Sheldon Rampton wrote:
I think we should go further still and shoot for the ultimate goal of creating "Wikimedia." That's media with an "m." It would use Wiki-style rules to enable public participation in the creation and editing of all kinds of media: encyclopedias and other reference works, current news, books, fiction, music, video etc. Like current broadcast media, it would have differentiated "channels" and "programs," each with self-selecting audiences. Unlike current media, however, the audience would also be actively involved in creating its own programming, instead of merely passively watching it.
Way to go Sheldon! I've been raking my brain for months trying to figure out a good name for the non-profit / umbrella organization. "Wikipedia Foundation" was a placeholder but the "WikiPedia" part didn't seem to work for me since we now have Wiktionary, will (hopefully soon) be launching the yet-to-be-named source text wiki, and we will almost certainly expand into the textbook arena in the next few years (with fiction to follow behind that). So Wikimedia is perfect (so perfect that I just registered wikimedia.org and will transfer that to the Foundation when it is set-up)!
However, at this point in time, we simply do not have the resources to do real news reporting (which isn't simply rewriting news reports by others but involves expensive primary research, travel and interviewing). But until/if we do, our process of updating Wikipedia in near real-time as history unfolds will do just fine.
As a matter of fact this is one of the /big/ reasons for our success; many people are very interested in current events so they write encyclopedia articles that reflect this. It is also no cooincidence that whenever there is a hugely important current event that Wikipedia gets a surge of traffic and new contributors. This is a point that we are often complemented on and IMO is the real edge we have over dead tree encyclopedias. So there is no reason to divert these efforts to another project for a long time (if ever). Doing so could hurt Wikipedia in profound way.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
WikiKarma The usual at [[March 11]]
Hi,
This already exists. It's called Indymedia : http://www.indymedia.org.
Yann
Le Dimanche 16 Mars 2003 09:33, Daniel Mayer a écrit :
Sheldon Rampton wrote:
I think we should go further still and shoot for the ultimate goal of creating "Wikimedia." That's media with an "m." It would use Wiki-style rules to enable public participation in the creation and editing of all kinds of media: encyclopedias and other reference works, current news, books, fiction, music, video etc. Like current broadcast media, it would have differentiated "channels" and "programs," each with self-selecting audiences. Unlike current media, however, the audience would also be actively involved in creating its own programming, instead of merely passively watching it.
I like the TWiki system to create table ( we could import it here to wikipedit - wikipedia edition format - ).
One can use HTML to create tables, but use | it´s easy to create simple tables.
One would create a minimum common wiki format , for nearly all the wikis, including wikipedia and Twiki.
Now, I know why ones resist using anchors. Because # is used in wikipedit for numbered list ( in Twiki is for anchors and very usefull).
The problem with Indymedia is that this site is not GNU Free Documentation License (it´s open content). In this case, they would change it.
We would include indymedia like news source for http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_events
Regards.
---- Elabore caseramente biodiesel para su actual motor de gasoil petrolífero La solución a sus problemas energéticos.
http://www.enlazando.com/energia http://journeytoforever.org/energiaweb/
----- Original Message ----- From: "Yann Forget" yann@forget-me.net To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 11:25 AM Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] RE: Current events
Hi,
This already exists. It's called Indymedia : http://www.indymedia.org.
Yann
Le Dimanche 16 Mars 2003 09:33, Daniel Mayer a écrit :
Sheldon Rampton wrote:
I think we should go further still and shoot for the ultimate goal of creating "Wikimedia." That's media with an "m." It would use Wiki-style rules to enable public participation in the creation and editing of all kinds of media: encyclopedias and other reference works, current news, books, fiction, music, video etc. Like current broadcast media, it would have differentiated "channels" and "programs," each with self-selecting audiences. Unlike current media, however, the audience would also be actively involved in creating its own programming, instead of merely passively watching it.
--- "Pedro M.V." macv@interlap.com.ar wrote:
We would include indymedia like news source for http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_events
----- Original Message ----- From: "Yann Forget" yann@forget-me.net To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 11:25 AM Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] RE: Current events
Hi,
This already exists. It's called Indymedia : http://www.indymedia.org.
Yann
http://www.forget-me.net Alternatives sur le Net http://keys.indymedia.org/showkey.py?key=0A34CBDA
I didnot follow very well...but I am a little bit worried Could anyone explain to me what is precisely meant in this bunch of mails about indymedia ?
