true that no one has said we should not have it Mav. But I think it is also true that if those very willing to have a wikispecies project *really* want to have a wikispecies project and it does not happen, those are not bound to join wikimedia, but might just move their business another place. I do not think they would have done this, but this is also part of the discussion. The internet is very free and very large. There is room for free-content wikis in other places. I sure prefer that wikispecies is part of us all :-) That will make it quite easier to fully integrate wikipedia and wikispecies together, so that wikispecies is a specialized database and wikipedia the generalist encyclopedia.

I still strongly feel the board way overstepped its authority by authorizing this when there was far from a consensus to proceed.

I noticed something today, which I may provide all of you for further thoughts.

When there is a decision to take (such as the decision of hiring/paying someone to do a critical job, such as the administrator of domain names), one may read "Jimbo should handpick someone he trusts explicitely".

When a decision was taken (such as the decision of starting a new wikimedia project) and someone does not like it, one my hear "the board has overstepped his mandate and authority".

I think that perhaps the community is not clear on what the board role should be.

Angela and I are meant to represent you all, and frankly this is not easy when "you" (collectively) do not agree. The three of us acted in good faith, aware that this decision would cause you sadness, but with the feeling that there was rough consensus and that your concerns would be adressed with some specific guidelines and software improvement. In particular, we insisted that duplication of effort should be avoided and both projects should be heavily interconnected, and that this would have to be a very important point in the development of wikispecies. We also think that the content will be presented in such a way that it will first be a reference work, and as such will have slightly different software requirements from Wikipedia.

It is entirely possible that we missed some of your concerns, however we tried to take the best decision possible. I think that the opposite decision would have cause much unhappiness to other people as well.

The concerns should have be addressed first in order *try* to find a mutually acceptable solution. I did not see a good effort to do that.

Leadership by fiat is no leadership at all.

-- mav

I find that comment offensive Mav, but I will consider that you say it only because very very much unhappy. I do think that Angela and I have really tried in the past trimester not to take any decisions by fiat, but to ask and listen in length to opinions voiced. I know not for Angela, but I think just asking and listening to what people think is what is taking me most of my active time. I do think we really tried hard to be careful and really tried to avoid practicing dictatorship, to the point of sometimes taking some decisions which we think are not the best, only because they are the most supported ones. However, some decisions will always lead some people to be unhappy and we can not avoid this. The best we can propose is to go again through all your concerns and try to see how best to alleviate them.

Gerard Meijssen wrote:

Well, I can remember that I have tried my darndest to get the en:wikipedia resource "Three of Life" to consider working towards a unified Taxobox that is acceptable to *all* Wikipedia. I was basically ignored with the argument, "see our arguments in the archives it was a hard slug to get this far we do not want any more of this". I have presented arguments about things that were wrong for internationalisation eg [[Animal]]ia in stead of [[Animalia]], I stated that the mentioning of "Bionominal name" does not add anything as it is inherent in "Scientific classification". The only result was "we have voted on this, this is our consensus".

One other function I expect Wikispecies will bring is opening up this data for all who want it. By publishing content and changes in a format like XML, people and organisations can benefit from the work done on Wikispecies. I also expect Wikispecies to be open to changes from trusted institutions. So when an institution like IPNI for instance publishes a researched update on specific content we apply this change and we will attribute this change to IPNI.

Changes from trusted institutions would be acceptable as long as they understand that their comments can be openly edited. I am prepared to sympathise with your experience with Mav over the taxoboxes, and would hope that your experience will lead you to be open to comparable suggestion when Wikispecies is fully functioning.

Ec

Stan Shebs wrote:

So the executive summary I get out of this is "people on en: didn't like my ideas, so I want to make a separate wiki".

I would put it a different way. "The needs of a general purpose, general audience encyclopedia differ from the needs of a professional reference work, so we should move forward in exploring solutions that meet the needs of both users while minimizing duplication of efforts."

It would be great to have a common store for language-independent information, but not only is there a commons to serve just that role, but without higher-powered database and wiki machinery than is currently available or being worked on, wikispecies is inevitably going to be another pile of per-language data that partly duplicates wikipedia content.

It is my intention that we work early and hard on questions of software development to meet these needs. I am confident that Benedict and others who are excited about this will be working hard to find development help to get the additions they need.

Keep in mind: the initial mission of wikispecies.org is to resolve these questions first.

--Jimbo

Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:

Stan Shebs wrote:

...

