Re: [WikiEN-l] Is "Copyrighted Freeware" CCbySA?
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Jay Litwyn wrote: > "Todd Allen" wrote in message > news:2a34d5a90902152157k5534f173g83c5c67ad6f83...@mail.gmail.com... > regarding http://www.fractint.org/ > (...) >> If the intent of the license is "We could force someone to pay for >> distribution rights at some point and deny them those rights if they >> don't pay up", it is not a free license. Free licenses include freedom >> to use commercially. > (...) > > Some of the authors of the software provide full contact addresses (e-mail > and snail), so I think CC-BY-SA tag applies; if you change it, use it, or > want work done on it, then remuneration by donation is *somewhat* optional, > and you cannot market the changes, because the people who provided the code > did not intend it for sale. If some major distributor picked it up, or > someone did a major overhaul to make it run under Windows proper, and then > sold it (I suspect that UltraFractal is along those lines, because it > contains a bug in the outside=atan view that was in a version of Fractint > before ver. 2003), then royalties would come due, and it would be > impractical to figure out who is owed how much. So, I am still thinking > CC-BY-SA, and at cost or less. > > > > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > CC-BY-SA doesn't have or allow mandatory payments. It requires only that you must attribute the original author(s) when redistributing, and may not change the license. You may be thinking of something more like CC-BY-SA-NC, which is not a free license. CC-BY-SA allows commercial use and/or sale without payment, provided that attribution is done and the license is not changed. -- Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Upcoming break
Stay Gruntled. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Is "Copyrighted Freeware" CCbySA?
"Todd Allen" wrote in message news:2a34d5a90902152157k5534f173g83c5c67ad6f83...@mail.gmail.com... regarding http://www.fractint.org/ (...) > If the intent of the license is "We could force someone to pay for > distribution rights at some point and deny them those rights if they > don't pay up", it is not a free license. Free licenses include freedom > to use commercially. (...) Some of the authors of the software provide full contact addresses (e-mail and snail), so I think CC-BY-SA tag applies; if you change it, use it, or want work done on it, then remuneration by donation is *somewhat* optional, and you cannot market the changes, because the people who provided the code did not intend it for sale. If some major distributor picked it up, or someone did a major overhaul to make it run under Windows proper, and then sold it (I suspect that UltraFractal is along those lines, because it contains a bug in the outside=atan view that was in a version of Fractint before ver. 2003), then royalties would come due, and it would be impractical to figure out who is owed how much. So, I am still thinking CC-BY-SA, and at cost or less. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 7:56 PM, George Herbert wrote: > On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Thomas Dalton > wrote: > >> We're shrinking because we've already written most of the stuff we >> want to include. > > This is orthogonal to the main conversation here, but this is not nearly the > case. > > We've picked off a lot of low hanging fruit, approaching all of it. Things > which haven't been dealt with include [...] I wondered why this thread had exploded with activity. It's because it turned into a "low hanging fruit" debate! My approach to seeing how comprehensive Wikipedia's coverage is at the moment is, while reading a book or watching a TV documentary, to mentally make notes of things to look up on Wikipedia. I did that yesterday while watching "The Victorians" (a BBC documentary presented by Jeremy Paxman where he looked at the Victorians through their paintings). There was lots I could have looked up, including the program itself (no article, understandably enough, as it wouldn't have met notability guidelines), but the three things I made a mental note of were: Gustave Dore: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustave_Dore Manchester Town Hall: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Town_Hall 1888 International Exhibition in Glasgow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Festivals#Past_Festivals The first two had articles, but the third one doesn't have its own article. Turns out there are three big exhibitions that were held in Glasgow, in 1888, 1901 and 1911 that we don't have articles on. We do have one on the one in 1938: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_Exhibition,_Scotland_1938 And the Garden Festival in 1988: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow_Garden_Festival But it's the historical stuff that hasn't been written about yet (and that's not even mentioning the art history - I should have noted the titles of all the artworks and the artist's and seen which we had articles on). I was kind of hoping that an interesting set of murals in the Manchester Town Hall hadn't had an article written on them yet, but it has been fairly well covered already: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Manchester_Murals History is an almost boundless area for new articles. Another way to assess how comprehensive Wikipedia is, is to take some document (or even one of our unwikified articles) and wikify it in some reasonably sensible way and see how many of the links are red. This is a bit more exciting than wikifying some index or list of entries in an old encyclopedia (though the latter is a more efficient way to do this sort of thing). One other thing that people sometimes forget to do is to check "what links here" for said redlinks and see how popular they are. See how many other people have been trying to link to it. Though you have to remember to do a search as well and pick up the plain text examples of the redlinked article that haven't been linked (some of which should be, some shouldn't). It's very satisfying to write a new article that has 10 or so incoming links already! :-) Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