I sure would not agree that wikipedia current news are given by indymedia. Though I support indymedia, I think they sure are to biaised to fit in the wikipedia frame. And on the fr wiki, that would likely be done by Yann.
Excuse me here Yann, but though you are really a good wikipedian and did *great work* on the fr wikipedia, I hope you admit you have a rather strong biais, as can be seen in the nuclear-related articles . I sure hope that (with Francis maybe) you give us some good *neutral* articles on activism, anarchism and the such, but I'll tell you plain, articles such as the Activiste one that you wrote some time ago (http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Activiste&oldid=34251) are just way out of line. In particular the end of the article
''L�exemplarit� est la force des activistes. De contre-mod�les en contre-pouvoirs, face � l�ennui, quels r�ves croyaient vous que vont suivre vos enfants ? Ils seront lass�s de plus en plus t�t, blas�s et aigris. Quelle que soit leur classe sociale, ils se tourneront vers les seuls qui proposent de vivre ses id�es et de les d�fendre, vers ceux qui pensent la collectivit� et l��-venir. Ils suivront ceux qui leur proposent une vrai identit� : �tre humain. Enfin ils les imiteront, ou plut�t ils tenteront leurs propres exp�riences. Ce qui est certain et que de moins en moins nombreux seront les insensibles et les d�missionnaires, ils auront tous go�t� � la libert�, ils ne l�oublieront que difficilement. Alors il est souhaitable que la soci�t� prenne acte et accompagne son propre changement de paradigme politique. Il faut commencer � lib�rer les espaces et permettre � ces activistes de vivre sans �tre des parasites. Ils repr�sentent la seule mani�re de faire une politique avec un sens : �tre responsable de ses actes et apprendre � partager. Privil�gi�s, votre Monde merveilleux n�est ni politiquement, ni humainement possible acceptez le ! ! !''
You may find that fun, I don't think it is. No, seriously !
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com
Anthere wrote:
Excuse me here Yann, but though you are really a good wikipedian and did *great work* on the fr wikipedia, I hope you admit you have a rather strong biais, as can be seen in the nuclear-related articles . I sure hope that (with Francis maybe) you give us some good *neutral* articles on activism, anarchism and the such, but I'll tell you plain, articles such as the Activiste one that you wrote some time ago (http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Activiste&oldid=34251) are just way out of line. In particular the end of the article
''Lexemplaritest la force des activistes. De contre-modes en contre-pouvoirs, face lennui, quels res croyaient vous que vont suivre vos enfants ? Ils seront lass de plus en plus t, blas et aigris. Quelle que soit leur classe sociale, ils se tourneront vers les seuls qui proposent de vivre ses ids et de les dendre, vers ceux qui pensent la collectivitet lvenir. Ils suivront ceux qui leur proposent une vrai identit: re humain. Enfin ils les imiteront, ou plut ils tenteront leurs propres expiences. Ce qui est certain et que de moins en moins nombreux seront les insensibles et les dissionnaires, ils auront tous gola libert ils ne loublieront que difficilement. Alors il est souhaitable que la sociprenne acte et accompagne son propre changement de paradigme politique. Il faut commencer liber les espaces et permettre ces activistes de vivre sans re des parasites. Ils reprentent la seule manie de faire une politique avec un sens : re responsable de ses actes et apprendre partager. Privili, votre Monde merveilleux nest ni politiquement, ni humainement possible acceptez le ! ! !''
You may find that fun, I don't think it is. No, seriously !
I just read the whole article. It reads more the tone of a well-crafted newspaper editorial than of an encyclopedia article.
Eclecticology
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Anthere wrote:
Excuse me here Yann, but though you are really a
good
wikipedian and did *great work* on the fr
wikipedia, I
hope you admit you have a rather strong biais, as
can
be seen in the nuclear-related articles . I sure
hope
that (with Francis maybe) you give us some good *neutral* articles on activism, anarchism and the such, but I'll tell you plain, articles such as the Activiste one that you wrote some time ago
(http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Activiste&oldid=34251)
are just way out of line. In particular the end of
the
article
''Lexemplaritest la force des activistes. De contre-modes en contre-pouvoirs, face lennui, quels res croyaient vous que vont suivre vos
enfants
? Ils seront lass de plus en plus t, blas et aigris. Quelle que soit leur classe sociale, ils se tourneront vers les seuls qui proposent de vivre
ses
ids et de les dendre, vers ceux qui pensent la collectivitet lvenir. Ils suivront ceux qui leur proposent une vrai identit: re humain. Enfin ils les imiteront, ou plut ils tenteront leurs propres expiences. Ce qui est certain et que de moins en moins nombreux seront les insensibles et les dissionnaires, ils auront tous gola libert ils ne loublieront que difficilement. Alors il est souhaitable que la sociprenne acte et accompagne son propre changement de paradigme politique. Il
faut
commencer liber les espaces et permettre ces activistes de vivre sans re des parasites. Ils reprentent la seule manie de faire une politique avec un sens : re responsable de ses actes et apprendre partager. Privili, votre Monde merveilleux nest ni politiquement, ni humainement possible acceptez le ! ! !''
