Hello, everyone
I am not interested in the policy of wikipedia at all. While it can be better still, I think the current policy (NPOV, for instance) and the syntax (wiki-markup language) are adequate and have no intention to discuss them.
My concern is about the administration of wikipedia, or the server, database stuff and the development of wikipedia. It seems there is a lot of problems and they are goind to be even worse.
In theory, yes, CVS of wikipedia code is open for anyone who is willing to contribute and should be work just like wiki. Alas! the reality is different, if not totally. As we know, quite a few of people are actually coding, compared with the number and diversity of wikipedians. Unlike the article in wikipedia,
I posted this for responding to the advice by Jimbo. However, if here is not appreciate place to submit this kind of mail, please let me know and I will seek another place to conduct the discussion.
Therefore,
I would like to proposal:
1. Disclose more information
While none of details are hidden, surely strangers have almost no information to hack. ("How to become a wikipedia hacker" in meta-wikipedia has a lack of critical information and is heavliy underused.)
2. Organize the development system
See UseMod. It has a far better developer community then wikipedia software.
We should stop immediately relying on the individual efforts. For example, many people simply post a bug to Brion, knowing he is responsible for the wikipedia software. Even he encourages people to report a bug to *him*. I don't blame him as well as others like him but really appreciate them. But such a case is not ought to be in wikipedia.
3. Make wikipedia software more visible and independent
Maybe we need a nice name for wikipedia software to make it more recognizable.
-- Therefore, --
the practical solution (I think but should not be limited to) is probably:
set up hacker.wikipedia.org or sister project dedicated to development software tools for wikipedia. In additon to the server software hosting wikipedia, the software programs may include another useful tools for wikipedians (maybe chat tools, if someone would like to persuite )
The site can embrace services for the sites hosting wikipedia software other than wikipedia.org (actually I am planning to switch the wiki program of my wiki to wikipedia software).
If you know UseMod and meatball, my proposal is akin to the relationship among UseMod and meatball.
Yes, there is a meat-wikipedia. But as we know, meta- wikipedia doesn't work well. There are plenty of dead stuff, which look weird and make strangers difficult to participate. There are even non-English stuff. Meta-wiki may be good place to put a draft, submit a proposal but it is not suitable for developers.
What do you think?
Best wishes, Takuya Murata takusi@manjiro.net
hacker.wikipedia.org is a bad idea. The solution is not to create *yet another Wikipedia* which we have to check, but to clean up meta, which is currently used for purposes which are clearly beyond its mission (i.e. whenever some unfixable idiosyncratic crap is posted to Wikipedia and the person posting it insists on keeping it, the solution is "let's move it to meta").
Meta should be about
- meta-project: discussing and formulating project-wide (i.e. not language-specific) policies; organizing events, contests etc. - meta-content: organizing and preparing content, e.g. templates; language files - meta-code: coordinating the development process - bugs, features etc.
I don't see why we have to use the SourceForge facilities except for CVS; having a single place on meta to organize bugs etc. would probably be more useful. The SourceForge UI is a mess, especially for newbies.
Personal essays should not be stored on meta, they can be stored as user subpages in the respective language Wikipedia, or deleted.
Someone recently reorganized meta, it is already a lot cleaner than it was a few months ago. If we move the personal stuff out and organize the rest, it should be more than good enough for better coordinating development. Activating subpages on meta might help.
Regards,
Erik
On 1/30/03 4:02 PM, "Erik Moeller" erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
hacker.wikipedia.org is a bad idea. The solution is not to create *yet another Wikipedia* which we have to check, but to clean up meta, which is currently used for purposes which are clearly beyond its mission (i.e. whenever some unfixable idiosyncratic crap is posted to Wikipedia and the person posting it insists on keeping it, the solution is "let's move it to meta").
Forums would help.
Excerpt from the french-speaking wikipedia today
===========
Au passage je rappelle que les tribunaux fran�ais ont condamn�s yahoo pour la mise en vente d'objet nazis. L'expression de th�ories, racistes, x�nophobes, antis�mites peuvent faire l'objet de poursuites p�nales m�me si le serveur est h�berg� aux �tats Unis. Pour permettre � wikipedia d'�tre accessible, je me permet donc de supprimer tout article qui contredisent directement le premier et le deuxi�me article de la d�claration universelle des droits de l'Homme :
Article 1
Tous les �tres humains naissent libres et �gaux en dignit� et en droits. Ils sont dou�s de raison et de conscience et doivent agir les uns envers les autres dans un esprit de fraternit�.