So the executive summary I get out of this is "people on en: didn't like my ideas, so I want to make a separate wiki".

I would put it a different way. "The needs of a general purpose, general audience encyclopedia differ from the needs of a professional reference work, so we should move forward in exploring solutions that meet the needs of both users while minimizing duplication of efforts."

Which is potentially a good reason, but it's not the one that Gerard gave; and I say "potentially" because although there is some very obscure and detailed scientific info in WP already, I have yet to see anybody seek to remove it because it's "too detailed for a general audience". So why is it imperative to have a new wiki to solve a hypothetical problem?

Whether a fork is good or bad depends on the real motivation, not what it looks like when it's dressed up. I've been through this a hundred times with various GNU projects, and you can't understand what will happen unless you look squarely at what's really driving people.

Stan

Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:

Not every reference work is an encyclopedia. Other types of reference works will likely include, according to the specific needs of their users, both more and less information of various kinds. It's just different.

Are we going to have literally thousands of different project then? Why species in particular? Just off the top of my head I can think of dozens of other possibilities (such as languages). And why aren't these being made as wikibooks? When previously it came up that some people wanted general-purpose articles on food, and other people wanted more specialist articles specifically on how to cook food (i.e. recipes), the decision was made that recipes should be done at wikibooks. Why shouldn't a species reference work be a wikibook?

-Mark

--- "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" jwales@wikia.com wrote:

I would put it a different way. "The needs of a general purpose, general audience encyclopedia differ from the needs of a professional reference work, so we should move forward in exploring solutions that meet the needs of both users while minimizing duplication of efforts."

That could still be interpreted as meaning that [[biology of ...]] and [[geology of ...]] articles should not be hosted on Wikipedia and instead on separate projects. I am *very* much against that and don't agree with usage of the term 'general audience' since that implies (to me at least) a forking of content based on detail alone. Sidenote: A general encyclopedia is one that is not specialized; since we don't have size limits that is a statement without much distinction since we can - and do - go into detail on a great many topics - just not all on the same page (and with summaries in appropriate places).

I consider some of my detailed geology articles to be good enough to be considered professional reference material for geologists while at the same time being accessible to any reasonably educated (high school or higher) and interested layperson. But the point that *should* be made is that they are *encyclopedia articles* - not books, not definitions, not source material and not quotes. They are also not part of a relational database (ala what Wikispecies wants to be), which is where I think you were going (and the role I would like the Commons to perform in a general capacity - just as Wikipedia performs the function of being an encyclopedia in a general capacity).

-- mav

__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Daniel Mayer wrote:

--- "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" jwales@wikia.com wrote:

...

I would put it a different way. "The needs of a general purpose, general audience encyclopedia differ from the needs of a professional reference work, so we should move forward in exploring solutions that meet the needs of both users while minimizing duplication of efforts."

That could still be interpreted as meaning that [[biology of ...]] and [[geology of ...]] articles should not be hosted on Wikipedia and instead on separate projects.

Perhaps it _could_ be interpreted that way, but that interpretation would not accord with my meaning.

I am *very* much against that

Yes, of course, I think everyone is very much against that.

and don't agree with usage of the term 'general audience' since that implies (to me at least) a forking of content based on detail alone.

I don't think the term "general audience" implies any such thing.

I have here a book on stochastic differential equations from my old days in hardcore mathematical financial theory. When I open the book and start to read, I immediately notice that the book assumes a certain context that I, sadly, no longer have. The book is inappropriate for a general audience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_mathematics on the other hand, is a list of articles which, by and large, are appropriate for a general audience. Many of them are quite challenging, to be sure, but they are all written quite differently from a text on the subject which assumes that you already know what you need to know to get started.

This is not (entirely) a matter of detail, it is also a matter of style, of the particular needs of a particular audience.

Sidenote: A general encyclopedia is one that is not specialized; since we don't have size limits that is a statement without much distinction since we can - and do - go into detail on a great many topics - just not all on the same page (and with summaries in appropriate places).

I read that it is estimated that there are 30-50 million species on earth. (Other estimates are "between 2 and 100 million" - the question is fairly unsettled). But just focussing on named species, there are between 1.5 and 1.8 million, about half insects.

It would be inappropriate *for wikipedia*, and I think you will agree, for us to have a "Rambot for species" to go through and add all of those in one fell swoop. This does not imply that such information, collected in some place with an eye towards the needs of professional biologists, would not be very valuable. It just says that, hey, in a general interest encyclopedia, a massive dump of stubs or auto-generated articles which would make en: *4* times as big overnight, is not a good idea.