You may find that fun, I don't think it is. No, seriously !
I just read the whole article. It reads more the tone of a well-crafted newspaper editorial than of an encyclopedia article.
Eclecticology
Maybe does it sound like an Indymedia article ?
Someone improved Yann original version fortunately...but still...when we start with such an article, that sure is not easy to do a good job. In any case, if that is more the tone of Indymedia, it has nothing to do with Wikipedia (that's ok to add links though :-))
Imho
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com
Hi Anthere and others,
So to resume, there are two objections against Indymedia : - biaised, - not GNU FDL. Is that right ?
However, I would not agree to include a news project within Wikipedia. An encyclopedia needs some detachment, to stand back from current events, to be able to analyse the facts.
On nuclear issues, I would be the happiest if there would be NPOV articles (I mean scientific, on facts) on this subject. I think that people opinions in favor of nuclear power is mostly because of lack of knowledge about the subject. Well, that my opinion after 20 years of study of the question. And the articles on this in the English wikipedia are quite good for me.
The article on Activiste was put on my page by Francis. I thought that it would be, with maybe some little changes, a good definition of French people who called themselves activistes. Actually there is a controversy on the translation of the English "activiste" into French. I think it is usually translated as "militant", and that the English "militant" is translated into "activiste". But some people think that the French "militant" is to "passive", so they prefer the word "activiste".
Regards, Yann
Le Lundi 17 Mars 2003 00:43, Anthere a écrit :
This already exists. It's called Indymedia : http://www.indymedia.org.
Yann
I sure would not agree that wikipedia current news are given by indymedia. Though I support indymedia, I think they sure are to biaised to fit in the wikipedia frame. And on the fr wiki, that would likely be done by Yann.
Excuse me here Yann, but though you are really a good wikipedian and did *great work* on the fr wikipedia, I hope you admit you have a rather strong biais, as can be seen in the nuclear-related articles . I sure hope that (with Francis maybe) you give us some good *neutral* articles on activism, anarchism and the such, but I'll tell you plain, articles such as the Activiste one that you wrote some time ago (http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Activiste&oldid=34251) are just way out of line. In particular the end of the article
Yann Forget wrote:
The article on Activiste was put on my page by Francis. I thought that it would be, with maybe some little changes, a good definition of French people who called themselves activistes. Actually there is a controversy on the translation of the English "activiste" into French. I think it is usually translated as "militant", and that the English "militant" is translated into "activiste". But some people think that the French "militant" is to "passive", so they prefer the word "activiste".
What may be the case here is a that the relationships between the two words has gone in opposite directions in the two languages. In English "activist" has the more passive connotations of being very involved. "Militant" is used much less frequently, and carries an image of people ready for an armed uprising.
Eclecticology
--- Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net wrote:
Hi Anthere and others,
Hello Yann,
So to resume, there are two objections against Indymedia :
- biaised,
- not GNU FDL.
Is that right ?
However, I would not agree to include a news project within Wikipedia. An encyclopedia needs some detachment, to stand back from current events, to be able to analyse the facts.
I am sure glad to hear you say that...:-)
On nuclear issues, I would be the happiest if there would be NPOV articles (I mean scientific, on facts) on this subject. I think that people opinions in favor of nuclear power is mostly because of lack of knowledge about the subject. Well, that my opinion after 20 years of study of the question. And the articles on this in the English wikipedia are quite good for me.
thanks for improving a bit the field these past 2 days :-)
The article on Activiste was put on my page by Francis. I thought that it would be, with maybe some little changes, a good definition of French people
Sure. The difference in meaning is very important to be mentionned. I agree.