Article 2
1.Chacun peut se pr�valoir de tous les droits et de toutes les libert�s proclam�s dans la pr�sente D�claration, sans distinction aucune, notamment de race, de couleur, de sexe, de langue, de religion, d'opinion politique ou de toute autre opinion, d'origine nationale ou sociale, de fortune, de naissance ou de toute autre situation.
2.De plus, il ne sera fait aucune distinction fond�e sur le statut politique, juridique ou international du pays ou du territoire dont une personne est ressortissante, que ce pays ou territoire soit ind�pendant, sous tutelle, non autonome ou soumis � une limitation quelconque de souverainet�.
dura lex, sed lex
Voil�. Jul
---------------
The google translation (I feel lazy, I will just correct it quickly :-))
" By the way, I recall you that the French courts condemned yahoo for the setting on sale of Nazis object. The expression of racists, xenophobes, anti-semites theories can be the subject of penal continuations even if the server is hosted in the United States. To allow wikipedia to be accessible, I thus will delete any article which directly contradicts the first and the second article of the universal declaration of the humans right: "
This is a point of view rather widely followed on the "FRENCH" wikipedia (sorry canadian folks :-) - ey, this is humour !)
I don't think I need to translate the 1rst 2nd and 3rd articles of ONU. I am sure you all know them. This is the french wikipedia charter. Beware !!!
Comments anyone ???
Shall we proceed on this way ?
Or not ?
NB : do you think speciesm would be acceptable by the ONU point of view ? May I move the article to meta if not ?
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Ah, another thing
Curry is asking for the banning.
I put here the last articles posted on the french wikipedia that are triggering this wish.
On race http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Race&oldid=25534
On racisme anti-blanc http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Racisme_%E0_l%27envers&oldid=...
On racialisme http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Racialisme&oldid=25542
On racisme et homosexualit� http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Homosexualit%E9_et_religion&o...
On islam and homosexualit� http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Islam_et_homosexualit%E9&oldi...
-----
I say "this is really shocking, isn't it"
My fellow seem to consider these writings are non-acceptable by french law, thus should not be on Wikipedia.
Okay, off I am :-)
Anthere
--------- ---------
These pages triggered this comment
"
Tu peux appeler mon comportement de "l'intol�rance" et de la censure, consid�re plut�t que c'est :
l'expression arbitraire de la ligne �ditoriale d'une encyclop�die qui se veut universelle, contrairement aux �tats-Unis et au Premier amendement de la Constitution am�ricaine, nous pensons, en Europe, qu'il est l�gitime de limiter la libert� d'expression lorsque celle-ci porte atteinte � la dignit� de l'homme, aux droits d'autrui, et aux valeurs qui fondent la d�mocratie, un moyen de se prot�ger par rapport � la loi de propos facilement interpr�table comme d�lictueux. La discrimination et le racisme sont beaucoup plus que des d�lits, punis p�nalement, ils sont une atteinte aux valeurs qui fondent la d�mocratie. Celle-ci reconna�t l'�gale dignit� de chaque citoyen � participer � la chose publique, � poursuivre son bonheur et son �panouissement.
Le l�gislateur n'a cess� au fil du temps, et particuli�rement apr�s la seconde guerre mondiale, de compl�ter le dispositif l�gislatif afin de r�primer plus efficacement toutes les formes de racisme, d'antis�mitisme et de x�nophobie. Il a pour cela cr�� un certain nombre d'incriminations d'une part dans le code p�nal, d'autre part dans la loi du 29 juillet 1881 sur la libert� de la presse et dans la loi relative � la communication audiovisuelle.
Il faut le redire, l'Internet n'est pas une zone de non-droit car le droit positif fran�ais permet de r�primer la diffusion de tout discours raciste ou r�visionniste, par quelque moyen que ce soit et quel qu'en soit le support, pour reprendre les termes m�mes du code p�nal.
Un d�lit commis dans le cyberespace n'en demeure pas moins un d�lit.
Pour avoir �t� commis dans l'espace virtuel, le d�lit n'en est pas moins r�el. A cet �gard, la r�volution num�rique ne cr�e pas de r�volution juridique pour reprendre le th�me des premi�res rencontres parlementaires sur l'Internet qui se sont d�roul�es � l'Assembl�e nationale le 3 octobre 1999.
sign� Jul
"
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
On ĵaŭ, 2003-01-30 at 16:11, Anthere wrote:
Ah, another thing
Curry is asking for the banning.
Of Philippe, no?
I put here the last articles posted on the french wikipedia that are triggering this wish.
[snip]
I say "this is really shocking, isn't it"
My fellow seem to consider these writings are non-acceptable by french law, thus should not be on Wikipedia.
