Wiktionary-l May 2006

wiktionary-l@lists.wikimedia.org

7 participants
6 discussions

Re: [Wiktionary-l] [Wikitech-l] Categories on nap.wikipedia.org don't work
by GerardM 28 May '06

28 May '06

Hoi, I do not understand the need for markup in titles. I certainly believe that when markup prevents correct orthography in titles in any language, it means that markup cannot be handled in titles and consequently the markup in titles should not be allowed. As MediaWiki is about supporting all languages, markup in titles is clearly at best a nice to have and certainly not a must have. Representing orthographies is indeed a MUST have feature. PS I cross-post to the Wiktionary list. As they have as their aim to include all words in all languages, it affects ALL wiktionary projects. Thanks, GerardM On 5/28/06, Sabine Cretella <sabine_cretella(a)yahoo.it> wrote: > Brion Vibber schrieb: > > Sabine Cretella wrote: > > > >> We really do need '' as normal chars and not to initiate text written in > >> italics ... we must be able to include this in a wiki link in some way > >> and also in a category link ... is there a way to get a different tag > >> for that - something like <apostrophs> </apostrophs> or whatever? > >> > > > > Since '' can't be round-tripped reliably in wikitext, it's most likely that > > we'll have to make '' explicitly forbidden in wiki page titles in the course of > > fixing parser bugs. > > > > I strongly recommend you find another way of representing page titles that > > doesn't require the use of markup. > > > You mean a language should change its ortography to comply with > Mediawiki software? That sounds really strange ... and if instead of > Neapolitan we talked about English, German or any other of the "big" > languages? Must these then also comply to the software or do we then > have the momentum when a way is being searched to have these languages > write their titles correctly? Hmmm ... > > So what would you do if the English language had this requirement? Would > you also say the whole world then must misspell because the software > does not support it? > > Ciao, Sabine > Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale! > http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l(a)wikimedia.org > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l >

2 1

Re: [Wiktionary-l] [Wikitech-l] The lang tag in <HTML> ain't identical to $wgContLanguageCode
by Gerard Meijssen 12 May '06

12 May '06

Brion Vibber wrote: > Shinjiman wrote: > >> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="XXX" lang="XXX"> >> >> The lang (and xml:lang) attribute defined at the HTML tag in some language is >> not correct and it's supposed to not making this value identical to >> $wgContLanguageCode. >> > > Incorrect; it *is* supposed to be the value of $wgContLanguageCode, as by > definition $wgContLanguageCode is the RFC 3066 language code for the language of > the wiki's content. > > A reasonable case might be made that when variant display conversion is engaged, > the lang attribute should be overridden. > > >> For example there's no such language tag called "simple", >> > > Indeed there's not; that would be "en". > > Note that $wgContLanguageCode is not the same as the *domain name* or *interwiki > identifier*. These are separate issues. > > >> according to ISO639, RFC1766, RFC3066 (R1,R2). Hence for my previous patch >> that submitted to Bug:5790. The main purpose of the patch is adding a new >> Language Tag Mapping against the user interface language which using the >> incorrect language tag. >> > > That would be stupid and useless. Instead, use the correct code to begin with. > > -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com) Hoi, The case for the simple wikipedia is indeed obvious. More problematic is when you want to link a wikipedia that uses a code that will never be accepted as a language code because it is considered a language family. Or a code that is used for another language. Or a language where the code is specific while the wikipedia uses it to indicate a larger language "continuum". Another issue is that language codes are retired; this leads to a different interpretation of the meaning of the ku, fa and several others (this is part of ISO-639-3) Having meaningful links between the Wikimedia codes for interwikil inks and language codes is not trivial. For WiktionaryZ we are going to standardise on ISO-639-3 and have CLEAR codes that identify languages that are not recognised at present. One consequence is, that the Babel templates will be the ISO-639-3 codes as well. RFC 3066 indicates to be reserving tags for subsequent revisions of the ISO-639 code. ISO-639-3 clearly states that the codes will not be recycled. It also says that this principle will be maintained for any future revisions of the code. It is therefore safe to use ISO-639-3. Thanks, GerardM

