Re: [Wikipedia-l] correction of errors in articles

List overview All Threads
Download

newer

older

Re: Interlingua Wikipedia logo

Re: [Wikipedia-l] Poll so far

Walter van Kalken

14 Aug 2005 14 Aug '05

8:09 a.m.

Sabine Cretella wrote:

...

This is a general question - did I mention your name? And as I said before: I am not going to discuss things again - I am already in contact with some Palttdüütsch authors that publish liteature and articles in low saxon. There are more than just some writings.

You are going the Node way now? Everytime someone discusses something with him he comes up with these mysterious off-wiki "experts" who he quotes. I really would like it if you could solve it with the people who are on-wiki if there is a problem. They are the people you work together with. They ARE the community within wikimedia. Not some outsiders who feel having to comment but not work together is a great thing to do. And yes you DO need to discuss things things with fellow wikimedians. They are the ones you work with, not some John Doe's

...

Who is taking things from private to public is not me. On nds you can do whatever you want as long as the community supports you. You can use Werner's list as long as it is according to GFDL and he is mentioned as the author. I am going down to the basis as I don't like to go ahead by "xyz told me".

You are telling him that also. XYZ told me .....

...

I am going ahead with universities, writers and the institute for lower saxon language I suppose this should be fine when it comes to credibility - and this is what you are trying to destroy - and I really don't like that.

He is not destroying anything. These outsiders are welcome to discuss this themselves. I always hate discussion by proxy. and when people come up with all kinds of mysterious friends to which others have to bow because of their "alleged" expertise.

...

On the one word you told me by e-mail that was a hundred percent error turned out to be used 186 times on the internet (I have a screenshot of google if you don't believe it) and I found the writer who used it in her texts - she's a reporter for a newspaper in North Germany and has been writing articles in Pattdüütsch vor over 13 years for them now. I also contacted her to ask her how to categorise her writings.

Another mysterious supporting source.

...

So: anything is out of discussion here. I am not going let me impose things by anyone, I prefer research and adapt the contents we have to that..

And Heiko is not going to let you impose things upon him. Editwar anyone?

...

Remeber: it is not a nice thing to take things to public only since you presume I was talking about you -

It is not a nice thing to ask community help and only paint half of the picture, if you take things public name him/her so they got a chance to present their side of the argument. It has been done to me a couple of times by another wiktionarian and close friend of yours.

...

I did not once mention your name and what I had/still have is a general question - it does not happen the first time that people know how to improve things, but just complain about others not doing as the writer supposes - and talking about wikis: this is not the way to go and that's it. It is a very general question. If you need proofs for that: they are there in the histories.

If someone contents something you should listen to them and go in a discussion. Not just boldly go on and add the stuff elsewhere! Ciao, Waerth/Walter

Show replies by date

Sabine Cretella

15 Aug 15 Aug

12:33 p.m.

New subject: correction of errors in articles

Hi Walter, as agreed in the chat: I am not going to take this personally - really I marked the mail as to be read as you pointed me to this mail before it reached the list. In these holiday period work is quite a strange thing ... since there are not many colleagues around it is being concentrated on those few that are around and this week is going to be the hottest of the year in terms of colleagues on holiday and quantity of work here in Italy. So all mails from mailing lists for now are put aside, otherwise I just could not make it. I'll read it asap and depending on the relevance of the contents (of this and my mail) I am going to answer or to the list or by private mail. Ciao, Sabine Walter van Kalken wrote:

...

Sabine Cretella wrote:

.....snip ___________________________________ Yahoo! Mail: gratis 1GB per i messaggi e allegati da 10MB http://mail.yahoo.it

Gerard Meijssen

16 Aug 16 Aug

12:26 p.m.

New subject: correction of errors in articles

Walter van Kalken wrote:

...