I consider some of my detailed geology articles to be good enough to be considered professional reference material for geologists while at the same time being accessible to any reasonably educated (high school or higher) and interested layperson. But the point that *should* be made is that they are *encyclopedia articles* - not books, not definitions, not source material and not quotes.

Exactly, I understand completely what you are saying. And Wikipedia should be for *encyclopedia articles*. But this should not blind us to exciting opportunities to empower people to work on different kinds of reference works.

--Jimbo

Stan Shebs wrote:

Gerard Meijssen wrote:

...

Well, I can remember that I have tried my darndest to get the en:wikipedia resource "Three of Life" to consider working towards a unified Taxobox that is acceptable to *all* Wikipedia. I was basically ignored with the argument, "see our arguments in the archives it was a hard slug to get this far we do not want any more of this". I have presented arguments about things that were wrong for internationalisation eg [[Animal]]ia in stead of [[Animalia]], I stated that the mentioning of "Bionominal name" does not add anything as it is inherent in "Scientific classification". The only result was "we have voted on this, this is our consensus".

So the executive summary I get out of this is "people on en: didn't like my ideas, so I want to make a separate wiki".

That's why we're concerned about forking; the underlying reasons seem to be interpersonal conflicts in existing wikis, rather than a clearcut difference in content.

It would be great to have a common store for language-independent information, but not only is there a commons to serve just that role, but without higher-powered database and wiki machinery than is currently available or being worked on, wikispecies is inevitably going to be another pile of per-language data that partly duplicates wikipedia content. Then the board will be faced with the really enjoyable decision of whether to perpetuate the fork or put an end to it...

Stan

---

Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

Well, if you want to read it like that, you may. However, it is not as things went and it is not as I perceive them. People were not interested enough to go for a taxobox that would unite all the wikipedia. This is a shame, but I was mighty pleased that some progress was made towards something that was halfway usable (the {{taxon}} implementation). I have introduced the latest taxobox on nl: as well but I do confess I was not entheausiastic about the latest iteration. Personally, I would welcome a universal taxobox. It would save a lot of work particularly in the smaller wikipedia.

When I try to understand what a fork is, I cannot help myself but come to the conclusion that all these diferent implemenatations of a taxobox can be defined of forks of the same concept. So please explain to me the fault in my reasoning. It would point in the direction that Wikispecies will combine all these forks into one universal implementation of a relatively fixed amount of data.

In a previous post, I explained why having the commons to include this data is a bad idea. I have not heard any arguments that refute that..

I fail to see how Wikispecies is going to be this pile of language dependent data. *For encyclopedic information Wikispecies will refer to the wikipedia's. *English and Latin being the predominant languages in this field, will mean that it will be mainly in English. The User interface may be in multiple languages. This is being developped for other purposes at this moment in time.

As to cooperation among the different wikipedia's, nothing would please me more than when we find ways that will decrease the amount of work needed to provide quality data to our public. I do welcome any suggestion that leads to better consistent, data for all wikimedia projects. I wish I could easily tap into the quality data of the en:ToL for the nl:ToL. This is what I have been striving for all the time.

Mind you, I defend the Wikispecies idea, I am not the one who proposed it. Therefore the suggestion that I want to make a seperate wiki is not a true reflection of how things went.

Thanks, GerardM

Erik Moeller a écrit:

Anthere-

...

The point is, most people have not followed what wikispecies project was about, so it is not certain whether they would do an informed vote. This might be well one of these cases where voting is not a good idea Erik :-)

I see voting useful as a way to gauge where people stand, but perhaps, when we only want to do that, we should not call it voting. Instead, we could have an "opinion matrix":

users opinion summary arguments

Mav opposed to separate - leads to fragmentation, Erik project, support duplication Wikimedia Commons - bad precedent [[/Detailed proposal]]

---

Anthere support Wikispecies, - otherwise, risk of external Angela at least for now forks - features can be added later

---

This way we can easily get an overview of the different points of view, and better try to find solutions that satisfy everyone involved. That would also help outside people to understand more quickly what a discussion is about.

Regards,

Erik

Correct :-) We can probably agree here Erik, to call this a poll rather than a vote. A poll is to jauge people opinion, after which a decision is taken. A vote is a system to take the decision. The developer poll for the payment issue was definitly a poll :-)

I do not think it is a legal requirement that board meetings are help publicly. And I do not think it would be a good idea that we are required to discuss publicly only. As for the meeting in question, I for one, did not keep a copy of the log, and if some one did, I request to review it before it is possibly made public.