I'm just starting adding a list of the members of the (US) National Academy of Engineering. we have only about 1% of them covered by articles. there are dozens of fields like that where we haven't even begun on the obvious. We have probably a similar coverage for pre 1990 US state legislators in almost all states. Additionally, for creative work, for politics, for important products, there will always be subjects for new articles. People are not going to stop doing new things. What we need is people. We will get them when we stop discouraging new ones by our general hostile way of talking, and our focus on deletion rather than improvement for new articles. Anyone who comes to write even a facebook-type article on themselves is a potential recruit, if talked to carefully. If they're willing to go to the trouble of writing, and brave enough to do so, they can be guided to find a proper subject. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
I wonder about how much of the fruit we've gathered. The plant WikiProject has about 30,000 articles, which include a mixture of articles about plant species, plant morphology and anatomy, and plant biologists. There are close to 300,000 plant species in the world. If we're only in the 5-10% range when it comes to coverage, I could imagine that could easily triple the number of articles without delving into the really hard to find corners. I can imagine that the Arthropods WikiProject (and its daughter projects) have about 13,000 articles under their care. Again, adding 100,000 arthropod articles shouldn't be difficult. True, the stuff that you could add off the top of your head may be gone, but grab a good field guide to plants, or grab a historical dictionary, and you could add hundreds of articles. To me it always seems like time is the major constraint, not stuff that needs to be written about... On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > > I think we passed to point where low-hanging fruit was a major factor > some time ago (probably round about when we started to level out, > although it obviously depends on your definitions). I think in a few > years the vast majority of existing topics that we want to include > will have at least stubs about them. There will be new topics being > created all the time, so growth will never stop completely (there will > always be a new series of Big Brother to write about!). We might > expand our ideas of what kind of articles are acceptable (ie. relax > our notability guidelines), but that's the only way we are going to > maintain any significant level of article creation about pre-existing > topics. > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
2009/2/16 Phil Nash : > I think the downside might be exactly what is covered by [[WP:NOT]] at > present, and especially [[WP:NOR]]; I've seen several articles that were > extremely worthy as research projects, but offended against those policies, > and [[WP:SYNTH]] in particular. I hated to nominate for deletion, but it had > to be done, within existing policy. I hoped we would not lose those > obviously committed and competent editors. The problem is that relaxing > [[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:SYNTH]], if not done with extreme care, opens the > floodgates to all sorts of abuse, and that is why I don't think it should > happen. I think we can relax the notability guidelines without relaxing our fundamental policies. We could change "multiple independent non-trivial sources" to "one independent non-trivial source" (I'm not sure that would allow for many additional articles, but you get the idea). ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
Thomas Dalton wrote: >> 2009/2/16 Phil Nash : >>> I think that this was bound to happen; any venture based on >>> describing the known universe has an inherent limit in any case, >>> and it seems obvious that once you've reached some level of >>> coverage, what happens then is more determined by the pace of real >>> life events. However, like software, it's arguable that an >>> encyclopedia is never really finished. Good Articles may be good, >>> and Featured Articles better, but something will always come along >>> to require additions. As for relaxing notability guidelines, I >>> think we very largely get it about right at present, and opening a >>> can of worms does not commend itself to me as a policy. >> >> If we get to the point where virtually no new articles are being >> created (beyond current events) and a very large proportion of the >> existing articles are at least Good, then it might be worth relaxing >> the guildlines - what would be the downside? I think a lot of people >> that like writing new articles don't like the fine tuning that is >> required to get from Good to Featured, so if we don't let them write >> new stuff we'll just lose them. We might as well have them doing >> something. I think the downside might be exactly what is covered by [[WP:NOT]] at present, and especially [[WP:NOR]]; I've seen several articles that were extremely worthy as research projects, but offended against those policies, and [[WP:SYNTH]] in particular. I hated to nominate for deletion, but it had to be done, within existing policy. I hoped we would not lose those obviously committed and competent editors. The problem is that relaxing [[WP:NOR]] and [[WP:SYNTH]], if not done with extreme care, opens the floodgates to all sorts of abuse, and that is why I don't think it should happen. As regards quality of articles that pass the intial [[WP:CSD]] and [[WP:N]] tests, it's very largely up to editors being interested enough to dedicate time and effort to take an article to its appropriate level. Take [[Tiddleywink]] as an example; it is notable, by definition, because it's a settlement. But without major research effort, it's extremely unlikely to ever achieve GA, let alone FA. Perhaps that is a problem with the requirements of GA & FA, and perhaps also those criteria are worth looking at. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
2009/2/16 : > Another example is that the vast majority of our articles on US > Counties have next to nothing about the county history. That is, when > was the county formed? What land was it formed out of? Did the > boundaries change over time? What was the first city laid out? Who > were the first few documentation-attested inhabitants? > > Most of our county articles are just current demographics and > geographical information. So not only is there a lot of room for new > articles, but there is a lot of room for expanding current articles. > > In addition a lot of biographical articles on say medieval people are > just skeletons showing how they fit into a certain family, with next to > nothing about their own life and accomplishments. Oh, absolutely. 5 years is an estimate for when we'll be done creating new articles, it will be a long time after that before we're done enlarging existing articles. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