Hmm... I can't speak for French law, of course...
On race http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Race&oldid=25534
On racisme anti-blanc http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Racisme_%E0_l%27envers&oldid=...
On racialisme http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Racialisme&oldid=25542
These all need *desperately* some contextualisation, as they are about terms whose usage carries a point of view with them. Naked as they are, these do strike me as 'the kind of thing a racist would say, then say "hey! i'm not racist, just _racialist_, and see how innocent it is!"'.
I'd be rather curious to see what kind of law they might break, though...
The current versions of these articles aren't necessarily the best way to handle it; I think they would do better to discuss *and debunk* racist notions as much as possible, putting them in the proper context so when some kid hears about "racialism" or "reverse racism" and then looks it up on Wikipedia they'll see a rational, neutral explanation of what makes some people think and speak that way -- so they'll _understand_ why to discount those ideas. Pretending the terms don't exist or saying "oh, that's just what RACISTS think, if you touch them it might rub off on you! stay away!" strikes me as ineffective, or even counterproductive ("look, those Wikipedians are so biased they're afraid to take us on rationally!"). There are lessons to be learned from the evil that men do.
On [religion] et homosexualité http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Homosexualit%E9_et_religion&o...
It's a fact that some religions (or some religious traditions) consider homosexuality a sin, and that some people use this as a basis for a stance against gay rights.
Of course it needs expansion and detail (I would agree the current revision is better). Compare: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_homosexuality
On islam and homosexualité http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Islam_et_homosexualit%E9&oldi...
That's a direct translation of the first two paragraphs of the English article: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_of_homosexuality
Later revisions have I think improved it with mention that there are somewhat more tolerant traditions in Islam as well.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Wow! This was a fantastic paragraph, buried in Brion's longer letter, and it was so good I wanted to just reproduce it here to highlight it.
Brion Vibber wrote:
The current versions of these articles aren't necessarily the best way to handle it; I think they would do better to discuss *and debunk* racist notions as much as possible, putting them in the proper context so when some kid hears about "racialism" or "reverse racism" and then looks it up on Wikipedia they'll see a rational, neutral explanation of what makes some people think and speak that way -- so they'll _understand_ why to discount those ideas. Pretending the terms don't exist or saying "oh, that's just what RACISTS think, if you touch them it might rub off on you! stay away!" strikes me as ineffective, or even counterproductive ("look, those Wikipedians are so biased they're afraid to take us on rationally!"). There are lessons to be learned from the evil that men do.
--Jimbo
Maybe Jimbo and Brion should run for office in France...
Fred
From: Jimmy Wales jwales@bomis.com Reply-To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 04:03:52 -0800 To: wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Jimbo ? Others advices ?
Wow! This was a fantastic paragraph, buried in Brion's longer letter, and it was so good I wanted to just reproduce it here to highlight it.
Brion Vibber wrote:
The current versions of these articles aren't necessarily the best way to handle it; I think they would do better to discuss *and debunk* racist notions as much as possible, putting them in the proper context so when some kid hears about "racialism" or "reverse racism" and then looks it up on Wikipedia they'll see a rational, neutral explanation of what makes some people think and speak that way -- so they'll _understand_ why to discount those ideas. Pretending the terms don't exist or saying "oh, that's just what RACISTS think, if you touch them it might rub off on you! stay away!" strikes me as ineffective, or even counterproductive ("look, those Wikipedians are so biased they're afraid to take us on rationally!"). There are lessons to be learned from the evil that men do.
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
There are a BIG incomprehension in this debate (perhaps due to our poor english). We are not obscurantist who want to hide the reality and show a clean world where everyone are friends ! I think we all agree the better way to speak about racism is to explain with a neutral point of view the different way of thinking. And we don't think the actual version of articles we re-wrote are good articles.
Philippe created articles he describe himself as not NPOV. But more than not NPOV, many french wikipedians think they were false, racist or anti-Semite. Create a good article on racism can't be done speedily, so our problem was, what to do with those article until we will be able to propose a NPOV version. My solution was to put the article in the talk page and use the usable information of his articles (there are some) and add our own research.
Aoineko
Wow! This was a fantastic paragraph, buried in Brion's longer letter, and it was so good I wanted to just reproduce it here to highlight it.
Brion Vibber wrote:
The current versions of these articles aren't necessarily the best way to handle it; I think they would do better to discuss *and debunk* racist notions as much as possible, putting them in the proper context so when some kid hears about "racialism" or "reverse racism" and then looks it up on Wikipedia they'll see a rational, neutral explanation of what makes some people think and speak that way -- so they'll _understand_ why to discount those ideas. Pretending the terms don't exist or saying "oh, that's just what RACISTS think, if you touch them it might rub off on you! stay away!" strikes me as ineffective, or even counterproductive ("look, those Wikipedians are so biased they're afraid to take us on rationally!"). There are lessons to be learned from the evil that men do.