But, the fact it was offered to you by Francis doesnot make it look more like a non-biased encyclopedic article. Don't you agree ?
I am reflecting on the activism article and the one on La Hague, where you removed that big bunch of information. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usine_de_retraitement_de_la_Hague
I am sure glad you appear to know on lot on the nuclear matter. And I agree the text proposed is not written in a neutral matter. But I think there is not much wrong about the core of the infos given.
Similarly, I think there is not much wrong about the core of the infos given on the activism article, but the way it is written is not neutral and not appropriate.
So, both situations need to be handled. It is not because there are activists, but little pro-nuclear on the french wiki, that one article should be censored and not the other. So please, consider that, and do not censor. Let's try to improve rather.
Thank you Yann
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
Hi,
Did you read what I wrote on the Talk page of this article ? Didier made a NPOV summary of the long POV text of Athyvement, then Athyvement reverted Didier's text into his own text. So I just put Didier's text back.
So, I didn't remove any information. And I think that, if some controversial information are given, the source has to be provided.
Yann
Le Mardi 18 Mars 2003 13:09, Anthere a écrit :
La Hague, where you removed that big bunch of information. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usine_de_retraitement_de_la_Hague
--- Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net wrote:
Hi,
Did you read what I wrote on the Talk page of this article ? Didier made a NPOV summary of the long POV text of Athyvement, then Athyvement reverted Didier's text into his own text. So I just put Didier's text back.
So, I didn't remove any information. And I think that, if some controversial information are given, the source has to be provided.
Yann
Good evening Yann,
Problem is : where do the controversies really lie ? :-(((
When you remove a whole paragraph, because you say it is controversial, could you at least state which point (or points) exactly "is" controversial, so others could help finding facts supporting or refuting the claim ?
Do you reject the fact the crab was fished ? Or the location it was taken ? Or the fact the crab was picked up for analysis by ecologists ? Or the fact Criirad did the analysis ? Or the contamination level of 600 Bq found in the crab ? Or the amount of radioactivity in some drinking water sources in France ? Or the official maximum level of radioactivity allowed in food by french law ? Or the fact there is no place on Earth without at least a bit of natural radioactivity ? Or ....what ?
I agree it is not written the right way, but if you just remove the text without saying which fact appears false to you, how are we supposed to know where to look for answers ? I left you a list some hours ago. Please, comment Yann :-) ant
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
Hi,
The texts which I write are signed. The one you commented on the talk page is from Athyvement (I think). Actually, I didn't write a single word on this page.
Yann
--- Yann Forget yann@forget-me.net wrote:
Hi,
The texts which I write are signed. The one you commented on the talk page is from Athyvement (I think). Actually, I didn't write a single word on this page.
Yann
hello Yann
I "totally" agree you wrote nothing on that page.
But, "you" removed the text, do we agree on that ?
And, "you" asked that facts were backed up, do we agree on that ?
So, please, explain which facts you want backed up.
If not, I will put back all that paragraph in the article (with slight editing :-)). It doesnot appear to me right that you remove a whole bunch of facts, on behalf they need to be backed up, without at least pointing out to these you disagree with.
There is a minimum of trust to offer other contributors. We don't ask every contributor to provide "proof" links for each edit they make.
Or am I totally wrong, and we should ?
ps : Sorry I was not loggued in, my session keeps disconnecting these days :-( Dunno why.
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com
Hi,
I will do some investigations on this and get back. Yann
Le Mercredi 19 Mars 2003 04:04, Anthere a écrit :
And, "you" asked that facts were backed up, do we agree on that ?
So, please, explain which facts you want backed up.
If not, I will put back all that paragraph in the article (with slight editing :-)). It doesnot appear to me right that you remove a whole bunch of facts, on behalf they need to be backed up, without at least pointing out to these you disagree with.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Mayer" maveric149@yahoo.com To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org; wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 9:33 AM Subject: [Wikipedia-l] RE: Current events
As a matter of fact this is one of the /big/ reasons for our success; many people are very interested in current events so they write encyclopedia articles that reflect this.
I think this would be an attention ( http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pages_needing_attention) principle : first the nowadays articles ( topics in the news).
For me, the attention principles would be :
1. General before particular ( specific ). 2. In the news topics before another ones ( this is over the 1st. principle, if necessary).
Regards.
Can we stablish any collaboration way or wikiformat with indymedia ???.