Sabine Cretella wrote:

Well actually there is one major difference; Sabine is writing to universities, publishers and authors. She is asking genuine authorities on their opinion on the nds language. The turf battle is mainly one being fought in the Wiktionary space and here the rules are quite different from in the Wikipedia space. In Wiktionary we want all correctly spelled words in all languages. If there are some 200 orthographies, then that is just a fact we have to live with. When the nds.wikipedia decides to only allow one orthography, then this is up to them. Only allowing words in one orthography in Wiktionary is a completely different kettle of fish. This is not what Wiktionary is supposed to be. If this means that words that are not spelled in a known orthography by an editor are to be deleted, it is not acceptable when these words have a provenance. The one way of resolving this is by specifying what orthography a word belongs to. When this is not know, it will have to wait untill someone comes along who does know. When we ask an outsider to work with us on this issue, we ask them to join our community. To dismiss their obvious authority because they are newbies to Wiki is foolish; they can make a difference when we are the welcoming crowd we say we are. Making a reference to Mark is a cheap shot; he has been toning down and the quality of his contributions is rising as a result. There is a need for some scholarship when it comes to languages certainly for Wiktionary and Ultimate Wiktionary. We will have some hard fights ahead of us. The essence is to provide a great lexicological resource and make it as usefull as possible. Many of these fights will occur because people just do not understand what we try to achieve. It is therefore essential to leave people their dignity and their self worth and discuss what we are trying to do and how we are doinng this: provide Free information in all languages to all people

...

And yes you DO need to discuss things things with fellow wikimedians. They are the ones you work with, not some John Doe's

You are telling him that also. XYZ told me .....

XYZ has a function here: it is not to publicly say who is saying things that are not substantiated. By going to sources the point of view will be substantiated. This will create a NPOV.

...

We are not talking "mysterious friends" here: they will be names like Professor ABS of the XYZ university. To indicate their expertise they will be named things like "professor in linguistics" that is a proper way to indicate their expertise.

...

Another mysterious supporting source.

You can ask for the name of this writer; it can be given.

...

So: anything is out of discussion here. I am not going let me impose things by anyone, I prefer research and adapt the contents we have to that..

And Heiko is not going to let you impose things upon him. Editwar anyone?

When Heiko is to ignore substantiated facts, he will make what he does in the Wiktionary world irrelevant. This would not be about ediwars. I do not expect that Heiko will get into an editwar as there is a perfect solution and that is using proper labelling. When Heiko indicates words to be according to the Sass orthography or whatever Heiko orthography knows, his work will be most relevant. There are plenty possible solutions here.

...

Remeber: it is not a nice thing to take things to public only since you presume I was talking about you -

What is the point of your sniping at me ?? If you want to know how things are you can ask. If you want to put forward your side of an argument you can do so. I do publish about my point of view all the time. I do use some of the great ideas that you put forward and I make a point of it to state that they are yours. This continued whining does not help you. If you want to talk do so. If you want to convince me about certain things convince me. If you want to make a point research your facts because that will give you more credence and it will convince me about /your /good intentions.

...

If someone contents something you should listen to them and go in a discussion. Not just boldly go on and add the stuff elsewhere!

Here you show that you do not apreciate what Wiktionary is about; every wiktionary is about all words in all languages. Therefore it is completely acceptable to add this content in the Italian Wiktionary. Thanks, GerardM

Heiko Evermann

1:30 p.m.

New subject: correction of errors in articles

Hi Gerard, slowly I am beginning to be fed up with this discussion. I ask you not to misrepresent my position any longer.

...

Another mysterious supporting source.

You can ask for the name of this writer; it can be given.

Please list this word, please name this writer, so that we can discuss this one item in detail. I had listed several gravely misspelled words (according to all spellings that I know of), so please tell us which one of them you are referring here. Please name your sources. You could e.g. cite any dictionary whatsoever to prove your point. I have given details. I can show you several dictionaries that support my spelling. You so far have given 0. In words *ZERO*. That is not enough. Besides you have not even given any information about the origin of the list. We know which web site it is from, but from the misspellings in capitalization it is clear that it is derived from a text. I would really like to know which text that is. The problem is that you so far have not done anything to underly your claims with any credible source. Again: citing one website that is mirrored to some other places is circular reasoning, but no proof. Again: wiktionary is not a dump for all the misspellings in the world. You would not get through with that in any other wiktionary.

...