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Guillaume, you are right that there was a misunderstanding. But I think things are clearer now. You are not opposed to have articles *about* racism and anti-semitism. You think those articles should be NPOV. You are 100% correct! I agree with you completely.
Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
I think we all agree the better way to speak about racism is to explain with a neutral point of view the different way of thinking. And we don't think the actual version of articles we re-wrote are good articles.
Guillaume, on this point, the defense of NPOV, you are exactly right.
French law is not very relevant here, and I consider French law to be wrong. Even racists have the right to freedom of expression.
But, not on wikipedia.
--Jimbo
Wow! This was a fantastic paragraph, buried in Brion's longer letter, and it was so good I wanted to just reproduce it here to highlight it.
Brion Vibber wrote:
The current versions of these articles aren't necessarily the best way to handle it; I think they would do better to discuss *and debunk* racist notions as much as possible, putting them in the proper context so when some kid hears about "racialism" or "reverse racism" and then looks it up on Wikipedia they'll see a rational, neutral explanation of what makes some people think and speak that way -- so they'll _understand_ why to discount those ideas. Pretending the terms don't exist or saying "oh, that's just what RACISTS think, if you touch them it might rub off on you! stay away!" strikes me as ineffective, or even counterproductive ("look, those Wikipedians are so biased they're afraid to take us on rationally!"). There are lessons to be learned from the evil that men do.
I'd just like to add an AMEN and a further highlight. I think that this is perhaps the best possible way to deal with offensive text: to discuss it, why it's offensive, and most of all, why it's incorrect. If you don't have access to enough information to fully refute the claims, but you know that 99% of academics disagree, you can just put in statements such as "These claims are highly disputed among those who have studied the subject, and are generally regarded as an extremist, ultra-minority view." Then you can send out a call for balanced treatment to fellow Wikipedians!
An example I'll use is the "masculism" article on the English Wikipedia. Obviously QIM doesn't like feminists. At all. And he thinks the sexes are fundamentally different. This view was plastered all over the masculism article in no uncertain terms as part of the very definition of the word, and also as fundamental truths. :) I found that this could be greatly ameliorated by just adding "Some masculists claim..." at every appropriate point, and adding a brief counter-balance paragraph at the end. The article still needs serious work, mind, I just got tired of arguing with QIM. ;) But it now isn't a blatant statement of one user's view of the world.
Likewise, "Racialisme" or "Racialism". Suppose you just added text to the effect (my French is poor - J'ai oublie' tout les mots - so I'll stick to English):
"Racialism" is a term used by some to distinguish between what they claim are genuine racial differences, and the predjudice and exaggerated difference associated with the term [[racism]]. It should be noted that many see "racialism" as fundamentaly racist in and of itself. For instance, many dispute that "race" is a meaningful term, biologically speaking, when applied to human beings. Others argue that the classification, while socially valid, is so vague as to make discussions of "racial differences" invalid in anything but a highly subjective sense.
... and so forth. Babel renders this in French as:
"Racialism" est un terme employé par certains pour distinguer ce qu'elles réclament sont des différences raciales véritables, et le predjudice et la différence exagérée liée à la limite [ [ racisme ] ]. Il convient noter que beaucoup voient le "racialism" en tant que fundamentaly raciste seule. Par exemple, beaucoup contestent que la "race" est une limite signicative, parlant biologiquement, une fois appliqué aux êtres humains. D'autres arguent du fait que la classification, tandis que socialement valide, est si vague quant à rendent des discussions "des différences raciales" inadmissibles dans n'importe quoi mais un sens fortement subjectif.
(Except that it rendered "race" as "course", which was definitely not the meaning I had in mind. I changed it to "race" in the translation. :) Feel free to correct and use this text and any variations thereof in further discussions on race and racism. I think Wikipedia has some good, balanced coverage of the subject... the article on, I think, [[race and intelligence]] for instance. You can also find an excellent summary (in English, alas) at the website http://skepdic.com/iqrace.html on the same particular facet of this ongoing debate.
For the record: my own biases: I feel that "race" is meaningless as a biological term when applied to humans. It has some validity as a social term because of past history, but has always been so vaguely defined as to make strict classification impossible; therefore almost all generalizations using such classification are essentially meaningless. I also think that "racialism" is, usually, used simply an effort to sanitize racist commentary; however, I have sympathy for those trying to discuss e.g. race in social and historical context, who are often accused of racism simply for using the term. End non-list-appropriate aside. ;)
-- April
--- Kurt Jansson jansson@gmx.net wrote:
Hi Anthere!