1 0

The need for identifying languages properly for lexicological use
by GerardM 10 May '06

10 May '06

Hoi, When there is a vote for "yet another" wikipedia, it is necessary to have a code that identifies the new database. As Wikipedias are written in a language, we use a code that identifies that language. Typically people say we use the ISO-639 codes for that. This would imply that a code used has a relation to the language that is being used and, it should also imply that a wikipedia is indeed in a particular language as recognised by the code. The way the Wikipedia are is a matter of history and the continued abuse of codes makes for often heated political discussions about languages, it only make things more complicated.When you are interested in reading more details on this subject, you can read what I wrote on my blog. http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2006/05/languagecodes-on-wikimedia-foun… In many projects we use "Babel" templates to indicate the language proficiency of people. Particularly in Wiktionary and in WiktionaryZ, we have to be precise when we indicate a language. It means that when we are to indicate that a word is in a specific language, it has to be THAT language and not another language. I propose for WiktionaryZ and for the Babel proficiency to exclusively use the ISO-639-3 codes. When there are not enough codes in ISO-639-3 we will have to use codes that are clearly not ISO-639-3. These codes may indicate orthographies, dialects and different scripts and even languages that have not yet been considered to be a language. The use of well defined codes will allow us to have our data used reliably and to define our content better. This will enable people to use our data and make WiktionaryZ a success Where possible we will try to connect the codes used by Wikipedia to ISO-639-3 codes. This will not be possible for several languages like Albanian; the als code has been squatted by what ISO-639 considers a language family. Thanks, GerardM

1 0

Downloading Contents from wikis project
by Matsobane 09 May '06

09 May '06

Greetings I installed Mediawiki which i think is working fine on the web server and i have been trying to download contents from very interesting wiki's project such as wikibooks;wikiqoute,wikicommons,wiktionery and other without success. Could you guys help on the easiest way to dowmload or find the contents. I am working for a government project in SOUTH AFRICA that specialise in opensource and our targets are school from primary to secondary levels so i need to contents that we could install in their labs because they do not have internet. I hope i could get helped Regards Matsobane Moloto icommunity(SA) Tel:+27 15 4834878 cell:0731634000