I think that in any cases, the log will tell you nothing more than you know, since the 4 of us agreed on the decision. What is currently disputed is whether we had the right or not to take that decision, not I hope that we had personally an opinion on the matter.

The meeting you are pointing out to, was not a board meeting, it was a general public meeting which hosted all those interested by setting up wikimedia website. We asked all participants before hand whether they agreed to have the log published, and they indeed did accept its publication.

greetings

Marco Krohn a écrit:

On Tuesday 14 September 2004 20:28, Angela wrote:

...

...

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Board_meetings/5_September_2004

Angela, thanks for the pointer. From http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Board_meetings I see that you offered the "full log" of your last meeting. Could please do the same for the last board meeting, the one that lead to the disputed result concerning wikispecies. Thanks.

best regards, Marco

Angela, Jimbo and I from the beginning. Tim Shell joined us a bit later.

No one else. Why ?

Marco Krohn a écrit:

On Wednesday 15 September 2004 15:40, Anthere wrote:

...

I do not think it is a legal requirement that board meetings are help publicly. And I do not think it would be a good idea that we are required to discuss publicly only. As for the meeting in question, I for one, did not keep a copy of the log, and if some one did, I request to review it before it is possibly made public.

O.k I understand that and it makes sense. From the link you provided I had the impression that the meetings were public. Thanks for the information.

One last question though: did I get it right, that during the board meeting about wikispecies, only members of the board took part in the discussion and nobody else?

best regrads, Marco

Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales wrote:

Marco Krohn wrote:

...

One last question though: did I get it right, that during the board meeting about wikispecies, only members of the board took part in the discussion and nobody else?

Angela, Anthere and I are (along with many other people) on irc for the bulk of each day. In the case in question, we just ran into each other and started talking about it, because I felt (incorrectly, as it turns out) that consensus had been reached and it was all only waiting on us to do something. It was pretty informal.

I can't really think of anything more impossible than for Angela, Anthere, and I to only speak to each other publicly. We currently get quite a bit of work done by just chatting off and on throughout the day, informally, like "What do you think of this?" and "I will ask Anthere when she comes in" and "Did you send me that information yet?"

Also, good decision making involves being able to ask for opinions freely and confidentally, without a concern that random thoughts will be quoted all over the web as facts.

However, of course, we have had public meetings too, and will of course have many more.

I can't speak for others, but from my point of view speaking privately is fine, and having public meetings is not necessary either, but some sort of public review and requests for comments is. Rather than doing things, it'd be nice to say "we have discussed [blah], and are considering doing it", and then give a week or so for comments before _actually_ doing it. Or to solicit more feedback on less-decided things, "we've been thinking about [blah], does anyone have any opinions?" A formal meeting isn't necessary, but some of us would like most decision-making to stay within the mailing lists and meta and talk pages (with appropriate announcements so it doesn't get lost) rather than move to discussions conducted amongst a committee.

-Mark

Andrew Lih wrote:

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 15:40:25 +0200, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:

...

I do not think it is a legal requirement that board meetings are help publicly. And I do not think it would be a good idea that we are required to discuss publicly only. As for the meeting in question, I for one, did not keep a copy of the log, and if some one did, I request to review it before it is possibly made public.

I was under the impression the board would be responsible for macro issues that were incapable of being done by the "community", such as the legal, monetary and logistical needs of the Foundation. And that anything that could still be initiated and decided on by the community would be done in wiki space by Wikipedians. If this is an incorrect interpretation, then an explanation would be appreciated.

So my response to your point would be either:

1. The decision should not be done by the board, but by Wikipedians

with the usual due process of proposal, discussion, yet more discussion, too much discussion, then voting. or 2) The decision be made by the board but be open and solicit opinions from the community, with the proceedings made public.

Clearly, the way you suggest (by the board, but closed) is very much against the open spirit the Wikipedia community is used to. To be clear, I'm largely in favor of the Wikispecies proposal, and don't think the board acted in bad faith. But we should also take this opportunity to make sure that we set the right precedent for future decisions.

If there is one thing I really hate is talking, endless, fruitless talking. At some stage a decision is to be made. On en:wiktionary a decision was made with a slim majority carried by some IP numbers that voted. The consequence of this is that an important feature requested by the de: and nl: wiktionary cannot be given because of this en:majority. The result is that the nl:wiktionary that is currently at 4060 articles, will be increasingly hard to fix. What can I do? Rail against these stupid people that are in the way, continue harping the same old tune ? What would it achieve ?