>> So: anything is out of discussion here. I am not going let me impose >> things by anyone, I prefer research and adapt the contents we have to >> that..

Now the thing is that you wanted to impose things on us. Besides you created facts by importing this list into it.wiktionary.org. A list that is highly suspicious.

...

No Gerard, *you* have not delivered substantiated facts. Why haven't you done that all along. This discussion has been going on for several weeks now. And your only argument is that you found this spelling somewhere on the internet and therefore it is a valid spelling. You could of course try to import all this data with the tag "very private spelling of xy", but then I really have ask who should profit from that? Low Saxon is in a bad shape nowadays. And an nds.wiktionary.org needs to present data that reflect actual current usage of words and not private spellings. If there should be a place for very private spellings in wiktionary or UW, then certainly *after* inserting the real, current use as substantiated by dictionaries etc. of whatever spelling. What I have been doing is cleaning up (as can be seen in nds.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Recentchanges). And I do think that this has helped to make the data a lot more relevant.

...

>> I did not once mention your name and what I had/still have is a >> general question - it does not happen the first time that people know >> how to improve things, but just complain about others not doing as >> the writer supposes - and talking about wikis: this is not the way to >> go and that's it. It is a very general question. If you need proofs >> for that: they are there in the histories.

The same accusations that Sabine put in her anonymous mail to this list were also found in her answer to my post to it.wiktionary.org, at least to my (albeit limited) understanding of Italian. And therefore this forum is indeed a place to discuss these things.

...

If someone contents something you should listen to them and go in a discussion. Not just boldly go on and add the stuff elsewhere!

Then please mark these entries as what they are: Low Saxon in an awful quality, full of errors and following an unsubstantiated very private spelling of one individual. Or prove otherwise, which so far (even after lots of mails and discussions) you have not done. Please do at least try, so that we (you and I) can discuss the real issue: the quality of your data. Again: this is not Sass-spelling vs. the world, but one very private, inconsistent, doubtful spelling against the rest of Low Saxon, and we will really clean this mess up in nds.wiktionary.org. At least unless you back up your position with real facts. Now this should not be too difficult, shouldn't it? And perhaps we can then go back to work, because there really is a lot of work to do and the list could already have been cleaned up, if we didn't have this discussion and if you then import the corrected data for us, or if you give us acces to the import script. (Which by the way I have asked for several times so far. I also need it because I have quite a long list of words (apart from your list) derived from the Low Saxon translation of KDE that I would like to import.) Is there really no way for us to cooperate? Does anyone else here understand what I am talking about for all this time? kind regards, Heiko Evermann -- 5 GB Mailbox, 50 FreeSMS http://www.gmx.net/de/go/promail +++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++

Gerard Meijssen

3:40 p.m.

New subject: correction of errors in articles

Heiko Evermann wrote:

...

Hi Gerard, slowly I am beginning to be fed up with this discussion. I ask you not to misrepresent my position any longer.

Another mysterious supporting source.

You can ask for the name of this writer; it can be given.

We have a letter by a university professor informing us that bitter fights are waged over what is "correct" spelling in nds. Anyway the fact that you have your sources in itself only proves that you can attribute the information that you provide to an orthography. "Werner Eichelberg sien dollet Wöörbook" is the source of Sabine's list; Werner indicated that the source were articles that were translated from deutschplatt. Your assertion that this must be incorrect is based on the availability of the resources that you have. There are some 200 valid orthographies and your assertion that some words *must *be wrong can be substantiated when you have considered them all. The sheer fact that this source has been indicated for several years as a good resource on the nds.wikipedia must count for something, (it is not just any old website :) You again assert that they are misspellings. Given that Sabine is in the process of getting more resources for this discussion, it would be prudent to give it some time and not insist on instant resolution because this is not feasible.

...

>>So: anything is out of discussion here. I am not going let me impose >>things by anyone, I prefer research and adapt the contents we have to >>that.. >> >>

Now the thing is that you wanted to impose things on us. Besides you created facts by importing this list into it.wiktionary.org. A list that is highly suspicious.