Comments anyone ???
Sorry Anthere, I must admit that I sometimes don't understand what you're talking about. This is also there case here.
Could you give an example for that kind of article you're talking about?
Kurt
Sorry Kurt
On race http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Race&oldid=25534
On racisme anti-blanc http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Racisme_%E0_l%27envers&oldid=...
On racialisme http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Racialisme&oldid=25542
On racisme et homosexualit� http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Homosexualit%E9_et_religion&o...
On islam and homosexualit� http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Islam_et_homosexualit%E9&oldi...
I didnot remember you understood french.
How "wrong" do these articles look like to you ??? Would you support banning the author ?
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
The policies of wikipedia, even the French wikipedia, are not constrained by French law. Yahoo caved in to French censorship efforts because they are a large company with many business interests in France. We do not have that problem.
However, I will say this in addition:
To allow wikipedia to be accessible, I thus will delete any article which directly contradicts the first and the second article of the universal declaration of the humans right:
There is a great irony here. It is suggested that we should delete any article that contradicts the first and the second article of the universal declaration of human rights, because of a French law that is itself a strong violation of article 19 of that same document!
Article 19:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Anyhow, no article in Wikipedia should ever directly contradict or directly support any controversial statement of moral principle such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That's not NPOV, and it's not our mission.
Nonetheless, I suppose it is possible that there could be NPOV articles on valid topics which would be banned by various countries around the world. I suppose that an Arabic-language encyclopedia might contain many true statements, properly contextualized, written in NPOV, but which still might run afoul of censors in some hardline Islamic countries.
Then, so be it. If the French people are not free of human rights violations by the French government, we should be all the more inspired in our mission to help them.
--Jimbo
On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Jimmy Wales wrote:
However, I will say this in addition:
To allow wikipedia to be accessible, I thus will delete any article which directly contradicts the first and the second article of the universal declaration of the humans right:
There is a great irony here. It is suggested that we should delete any article that contradicts the first and the second article of the universal declaration of human rights, because of a French law that is itself a strong violation of article 19 of that same document!
Also, what would it mean to 'contradict' those articles? The way I read them, they DON'T say that all people are equal, they say that they should be treated equal by the law, and have equal rights. As far as I can see, what these articles attempt to do is to forbid _laws_ that make a difference between people (article 2 is even further restricted, and only talks about those rights that are granted by the declaration itself). Wikipedia, being neither law-creating nor law-enforcing in nature, seems to be unaffected by such an article, as far as I can see.
Andre Engels
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Anthere wrote:
Au passage je rappelle que les tribunaux français ont condamnés yahoo pour la mise en vente d'objet nazis. L'expression de théories, racistes, xénophobes, antisémites peuvent faire l'objet de poursuites pénales même si le serveur est hébergé aux États Unis. Pour permettre à wikipedia d'être accessible, je me permet donc de supprimer tout article qui contredisent directement le premier et le deuxième article de la déclaration universelle des droits de l'Homme :
By the way, I recall you that the French courts condemned yahoo for the setting on sale of Nazis object. The expression of racists, xenophobes, anti-semites theories can be the subject of penal continuations even if the server is hosted in the United States. To allow wikipedia to be accessible, I thus will delete any article which directly contradicts the first and the second article of the universal declaration of the humans right:
This is a point of view rather widely followed on the "FRENCH" wikipedia (sorry canadian folks :-) - ey, this is humour !)
Comments anyone ???
Shall we proceed on this way ?
Or not ?
To me it seems that any article which contradicts this declaration is clearly either POV or simply wrong (the second if it pretends to make a legal statement), and as such not suitable for Wikipedia. The only objection which I would have is that 'delete' here is stated as the only option. Better would be "edit and if the problem cannot be solved that way, delete".
Andre Engels
If you know UseMod and meatball, my proposal is akin to the relationship among UseMod and meatball.
Yes, there is a meat-wikipedia. But as we know, meta- wikipedia doesn't work well. There are plenty of dead stuff, which look weird and make strangers difficult to participate. There are even non-English stuff. Meta-wiki may be good place to put a draft, submit a proposal but it is not suitable for developers.
What do you think?
I thank you for giving new ideas. I looking forward to your next mails. But please avoid sentences such as "There are plenty of dead stuff, which look weird and make strangers difficult to participate. There are even non-English stuff"
It might be considered as offensive by some :-)
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org