This is the status quo and I will have to live with it for now.

I would really hate it when there is not a final arbiter who decides one way or the other and can go against what a vocal group *demands*.

Another thing, we are not only wikiPedians, see your self as a wikiMedian then you may have the right attitued to contribute to the organisation of this organisation. Being a wikiMedian means that you follow things on Meta and contribute THERE to the discussion. It means that you inform in your project about goings on. I for one have posted on nl:wikipedia about the existence of Commons and Wikispecies, I informed about the latest releases of the mediawiki software. The cool thing is, so can you.

Isn't it funny that the people who DO something get all the flack ?? Dutch proverb: "The best boatswains are ashore" !!

Thanks, GerardM

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 16:59:32 +0200, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:

Actually, a new project has legal, monetary and logistical issues attached.

This argument could be made for nearly anything under the Wikimedia umbrella, so it would be best to define explicit scope and procedures.

This project was initiated by a non wikipedian and rejoined by wikipedians as far as I understood. Wiki space... I think little discussion occured on wikispace It was mostly on this mailing list, on meta and on irc.

This has been a continuing problem with Wikipedia/media projects. Multiple communications channels are great for grassroots collaboration for content, but it's not good for due process. As Mav mentioned, I did not find it mentioned on Meta Goings on and Wikimedia News at all. If it was there, I think there would be much less problem with the decision. We should be able to improve on this.

...

Clearly, the way you suggest (by the board, but closed) is very much against the open spirit the Wikipedia community is used to. To be clear, I'm largely in favor of the Wikispecies proposal, and don't think the board acted in bad faith. But we should also take this opportunity to make sure that we set the right precedent for future decisions.

I see not why you say that "I" suggest "by the board but closed". I certainly did not suggest that. As I already said, I was not the one who started the decision making discussion. Also, it is not because I take the time to answer people concerns that I am the one responsible of the current situation.

No no, I didn't mean that you were the originator of the idea, only that it's the one you mentioned. Sorry about the misunderstanding. I certainly don't think you favor a "closed" board, but the problem is of perception.

We will try to do better in the future, to listen more and longer. But I must warn you of one point. Jimbo, Angela and I are all three already streching our time limits. If you all want us to listen better, you will have to help us by providing better insight, summaries and such... and mostly, do not expect us to start polls or votes all the time. Neither of us three are very happy with votes and I doubt we'll start organising votes one by one. In short, those who want to help us take some final decisions will have to wet their shirt, hang around and call people to participate to discussion, create summaries, emulate discussions and co.

Yes, there is the alternative of delegating it to folks in the Meta community to organize the effort and the voting. Most boards of organizations don't get involved down the level of making these types of decision. Your time is valuable, delegate! And I do realize this is the opposite of "Be bold." :)

Andrew Lih a écrit:

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 16:59:32 +0200, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:

...

Actually, a new project has legal, monetary and logistical issues attached.

This argument could be made for nearly anything under the Wikimedia umbrella, so it would be best to define explicit scope and procedures.

I think I already answered to this a bit, but I'll suggest more. If we just toss the future content of wikispecies in wikipedia, as far as we are concerned (wmf) that is a bland operation (though I suspect someone will tell me that this should not be bland, but blank, or invisible, or whatever).

If we create a new project, say htt://www.wikispecies.org (to simplify) and that this project is multilingual, then we will also probably have http://en.wikispecies.org http://fr.wikispecies.org http://zh.wikispecies.org etc...

Up to possibly 50 or more adresses to manage.

Also, we'll have to purchase http://www.wikispecies.us http://www.wikispecies.pl http://www.wikispecies.net etc...

Up to how many countries in the world.

This is not free.

If we toss everything in wikipedia, we do not have to adapt the wiki software, or we have to tweak the adaptation, so make current functionning of wikipedia more complicated.

If we make a new project with specific requirements, we have to make changes to Mediawiki. And we need people technically available to do it. And we need people to be interested to do it.

Since it is a specialised wiki, could we not foresee that a foundation somewhere might be interested by this very specialised and scientific project, and envision specifically making a donation so as to push these modifications ?

...

This project was initiated by a non wikipedian and rejoined by wikipedians as far as I understood. Wiki space... I think little discussion occured on wikispace It was mostly on this mailing list, on meta and on irc.