2 1

Downloading Contents from wikis project
by Matsobane Moloto 09 May '06

09 May '06

2 1

RfC: A Free Content and Expression Definition
by Erik Moeller 01 May '06

01 May '06

Dear Wikimedia community, I am posting this to multiple lists, as I believe it is relevant to each of them (more on that below). For years, we have been using the term "free content" to refer to our projects. However, what exactly is free content? Does it include the right to make commercial use? Does it allow derivative works? A year ago, Anthere, one of our elected trustees, noted that the English Wikipedia article [[free content]] is confused and contains no clear definition. This is no surprise, as the term has evolved purely through its usage. One year on, the article doesn't look much better and still doesn't contain a single reference. It is clear that we need a definition. With the help of feedback from the likes of Richard Stallman and Lawrence Lessig, and an increasing number of collaborators, I have drafted up a first version of such a definition, called the "Free Content and Expression Definition": http://freecontentdefinition.org/Definition You can also use the URLs <http://freedomdefinition.org/> or <http://freedomdefined.org/>. Please use the URL http://freecontentdefinition.org/static/ (with trailing slash) when submitting this link to high traffic sites. Licenses covered by this definition must grant the following freedoms: * the freedom to study the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it * the freedom to redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression * the freedom to make improvements or other changes, and to release modified copies The essence of these freedoms is not negotiable. However, in order to best express, interpret and elaborate on these freedoms, I would like to announce an open editing phase to push this Definition to a 1.0 version. There is a stable, protected version of the definition and an unstable, openly editable one. The openly editable one, which may already differ significantly from the one above by the time you read this, can be found at: http://freecontentdefinition.org/Definition/Unstable You can suggest changes on the talk page, or be bold and make them directly. The change process will be consensus-based. In order to decide when a consensus has been reached on a change, I have appointed three moderators besides myself: * Benjamin Mako Hill. Mako is a co-initiator of the definition and a prolific figure in the free software community. To quote Wikipedia, he "is a Debian hacker and author of the Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 Bible (...). He currently works in the electronic publishing group of the MIT Media Lab, and is on the boards of Software in the Public Interest, Software Freedom International (the organization that organizes Software Freedom Day) and the Ubuntu Foundation." * Angela Beesley. You may be familiar with her. ;-) She's the other of the two elected trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, and also the Vice President of Community Relations at Wikia, Inc. * Mia Garlick. General Counsel at Creative Commons, and an expert on IP law. Creative Commons is, of course, the project which offers many easy-to-use licenses to authors and artists, some of which are free content licenses and some of which are not. None of them is acting here in an official capacity related to their affiliations. Please treat their comments as personal opinion unless otherwise noted. See <http://freecontentdefinition.org/Authoring_process> for details on the authoring process and <http://freecontentdefinition.org/Moderators> for more about moderation. The Creative Commons project has welcomed the effort to clearly classify existing groups of licenses, and will work to supplement this definition with one which covers a larger class of licenses and works. In addition to changes to the definition itself, we invite you to submit logos that can be attached to works or licenses which are free under this definition: http://freecontentdefinition.org/Logo_contest Why is this relevant to the projects I am alerting about it? Wikipedia Has the most significant problems distinguishing between free and non-free materials simply because of the sheer amount of uploads and user-submitted content. The English Wikipedia, for instance, allows limited "fair use" in addition to free content uploads, but prohibits licenses which forbid commercial use. This definition allows us to state clearly: "An uploaded work must either be free content, or fair use. If it is fair use, strong restrictions apply, and your upload may be deleted or replaced at any time." The definition also contains remarks about interoperability with other licenses. This is a problem that concerns us at the moment when it comes to importing texts under licenses which are philosophically similar, but legally incompatible with the GFDL. If the definition gets widely adopted, we can push for changes to licenses to make them more compatible with each other. Wikimedia Commons Commons was launched as a free content repository. We have effectively followed the terms of the definition in the licenses we allow and prohibit for uploaded files; however, the discussions about whether to allow, for example, pictures which cannot be used commercially keep coming up. Clearly labeling the repository as a free content archive under this definition will help to avoid that. Wikinews I've seen some uploaded photo galleries that were under licenses which forbid derivative works. If we limit Wikimedia projects to free content, that would explicitly not be allowed. This is an example of "non-free content creep" that may be observed on other projects as well. Wiktionary The definition contains recommendations about license complexity. Wiktionary as a resource for terminological and lexicological data does not benefit from the highly complex terms of the GFDL, which require, for example, reprinting the entire license text when copying a single page. Wikimedia The definition makes it easy to resolve the question of which licenses to allow or disallow across projects. For example, a Wikimedia-wide policy could be that: "All content in all projects must be free content as per the Free Content Definition 1.0, with the exception of works which are used under exemptions granted by national copyright laws, such as 'fair use' in the United States. These exemptions are defined on a per-project and per-language basis." Outside Wikimedia, the definition will make it easier for us to communicate. For instance, many people use the very vague terms "open access" or "open content", or simply talk about "a Creative Commons license" when describing licensing of their work. The term "free content" has an existing usage in the sense described herein. With the additional support of this definition, it is a powerful and simple way to determine whether a work is usable in the context of the Wikimedia projects. One note on the choice of name. Not all people will be happy to label their works "content", as it is also a term that is heavily used in commerce. This is why Mako and I have compromised on the name "Free Content and Expression Definition" for the definition itself. We are suggesting "Free Expression" as an alternative term that may lend itself particularly to usage in the context of artistic works. However, we remain open on discussing the issue of naming, and invite your feedback in this regard. All that being said, I hope that you will join the open editing phase or the logo contest. Even if there will be very little feedback, I hope we will be able to release a 1.0 version of this definition fairly soon. You will find a general announcement that you can copy and paste to other places at: http://freecontentdefinition.org/Announcement Please leave a quick note in the log when distributing it. As a final note, if you create an account on the wiki, I would appreciate it if you could use your real name as your user name. Thanks for your time, Erik

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Wiktionary-l May 2006