Scríobh Phil Boswell:
I wondered whether it could be possible to create a SignWriting extension
to
Mediawiki, along the same lines as WikiHiero, which used SWML as the
source.
This would at the very least allow us to display the signs in articles
about
them, and might provide some sort of kick-start for more extensive usage.
SignWriting looks like the best system as far as intelligibility goes, but isn't it copyrighted? I mean, I know that the creator has made it free for use and all (see http://signwriting.org/about/questions/quest0004.html ), but doesn't that still make it ineligible for use in a Wikimedia project? It would be like using a special copyrighted ortography for English, or a copyrighted conlang (Toki Pona, anyone?).
Yet another issue that must be addressed, I suppose.
Cheers, - Craig [[en:Lankiveil]]
------------------- Craig Franklin PO Box 764 Ashgrove, Q, 4060 Australia http://www.halo-17.net - Australia's Favourite Source of Indie Music, Art, and Culture.
SignWriting looks like the best system as far as intelligibility goes, but isn't it copyrighted? I mean, I know that the creator has made it free for use and all (see http://signwriting.org/about/questions/quest0004.html ), but doesn't that still make it ineligible for use in a Wikimedia project? It would be like using a special copyrighted ortography for English, or a copyrighted conlang (Toki Pona, anyone?). Yet another issue that must be addressed, I suppose. Cheers,
- Craig [[en:Lankiveil]]
We could always ask...
I'm curious as to what makes it look best to you as far as intelligibility. Most of the information available about Stokoe is obviously biased due to the fact that it's actually FROM the SuttonSignWriting website.
Stokoe and HamNoSys are very easy to write using computers, and can use fonts and normal text rather than special markup languages. (clustering "sig" characters in Stokoe present a difficulty, but not an impossibility, for the average font-founder)
Text in HamNoSys can be used to generate signs in a virtual reality environment in real time, thus widely increasing the usability scope (most deaf people can't read in signed languages, but being able to watch an article, even as it's edited and undergoes drastic changes, would be a definite plus).
Text in HamNoSys can also be converted on-the-spot to Stokoe or SignWriting (to Sutton SignWriting would be difficult, but then so is any programming involving Sutton SignWriting).
Stokoe has no copyright.
HamNoSys might be copyrighted, I'm not sure.
SuttonSignWriting is definitely copyrighted. Even though they allow for it to be used free of charge, it's not a "free" writing system and I think that it wouldn't be very Wikimedia-like to use it as the primary writing system for any Wikipedia.
Now, I have said the thing regarding on-the-spot signed language generation in at least 4 separate e-mails to this list. Nobody has responded to any of them. People continue to draft proposals or ask questions which would easily be answered by reading my e-mails.
Now, I know that some people have blocked my address; that's their problem, even though they're wasting everybody's time by asking questions which have already been answered or drafting proposals without seeing mine first. But quite a few of the people in this thread have responded to other e-mails by me quite recently, and in the most recent case, somebody actually responded to my response to their e-mail, in which I told them I'd answered all of their questions earlier.
This is one of those cases where it would save everybody time, energy, and inbox space to read all of the e-mails in any thread to which they intend to contribute.
Mark
On 14/09/05, Craig Franklin craig@halo-17.net wrote:
Scríobh Phil Boswell:
I wondered whether it could be possible to create a SignWriting extension
to
Mediawiki, along the same lines as WikiHiero, which used SWML as the
source.
This would at the very least allow us to display the signs in articles
about
them, and might provide some sort of kick-start for more extensive usage.
SignWriting looks like the best system as far as intelligibility goes, but isn't it copyrighted? I mean, I know that the creator has made it free for use and all (see http://signwriting.org/about/questions/quest0004.html ), but doesn't that still make it ineligible for use in a Wikimedia project? It would be like using a special copyrighted ortography for English, or a copyrighted conlang (Toki Pona, anyone?).
Yet another issue that must be addressed, I suppose.