This has been a continuing problem with Wikipedia/media projects. Multiple communications channels are great for grassroots collaboration for content, but it's not good for due process. As Mav mentioned, I did not find it mentioned on Meta Goings on and Wikimedia News at all. If it was there, I think there would be much less problem with the decision. We should be able to improve on this.

Incidentely, I am glad to discover so many people were unhappy not to see it on the goings on. I was of the opinion that this page was hardly read, so less and less motivated to update it regularly. This is a joy to discover that the information was felt missing here. I consequently suggest an extra effort on this one :-)

Anthere wrote:

It is possible that we do not have the same definition of macro and micro...

For me, micro is "local" issues, not "may be done by the community" and macro is "wikimedia wide issues" rather than "may not be done by the community".

If that's the board's role, I *strongly* object, and I don't believe this is how it was proposed. it is most important that wikimedia-wide issues be decided by the community, and *only* by the community, with the board serving only as a neutral arbiter (and vote-counter, if necessary). The community ought to decide its own path; that's how wiki-type stuff works. The community is not as good at deciding detailed logistical issues, which I thought is why we had a board. But it's perfectly capable of deciding larger vision- and direction-type issues.

It seems clear to me, that this decision did not please some people; and we will consider this fact for the next decisions. I am quite surprised that you consider this a total precedent. There are more than one decision which was taken by Jimbo in the past, with none of you all complaining. You trusted that this was a good decision and that there some arguments for taking it. Usually, Jimbo listened to the community, till a consensus arise.

Well, Jimbo gets some deference, having spent over $100,000 of his own money on the project, and generally singlehandedly keeping the project afloat at various times. But I think everyone, including Jimbo, agreed that the benevolent-dictator model was something that he'd like to phase out in favor of community decision-making at some point, and even previously he only occasionally made dictatorial-type decisions when it was absolutely necessary.

We will try to do better in the future, to listen more and longer. But I must warn you of one point. Jimbo, Angela and I are all three already streching our time limits. If you all want us to listen better, you will have to help us by providing better insight, summaries and such... and mostly, do not expect us to start polls or votes all the time. Neither of us three are very happy with votes and I doubt we'll start organising votes one by one. In short, those who want to help us take some final decisions will have to wet their shirt, hang around and call people to participate to discussion, create summaries, emulate discussions and co.

I don't see why this is the case: the board shouldn't be the bottleneck. Decision-making on these sorts of things should be done by the community, perhaps by a vote if necessary, and then implementation can be done by one of the developers. The board should only be there to make decisions that are not reasonable decisions for the community to make.

-Mark

I completely agree. That was the crux of my initial problem with Wikispecies - sure, most of us active users are on IRC and the mailing list. But as Sj says, those of us not in an appropriate timezone (such as me; I sleep when most of Wikimedian daily activity just starts) don't have as much a say, nor even much information on these things, especially with the IRC channel. As Sj has said, this isn't scaling. We need a centralised source for these without having to log on to meta everyday, read the mailing lists, and be present on two or three IRC channels.

John Lee ([[User:Johnleemk]] on en.wikipedia.org)

Sj wrote:

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 16:59:32 +0200, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:

...

We will try to do better in the future, to listen more and longer. But I must warn you of one point. Jimbo, Angela and I are all three already streching our time limits. If you all want us to listen better, you will have to help us by providing better insight, summaries and such... and

One thing which I would very much like to see, is a group trusted to act as ombudsmen or secretaries, who stay on top of these issues of communication. These are not tangential issues which matter only to those who are complaining right now, they are central to scaling our community.

Many of the people most likely to be involved with important decisions have a hundred things to worry about, to draft, and to discuss. There should be a single sink into which they (and community members) can toss updates and announcements, confident that from there, such tidbits will be collated and distributed to every appropriate community channel.

• "I just created page <foo>on meta that everyone should know about,"
• "I created a meetup list on my user-talk page, and posted to

wikipedia-l about it,"

• "Jimbo just sent a notice about global problem <fee> to foundation-l,"
• "The Board just agreed that <fi> and said as much on the AC Talk page,"
• "There's a big debate about page-capitalization going on at page <fo>"
• "This group of users says nobody is paying attention to their

troubles with <fum>"

Currently, I feel that one has to read three+ mailing lists, watch new pages and RC on meta, and keep up with a sizeable watchlist on one's local wiki, to stay abreast of developments, or even to show up in time to have a say in certain important discussions.