Yes, I agree there should be some agreement about what is done on wikipedia. This is why I, and others, keep advocating that wikipedia start becoming a democracy and voting on stuff. Atm, wikipedia is pretty totalitarian-basically if mav, larry, vibber, and one of a couple others doesn't agree with something, it doesn't happen. One of the things they don't agree with is the idea that wikipedia, rather than striving to maintain the mistakes of earlier information sources, we should strive to eliminate those mistakes.
Sadly, one of wikipedias basic premises amounts to, "And we should always strive for a anglo-americanized naming schema because this is america and if you want foreign names then maybe you should leave the country cuz this is america and this is the american wikipedia and we are gonna use american names here and thats the end of the discussion"
however, as far as I can tell far more people seem to support using native spellings of names, and that includes the use of non-western alphabets, an ability we have due to the power of #REDIRECT. It is also noteworthy that most of the people who speak out against using such "unamerican and inappropriate" naming generally make an argument stating, "Well, I tend to agree that we should use the native names but it's really not a big argument"
This of course is why I urge voting. It would certainly be worthless to have a vote tommorrow and never discuss the issue, rather we should have a permanent poll in which any user can change their mind at any time.
I also urge you to look at http://history.nasa.gov/sputnik/expinfo.html which I believe shows that we should use a naming such that satellites are named with roman numerals.
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site
Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
Yes, I agree there should be some agreement about what is done on wikipedia. This is why I, and others, keep advocating that wikipedia start becoming a democracy and voting on stuff. Atm, wikipedia is pretty totalitarian-basically if mav, larry, vibber, and one of a couple others doesn't agree with something, it doesn't happen.
Oh, would that that were true! You'd still be banned, and Wikipedia would be a much happier place.
One of the things they don't agree with is the idea that wikipedia, rather than striving to maintain the mistakes of earlier information sources, we should strive to eliminate those mistakes.
So, you think Wikipedia should be a totalitarian dictator of "correct" language usage? Interesting.
Sadly, one of wikipedias basic premises amounts to, "And we should always strive for a anglo-americanized naming schema because this is america and if you want foreign names then maybe you should leave the country cuz this is america and this is the american wikipedia and we are gonna use american names here and thats the end of the discussion"
No, my child, it amounts to "write in the language you're writing in, and note words in other languages when they are relevant." This is not anglo- or americo-centric, but a bit of common sense that applies equally well in every language.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Hi Lir,
you do have a habit of holding positions that are inane enough to annoy almost everyone and reasonable enough to find a small minority of supporters ;-)
Brion nailed it. There's no point to redirect to "München" when I'm visiting the "Munich" page on en.wikipedia.org, and I'm saying that as a German. We have Wikipedias in almost every relevant language, including Esperanto and Latin -- if I want to search for the native version of a name (and am able to read it) I'll go to the Wikipedia in that language. To just force a redirect to the native language is simply confusing and unhelpful. There's no problem with mentioning the native name in the article, that's educational, especially if there's information on pronounciation etc. But if you think that simply enforcing redirects is educational, you don't understand how learning works.
This policy is valid for other Wikipedias as well. If I go to the "Kambodscha" page on de.wikipedia.org I don't want or expect to be redirected to "Kambuchea". This would only confuse me, and in many cases I wouldn't know how to pronounce or even read (for non-Latin characters) the native versions.
Redirects are good in case of full titles etc., e.g. when I'm searching for "Origin of Species" and get to "On the Origin of Species", or whatever -- here the original title doesn't create confusion, but carries useful information.
I agree with you that voting would be a good idea. Then this debate would already be over.
Regards,
Erik
At 11:56 AM 11/19/02 -0800, you wrote:
Yes, I agree there should be some agreement about what is done on wikipedia. This is why I, and others, keep advocating that wikipedia start becoming a democracy and voting on stuff. Atm, wikipedia is pretty totalitarian-basically if mav, larry, vibber, and one of a couple others doesn't agree with something, it doesn't happen. One of the things they don't agree with is the idea that wikipedia, rather than striving to maintain the mistakes of earlier information sources, we should strive to eliminate those mistakes.
Sadly, one of wikipedias basic premises amounts to, "And we should always strive for a anglo-americanized naming schema because this is america and if you want foreign names then maybe you should leave the country cuz this is america and this is the american wikipedia and we are gonna use american names here and thats the end of the discussion"
Bullshit.
The premise is "This is the English-language Wikipedia, and therefore we use names that are familiar to English-speakers." In a Spanish document, I don't insist that my home town not be spelled "Nueva York".
Also, you're posting on the wrong list, if your issue is with names on the English Wikipedia.
Lir wrote in part:
Yes, I agree there should be some agreement about what is done on wikipedia. This is why I, and others, keep advocating that wikipedia start becoming a democracy and voting on stuff.
Democracy is by no means the same thing as voting. With the exception of Jimbo's rarely used dictatorial powers, we're a pretty good democracy now -- nobody has much opportunity to force their view on others. There's room for improvement -- like automatic old hand status instead of sysophood on request -- but some improvement will be possible in any system, however good.
Atm, wikipedia is pretty totalitarian-basically if mav, larry, vibber, and one of a couple others doesn't agree with something, it doesn't happen.
Larry? Larry's one of the people that keeps trying to *change* things. Personally, I think that his ideas are much more appropriate for an auxiliary project and that he should leave Wikipedia itself alone (I mean in the sense of not changing how Wikipedia works, not in the sense of not participating here!), and that's what he's doing. He only began the sifter project after several other suggestions on the mailing list received little support; he has no particular power.