Cheers,
- Craig [[en:Lankiveil]]
Craig Franklin PO Box 764 Ashgrove, Q, 4060 Australia http://www.halo-17.net - Australia's Favourite Source of Indie Music, Art, and Culture.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Stokoe and HamNoSys are very easy to write using computers, and can use fonts and normal text rather than special markup languages. (clustering "sig" characters in Stokoe present a difficulty, but not an impossibility, for the average font-founder)
Why not write in any of those, and generate any of the SignWriting ones? Or user's choice and conversion, like Simplified/Traditional Chinese? Anyway, using written English is probably the worst option.
Yes, I suggest writing in HamNoSys or Stokoe.
There is already software available that can convert from those to video.
Although there isn't currently software to convert from HamNoSys or Stokoe to SSW, it's certainly feasible.
The only issue with writing in HamNoSys (or Stokoe) is that most deaf people can't write using those. It's already been said that wouldn't be as much of an issue because it can be converted to video. However, the main problem would be with editors -- most of the people who are able to use HamNoSys are experts, rather than laypeople.
If we could find even one or two people who know HamNoSys that would be willing to transcribe videos, however, that might solve the problem: somebody could sign an article, send it to those people as an ogg or mpg file, and that person could transcribe it. Then, if anyone wanted in the future, they could request to insert or remove parts. Cumbersome, yes, but it's better than nothing at all.
Mark
On 14/09/05, Pawe³ Dembowski fallout@lexx.eu.org wrote:
Stokoe and HamNoSys are very easy to write using computers, and can use fonts and normal text rather than special markup languages. (clustering "sig" characters in Stokoe present a difficulty, but not an impossibility, for the average font-founder)
Why not write in any of those, and generate any of the SignWriting ones? Or user's choice and conversion, like Simplified/Traditional Chinese? Anyway, using written English is probably the worst option.
-- Ausir Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia http://pl.wikipedia.org
http://www.bopnews.com/archives/004956.html#4956
People may have noticed a troll by the name of "Ray Lopez". Many have written about the offensiveness of his comments. The reason they were being allowed to accumulate is because "Ray Lopez" is part of an organized group of hard right wingers on wikipedia. However, these individuals are not merely organized editors, but have backing from people with trusted status on Wikipedia.
Now, I have proof of it.
Stirling Newberry wrote:
http://www.bopnews.com/archives/004956.html#4956
People may have noticed a troll by the name of "Ray Lopez". Many have written about the offensiveness of his comments. The reason they were being allowed to accumulate is because "Ray Lopez" is part of an organized group of hard right wingers on wikipedia. However, these individuals are not merely organized editors, but have backing from people with trusted status on Wikipedia.
Now, I have proof of it.
Hyperbolize much?
Occam's razor might suggest that Brion manually doing DB queries to insert pornographic images in your name is not the most likely explanation. You picking a bad password is a more likely one, among many others.
But in any case, with the world ending [1], don't you have more important things to attend to?
-Mark
On Sep 18, 2005, at 10:53 AM, Delirium wrote:
Stirling Newberry wrote:
http://www.bopnews.com/archives/004956.html#4956
People may have noticed a troll by the name of "Ray Lopez". Many have written about the offensiveness of his comments. The reason they were being allowed to accumulate is because "Ray Lopez" is part of an organized group of hard right wingers on wikipedia. However, these individuals are not merely organized editors, but have backing from people with trusted status on Wikipedia.
Now, I have proof of it.
Hyperbolize much?
Occam's razor might suggest that Brion manually doing DB queries to insert pornographic images in your name is not the most likely explanation. You picking a bad password is a more likely one, among many others.
You didn't check carefully - the edit history shows that the image was last updated in March, when, in fact, the pornographic image has only been in place for a few hours. Or do you think that it would have been left on my user page for months with no one commenting on it?
On 9/18/05, Stirling Newberry stirling.newberry@xigenics.net wrote:
You didn't check carefully - the edit history shows that the image was last updated in March, when, in fact, the pornographic image has only been in place for a few hours. Or do you think that it would have been left on my user page for months with no one commenting on it?