At 08:25 PM 3/16/03 +0100, Pedro wrote:
I think this would be an attention ( http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pages_needing_attention) principle : first the nowadays articles ( topics in the news).
For me, the attention principles would be :
- General before particular ( specific ).
- In the news topics before another ones ( this is over the 1st.
principle, if necessary).
As a practical matter, lots of people are already doing this, but the other significant factor is that people will write about what they know and care about. Once in a while someone like me will take an hour to do online research for a quick article on something in the news (for example, I did a quick bio of the VP of Venezuela when he was briefly acting president), but I'm not suddenly an expert on the history or geography of Iraq.
The beauty of Wikipedia is that it has room for people to follow lots of different interests, and sometimes that means that when something hits the news, the article is already there, written by someone who cared about that enough to write about it instead of about whatever was in the headlines that week.
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
At 08:25 PM 3/16/03 +0100, Pedro wrote:
I think this would be an attention ( http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pages_needing_attention) principle : first the nowadays articles ( topics in the news).
For me, the attention principles would be :
- General before particular ( specific ).
- In the news topics before another ones ( this is over the 1st.
principle, if necessary).
As a practical matter, lots of people are already doing this, but the other significant factor is that people will write about what they know and care about. Once in a while someone like me will take an hour to do online research for a quick article on something in the news (for example, I did a quick bio of the VP of Venezuela when he was briefly acting president), but I'm not suddenly an expert on the history or geography of Iraq.
The beauty of Wikipedia is that it has room for people to follow lots of different interests, and sometimes that means that when something hits the news, the article is already there, written by someone who cared about that enough to write about it instead of about whatever was in the headlines that week.
I support the sentiments in Vicki's observation. If most of us ran our personal lives in the way we choose what to edit on Wikipedia we would all be in serious trouble. "Always leave something undone" is a principle that works well in Wikipedia but not in one's personal life. I've consistently believed that there was a fractal component to Wikipedia participation where all these seemingly random contributions when viewed as a whole show evidence of some unifying pattern.
In an ideal world where our human resources are unlimited I would support Sheldon's proposal, but in our real world my support must remanin philosophical. Each Wikipedia project competes with the others (including those in other languages) for human resources. Whenever that happens each of us must make a decision about the allocation of the fixed number of hours that we have available. This can be easy when we know nothing about the language of a new Wikipedia, or difficult when a new project relates significantly to our personal interests. From my own perspective, I can only wish that Sheldon's new little Mendelbrot of current events will some day find the appropriate connection with the central structure.
Eclecticology
Also, it´s a personal decission say : I know about this and about that. What is more important for wikipedia ??. Now I have clear what to do first ;)
Regards.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Saintonge" saintonge@telus.net To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 9:51 PM Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] RE: Current events
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
At 08:25 PM 3/16/03 +0100, Pedro wrote:
I think this would be an attention ( http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pages_needing_attention) principle : first the nowadays articles ( topics in the news).
For me, the attention principles would be :
- General before particular ( specific ).
- In the news topics before another ones ( this is over the 1st.
principle, if necessary).
As a practical matter, lots of people are already doing this, but the other significant factor is that people will write about what they know and care about. Once in a while someone like me will take an hour to do online research for a quick article on something in the news (for example, I did a quick bio of the VP of Venezuela when he was briefly acting president), but I'm not suddenly an expert on the history or geography of Iraq.
The beauty of Wikipedia is that it has room for people to follow lots of different interests, and sometimes that means that when something hits the news, the article is already there, written by someone who cared about that enough to write about it instead of about whatever was in the headlines that week.
I support the sentiments in Vicki's observation. If most of us ran our personal lives in the way we choose what to edit on Wikipedia we would all be in serious trouble. "Always leave something undone" is a principle that works well in Wikipedia but not in one's personal life. I've consistently believed that there was a fractal component to Wikipedia participation where all these seemingly random contributions when viewed as a whole show evidence of some unifying pattern.
In an ideal world where our human resources are unlimited I would support Sheldon's proposal, but in our real world my support must remanin philosophical. Each Wikipedia project competes with the others (including those in other languages) for human resources. Whenever that happens each of us must make a decision about the allocation of the fixed number of hours that we have available. This can be easy when we know nothing about the language of a new Wikipedia, or difficult when a new project relates significantly to our personal interests. From my own perspective, I can only wish that Sheldon's new little Mendelbrot of current events will some day find the appropriate connection with the central structure.
Eclecticology
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org