As for mav and Brion, yes, they are more conservative voices. But they're never close to alone. Only The Cunctator regularly stands in the way of proposals that almost everybody else wants, and even then, he doesn't get his way if he's truly alone. Furthermore, Larry, mav, Brion, and even Cunc have no special powers; anybody can block (or spur) progress just as much as they can.
Sadly, one of wikipedias basic premises amounts to, "And we should always strive for a anglo-americanized naming schema because this is america and if you want foreign names then maybe you should leave the country cuz this is america and this is the american wikipedia and we are gonna use american names here and thats the end of the discussion"
If you think this, then you don't understand Wikipedia at all. The English Wikipedia is the *English*language* Wikipedia, not the *United*States* Wikipedia. That's why, for example, American spellings have no favoured position WRT British spellings. America is a red herring; it's English that's at issue here.
however, as far as I can tell far more people seem to support using native spellings of names, and that includes the use of non-western alphabets, an ability we have due to the power of #REDIRECT.
Then you should get these people to come onto the mailing list to discuss it. I hope that they do (and one or two are starting to already), since I'd like to make this change in policy as well. But right now, the change is being held up because the voices on the list are a clear majority of opposition. No vote would help you here.
It is also noteworthy that most of the people who speak out against using such "unamerican and inappropriate" naming generally make an argument stating, "Well, I tend to agree that we should use the native names but it's really not a big argument"
You're not helping our cause by presenting this sort of strawman. That's not at all what they're saying; they think that the current system is *right*. You and I disagree with that, but we won't get anywhere by implying that they secretly agree with us and are just stubborn.
-- Toby
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 11:56:06AM -0800, Bridget [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
Yes, I agree there should be some agreement about what is done on wikipedia. This is why I, and others, keep advocating that wikipedia start becoming a democracy and voting on stuff. Atm, wikipedia is pretty
Democracy and voting suck. Anarchist direct action is where it's at, baby. If you still want to vote, vote with your feet.
There is an English alphabet for the English language, and it does NOT include diacritical remarks. Wikipedia is a multilingual project; stop trying to make the English part of it be an amalgam of every language under the sun.
When a foreign word gets adopted into the English language, all English speakers get to say how it is used, and so far those who insist on using diacritics are a vast minority.
Why are you trying to destroy the Wikipedia?
I think Groliers Encyclopedia is paying you minimum wage to sabotage our effort here. You have no idea of the sorts of things that normally go into an Encyclopedia, and the things that don't. By your own admission you see the Wikipedia as "an information dump" with no more value than the same information scattered all over the web.
Why are you here Lir? Because you saw a nice community here, and you wish to prove you can be a member here after your initial rejection? I wish your motive instead was to build the greatest Encyclopedia in the world, and that the community aspect came after. The Encyclopedia doesn't exist to support the community; the community exists to support the Encyclopedia.
Sadly, one of wikipedias basic premises amounts to, "And we should always strive for a anglo-americanized naming schema because this is america and if you want foreign names then maybe you should leave the country cuz this is america and this is the american wikipedia and we are gonna use american names here and thats the end of the discussion"
The Wikipedia is no place to push a political platform. You claim to be from Iowa; speaking ill of your country, in the way that you do, is treason. Criticize the government; criticize trends and tendencies; but cease to lump all your compatriats together in your negative rantings.
I am Canadian. I wish to see proper ENGLISH spellings of things used. It is disengenous and intellectually dishonest of you to label such wishes as "pro-Americanizing" when the vast majority of the English speaking world shares them. But this shows your own American bias; you think all the English speaking world is in the USA. Get over it.
Jonathan
Jonathan Walther (Clutch, right?) wrote to Lir:
You claim to be from Iowa; speaking ill of your country, in the way that you do, is treason.
No, it's not. Maybe in Canada it is, which is why I'm still proud to be an American, despite the ever shrinking reasons for such pride. But ill speech of anybody and anything is still protected here to a greater extent than anywhere else, thank goodness.
-- Toby
PS: US Constitution, Article III, Section 3, Clause 1: "Treason against the United States, "shall consist only in levying War against them, "or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. "No Person shall be convicted of Treason "unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, "or on Confession in open Court.
Toby Bartels wrote:
Jonathan Walther (Clutch, right?) wrote to Lir:
You claim to be
from Iowa; speaking ill of your country, in the way that you do, is
treason.
No, it's not. Maybe in Canada it is, which is why I'm still proud to be an American, despite the ever shrinking reasons for such pride. But ill speech of anybody and anything is still protected here to a greater extent than anywhere else, thank goodness.
No, not in Canada either. We don't regard our politicians as seriously you do yours. An aide to the prime minister to-day made a casual remark that George W. Bush was a moron. The politicians are aghast, but the public is giggling.
Speaking ill of one's country could be sedition rather than treason ... if it's anything at all. Patriotism masks too many evils.
I finally subscribed to the en-list and spent the rest of the day catching up on the archives. Larry's definition of fact seems way off base. If we strictly follow his definition of fact than it is fact to say that Saddam Hussein is a popular president.
Fact is what is or what was, independently of what anybody sees to be fact. NPOV is a great ideal, if only the people trying to apply it knew what it means. From our frail human perspective, it can only be approximated.
Eclecticology
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org