The edit history that I see at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pub.jpg shows a 19 February version uploaded by you, a pornographic version uploaded by an impostor today, and reverts by GMaxwell and TenOfAllTrades.
The impostor is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:StirIing_Newberry with capital I in place of the lowercase l.
It is possible that the edit history was confused by delays in syncing the slave database. That is, for a while after the porno version was uploaded, it was the current version of the image, and appeared on the page, but the image history was being read off the slightly out-of-date slave database.
Does that make sense?
Rob [[User:Rbrwr]]
On Sep 18, 2005, at 11:53 AM, Rob Brewer wrote:
On 9/18/05, Stirling Newberry stirling.newberry@xigenics.net wrote:
You didn't check carefully - the edit history shows that the image was last updated in March, when, in fact, the pornographic image has only been in place for a few hours. Or do you think that it would have been left on my user page for months with no one commenting on it?
The edit history that I see at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pub.jpg shows a 19 February version uploaded by you, a pornographic version uploaded by an impostor today, and reverts by GMaxwell and TenOfAllTrades.
The impostor is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:StirIing_Newberry with capital I in place of the lowercase l.
It is possible that the edit history was confused by delays in syncing the slave database. That is, for a while after the porno version was uploaded, it was the current version of the image, and appeared on the page, but the image history was being read off the slightly out-of-date slave database.
Does that make sense?
Yes actually it does. Post updated with a direct quote of this.
Rob [[User:Rbrwr]]
-- Rob Brewer rob@rbrwr.org rbrwr.org@gmail.com http://www.rbrwr.org "I could have been like Lou Barlow, but I'm more like Ken Barlow" _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 11:19:35AM -0400, Stirling Newberry wrote:
On Sep 18, 2005, at 10:53 AM, Delirium wrote:
Hyperbolize much?
Occam's razor might suggest that Brion manually doing DB queries to insert pornographic images in your name is not the most likely explanation. You picking a bad password is a more likely one, among many others.
You didn't check carefully - the edit history shows that the image was last updated in March, when, in fact, the pornographic image has only been in place for a few hours. Or do you think that it would have been left on my user page for months with no one commenting on it?
Nothing to see, please move along.
The comments for the blog entry explain that it was just a very bad misinterpretation of the facts by Stirling.
The only reason it was interesting was a possible existence of an MediaWiki exploit in the wild. Nothing in this case even remotely suggests it, however.
On Sep 18, 2005, at 11:56 AM, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 11:19:35AM -0400, Stirling Newberry wrote:
On Sep 18, 2005, at 10:53 AM, Delirium wrote:
Hyperbolize much?
Occam's razor might suggest that Brion manually doing DB queries to insert pornographic images in your name is not the most likely explanation. You picking a bad password is a more likely one, among many others.
You didn't check carefully - the edit history shows that the image was last updated in March, when, in fact, the pornographic image has only been in place for a few hours. Or do you think that it would have been left on my user page for months with no one commenting on it?
Nothing to see, please move along.
The comments for the blog entry explain that it was just a very bad misinterpretation of the facts by Stirling.
Or conversely - the exploitation of well known bad presentation of the facts by wikipedia.
The only reason it was interesting was a possible existence of an MediaWiki exploit in the wild. Nothing in this case even remotely suggests it, however.
On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 12:47:20PM -0400, Stirling Newberry wrote:
The comments for the blog entry explain that it was just a very bad misinterpretation of the facts by Stirling.
Or conversely - the exploitation of well known bad presentation of the facts by wikipedia.
The interface is indeed confusing.
Both problems of image history display and imposter accounts can be solved by technical means.
The former by displaying changes to both uploaded image and its description on the same page, or as a stop-gap measure by changing the relevant MediaWiki: messages, to it more apparent history of what is being displayed.