First of all I have done nothing here; I have not imported the list, but given your point of view that only what you know to be correct should be inserted I do agree that what Sabine did is in line with the Wiki tradition. She provides information that people can comment on. Again, I urge you to identify the words that you know to be correct for the orthography that they represent. This will ultimately give us a list of words that cannot be attributed to any orthography because they are wrong; they will then be indicated for what we will know at that time.

...

I am not party in this really because I am not gaining access to new resources. What I am doing is showing that what is being done is relevant and an acceptable way of going forward. To make it relevant you have to state what orthography a word is http://nds.wiktionary.org/wiki/ankieken (a recently changed article) does not indicate an orthography and is from my point of view as relevant as any of the stuff Sabine uploaded. Low Saxon may be in a bad way, it is helped by working together and doing a good job in categorizing words to the orthographies that are in use. It is not helped by us endlessly exchanging mail. I will take you more seriously when you start indicating orthographies. You can trust Sabine that she is writing to all these resources and I expect that it will lead to wordlist that will indicate what orthography they belong to. This in turn will make what we both aim for more objective; a good resource for nds.

...

>>I did not once mention your name and what I had/still have is a >>general question - it does not happen the first time that people know >>how to improve things, but just complain about others not doing as >>the writer supposes - and talking about wikis: this is not the way to >>go and that's it. It is a very general question. If you need proofs >>for that: they are there in the histories. >> >>

If someone contents something you should listen to them and go in a discussion. Not just boldly go on and add the stuff elsewhere!

As mentioned before, this is the pot calling the kettle black. Start indicating orthographies and you prove the quality of your contributions.

...

Please do at least try, so that we (you and I) can discuss the real issue: the quality of your data. Again: this is not Sass-spelling vs. the world, but one very private, inconsistent, doubtful spelling against the rest of Low Saxon, and we will really clean this mess up in nds.wiktionary.org. At least unless you back up your position with real facts. Now this should not be too difficult, shouldn't it? And perhaps we can then go back to work, because there really is a lot of work to do and the list could already have been cleaned up, if we didn't have this discussion and if you then import the corrected data for us, or if you give us acces to the import script. (Which by the way I have asked for several times so far. I also need it because I have quite a long list of words (apart from your list) derived from the Low Saxon translation of KDE that I would like to import.)

The software we are using is known to you; we use the pywikipedia bot software. No problems there. Generating the source for the bot is something that is often different depending on what we have for input. It is a typical handjob. If you have a list with Sass compliant words or a list with words in another orthography (preferably with at least one translation) I am quite happy to make you a source so that you can upload this. Are these KDE files .po files ??

...

Is there really no way for us to cooperate? Does anyone else here understand what I am talking about for all this time?

There are many ways in which we can cooperate but the bottom line is; to improve nds content you have to indicate the orthography because without it, the quality of the information is debatable. So again let us work together and agree that knowing the orthography is key to proving the worth of individual lemmas. NB this whole exchange of e-mails is not really relevant to the Wikipedia-l so I will only answer from now on at the Wiktionary-l Thanks, GerardM

Mark Williamson

10:24 p.m.

New subject: correction of errors in articles

...

Excuse me!!!? As Gerard said, this is a cheap shot. Gerard and I have had our fair share of disagreements, but I have not known him to be sour towards me by default, or to accuse people of doing things "the Node way". You've said before that you're worried about the Nauruan Wikipedia... did you apply for adminship there? Well, I'm worried about it too, and I did apply for adminship. There is nothing wrong with citing experts. If I ask some expert on psychology whether or not the English Wikipedia's article on paranoid scizophrenia is right, and he tells me what the problems are and how we can fix it, I think that his word should certainly count for more than the two Wikipedians who disagree with him but have no credentials, if they're right, they may find their own experts to ask. Even Heiko Evermann, with whom I don't exactly have a nice relationship, didn't stoop as low as have you by accusing someone (publicly, at that) of doing it "the Node way". Hartlich greuten, Mark

6836

days inactive

6838

days old

wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

Manage subscription

5 comments

5 participants

tags (0)

participants (5)

Gerard Meijssen
Heiko Evermann
Mark Williamson
Sabine Cretella
Walter van Kalken