The latter by implementing apropriate heuristics in a bot - one that would parse new users log (on IRC RC channel or some other way) and report suspicious accounts. They usually involve mixed latin-cyrillic scripts, added accents or similar letters (l<->I), so that's easy to detect and post relevant information on Wikipedia. However, as the problem is widely known, there's little need for urgent action here.
If you want to see those things fixed faster, please code.
Confusing interface notwithstanding, you should be more careful with such accusations. If you actually asked someone before posting, you would probably find that you're wrong. Scientific integrity requires evidence proportional to the boldness of your claim and it doesn't seem you tried hard enough to find the problems with yours.
This link, the revision history from a Wikipedia mirror, may be of interest. (Warning, to view this link you will be forced to see the pornographic image too!)
http://www.algebra.com/algebra/about/history/Image%3APub.jpg.wikipedia
I haven't figured out how to interpret it yet, but it differs from the revision history on main Wikipedia.
Your username is still the first uploader, but there is then a revision by the obvious troll user "StirIing Newberry". Note that the fifth character is an uppercase i, not an l; this is best viewed in a serifed font. Then there is a revision by "Gmaxwell" reverting that.
Both of these revisions apparently happened today, but neither appears on main wikipedia, unless I'm misinterpreting something.
Steve
On 9/18/05, Stephen Forrest stephen.forrest@gmail.com wrote:
Both of these revisions apparently happened today, but neither appears on main wikipedia, unless I'm misinterpreting something.
Odd, the 'history' info on the page for the file itself is now okay, but the actual history link, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Pub.jpg&action=history, is still showing the wrong information. Anyway, likely a glitch/refresh problem since the data is consistent everywhere else.
Steve
On 9/18/05, Stephen Forrest stephen.forrest@gmail.com wrote:
Odd, the 'history' info on the page for the file itself is now okay, but the actual history link, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Pub.jpg&action=history, is still showing the wrong information. Anyway, likely a glitch/refresh problem since the data is consistent everywhere else.
I believe the &action=history file only includes changes to the text.
Sam
Stirling Newberry wrote:
You didn't check carefully - the edit history shows that the image was last updated in March, when, in fact, the pornographic image has only been in place for a few hours. Or do you think that it would have been left on my user page for months with no one commenting on it?
No, the image description page was last updated in March, the image itself has been changed three times in the last day. Uploading a new version of an old image does not cause an entry to be placed in the history of the image description page. And as Stephen Forrest pointed out, the upload was performed by an imposter with a homographic name. No secret sysadmin powers required.
-- Tim Starling
On Sep 18, 2005, at 12:20 PM, Tim Starling wrote:
Stirling Newberry wrote:
You didn't check carefully - the edit history shows that the image was last updated in March, when, in fact, the pornographic image has only been in place for a few hours. Or do you think that it would have been left on my user page for months with no one commenting on it?
No, the image description page was last updated in March, the image itself has been changed three times in the last day. Uploading a new version of an old image does not cause an entry to be placed in the history of the image description page. And as Stephen Forrest pointed out, the upload was performed by an imposter with a homographic name. No secret sysadmin powers required.
-- Tim Starling
Then that is a huge user interface and security hole - because someone looking at the history of the image would think that the original uploader uploaded the image. In an organization that relies on users being able to track and document problems this is gap in that ability.
On 9/18/05, Stirling Newberry stirling.newberry@xigenics.net wrote:
Then that is a huge user interface and security hole - because someone looking at the history of the image would think that the original uploader uploaded the image. In an organization that relies on users being able to track and document problems this is gap in that ability.
Look at the bottom of the image page. There is your file history.
Sam
On Sep 18, 2005, at 12:33 PM, Sam Korn wrote:
On 9/18/05, Stirling Newberry stirling.newberry@xigenics.net wrote:
Then that is a huge user interface and security hole - because someone looking at the history of the image would think that the original uploader uploaded the image. In an organization that relies on users being able to track and document problems this is gap in that ability.
Look at the bottom of the image page. There is your file history.
Sam
It should be the other way around - people clicked to get the image history, not the image description history.
It's fine the way it is.
On 9/18/05, Stirling Newberry stirling.newberry@xigenics.net wrote:
On Sep 18, 2005, at 12:33 PM, Sam Korn wrote:
On 9/18/05, Stirling Newberry stirling.newberry@xigenics.net wrote:
Then that is a huge user interface and security hole - because someone looking at the history of the image would think that the original uploader uploaded the image. In an organization that relies on users being able to track and document problems this is gap in that ability.
Look at the bottom of the image page. There is your file history.
Sam
It should be the other way around - people clicked to get the image history, not the image description history.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
What really baffles me here is how relatively petty incidents can cause people to write lengthy editorial articles, philosophizing about "key shifts in society" in general and alleged conspiracies at Wikipedia in particular (while the actual explanation is much more mundane). The only reason I can think of seems to be superabundance of time combined with a total lack of more fulfilling occupation in life.
Arbeo
--- Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com schrieb:
On 9/18/05, Stirling Newberry stirling.newberry@xigenics.net wrote:
Then that is a huge user interface and security
hole - because
someone looking at the history of the image would
think that the
original uploader uploaded the image. In an
organization that relies
on users being able to track and document problems
this is gap in
that ability.
Look at the bottom of the image page. There is your file history.
Sam _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
___________________________________________________________ Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de
That, plus a general fondness of explaining something with a conspiracy theory whenever possible.
What if this e-mail wasn't really sent by me?? Gasp! I'll bet it was faked by the [[tinc|cabal]] to cast doubt on the existance of the cabal (which does not exist). Or maybe Brion faked it because he likes to do things like insert pornographic images into the database under other people's usernames or spoof e-mails to the MLs in his free time? Or maybe it was generated by Micro$oft with some sort of subliminal adbuymicrosoftproductsvertising? ...or perhaps it was written by the CIA or Mossad or the MI5 in a covert operation to infiltrate Wikipedia-l?? Oh no! What if they implanted a mind control device in my brain and they're making me write this e-mail... against my wishes!!
;p
Mark
On 19/09/05, Arbeo M arbeo_m@yahoo.de wrote:
What really baffles me here is how relatively petty incidents can cause people to write lengthy editorial articles, philosophizing about "key shifts in society" in general and alleged conspiracies at Wikipedia in particular (while the actual explanation is much more mundane). The only reason I can think of seems to be superabundance of time combined with a total lack of more fulfilling occupation in life.
Arbeo
--- Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com schrieb:
On 9/18/05, Stirling Newberry stirling.newberry@xigenics.net wrote:
Then that is a huge user interface and security
hole - because
someone looking at the history of the image would
think that the
original uploader uploaded the image. In an
organization that relies
on users being able to track and document problems
this is gap in
that ability.
Look at the bottom of the image page. There is your file history.
Sam _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Ruy or Ray? Ruy is left-wing.
Fred
On Sep 18, 2005, at 8:01 AM, Stirling Newberry wrote:
http://www.bopnews.com/archives/004956.html#4956
People may have noticed a troll by the name of "Ray Lopez". Many have written about the offensiveness of his comments. The reason they were being allowed to accumulate is because "Ray Lopez" is part of an organized group of hard right wingers on wikipedia. However, these individuals are not merely organized editors, but have backing from people with trusted status on Wikipedia.
Now, I have proof of it. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Craig Franklin wrote:
SignWriting looks like the best system as far as intelligibility goes, but isn't it copyrighted? I mean, I know that the creator has made it free for use and all (see http://signwriting.org/about/questions/quest0004.html ), but doesn't that still make it ineligible for use in a Wikimedia project? It would be like using a special copyrighted ortography for English, or a copyrighted conlang (Toki Pona, anyone?).
He seems to say in that link that he *doesn't* claim any ownership of the writing system itself. In any case, the free to use for anybody sort of license is basically like the "BSD-style" licenses (or cc-by without -sa), which is compatible with both the GFDL and the general free-content philosophy.
-Mark
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org