Another example is that the vast majority of our articles on US Counties have next to nothing about the county history. That is, when was the county formed? What land was it formed out of? Did the boundaries change over time? What was the first city laid out? Who were the first few documentation-attested inhabitants? Most of our county articles are just current demographics and geographical information. So not only is there a lot of room for new articles, but there is a lot of room for expanding current articles. In addition a lot of biographical articles on say medieval people are just skeletons showing how they fit into a certain family, with next to nothing about their own life and accomplishments. Will ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
2009/2/16 Phil Nash : > I think that this was bound to happen; any venture based on describing the > known universe has an inherent limit in any case, and it seems obvious that > once you've reached some level of coverage, what happens then is more > determined by the pace of real life events. However, like software, it's > arguable that an encyclopedia is never really finished. Good Articles may be > good, and Featured Articles better, but something will always come along to > require additions. As for relaxing notability guidelines, I think we very > largely get it about right at present, and opening a can of worms does not > commend itself to me as a policy. If we get to the point where virtually no new articles are being created (beyond current events) and a very large proportion of the existing articles are at least Good, then it might be worth relaxing the guildlines - what would be the downside? I think a lot of people that like writing new articles don't like the fine tuning that is required to get from Good to Featured, so if we don't let them write new stuff we'll just lose them. We might as well have them doing something. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
Thomas Dalton wrote: >> 2009/2/16 Sage Ross : >>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Thomas Dalton >>> wrote: >>> I'm just going by the statistics, I'm not making any judgements based on anything else. At the moment, we seem to be following a logistic curve which levels out at around 3.5 million articles in around 2013-14. (It's asymptotic, but it will be pretty much there by then.) >>> >>> So far, "low-hanging fruit" has dominated the growth pattern of >>> Wikipedia. Rather than approaching a horizontal asymptote, we're >>> probably approaching a stable growth rate (i.e., an oblique >>> asymptote), since it's obvious that the number of potential articles >>> yet to be written is not the limiting factor. Rather we're limited >>> by >>> a product of potential articles and users interested in those >>> articles. >>> >>> But statistically it's probably impossible to know that just from >>> the >>> data, since low-hanging fruit swamps longer-term trends. >> >> I think we passed to point where low-hanging fruit was a major factor >> some time ago (probably round about when we started to level out, >> although it obviously depends on your definitions). I think in a few >> years the vast majority of existing topics that we want to include >> will have at least stubs about them. There will be new topics being >> created all the time, so growth will never stop completely (there >> will always be a new series of Big Brother to write about!). We might >> expand our ideas of what kind of articles are acceptable (ie. relax >> our notability guidelines), but that's the only way we are going to >> maintain any significant level of article creation about pre-existing >> topics. I think that this was bound to happen; any venture based on describing the known universe has an inherent limit in any case, and it seems obvious that once you've reached some level of coverage, what happens then is more determined by the pace of real life events. However, like software, it's arguable that an encyclopedia is never really finished. Good Articles may be good, and Featured Articles better, but something will always come along to require additions. As for relaxing notability guidelines, I think we very largely get it about right at present, and opening a can of worms does not commend itself to me as a policy. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
2009/2/16 Sage Ross : > On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Thomas Dalton > wrote: > >> I'm just going by the statistics, I'm not making any judgements based >> on anything else. At the moment, we seem to be following a logistic >> curve which levels out at around 3.5 million articles in around >> 2013-14. (It's asymptotic, but it will be pretty much there by then.) >> > > So far, "low-hanging fruit" has dominated the growth pattern of > Wikipedia. Rather than approaching a horizontal asymptote, we're > probably approaching a stable growth rate (i.e., an oblique > asymptote), since it's obvious that the number of potential articles > yet to be written is not the limiting factor. Rather we're limited by > a product of potential articles and users interested in those > articles. > > But statistically it's probably impossible to know that just from the > data, since low-hanging fruit swamps longer-term trends. I think we passed to point where low-hanging fruit was a major factor some time ago (probably round about when we started to level out, although it obviously depends on your definitions). I think in a few years the vast majority of existing topics that we want to include will have at least stubs about them. There will be new topics being created all the time, so growth will never stop completely (there will always be a new series of Big Brother to write about!). We might expand our ideas of what kind of articles are acceptable (ie. relax our notability guidelines), but that's the only way we are going to maintain any significant level of article creation about pre-existing topics. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
This isn't actually accurate. Wikipedia may have reached the point where most people find it includes most of the stuff *that has been traditionally found in encylopedias* they carry around in their heads. Wikipedia is not paper. On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:50 PM, geni wrote: > 2009/2/16 Charles Matthews : > > Yeah, well, my reaction to the whole "fruit" discussion is that it is > > systemic-bias-lite. > > Maybe but that doesn't address the problem. Wikipedia has already > reached the point where most people find it includes most of the stuff > they carry around in their heads. As a result the average person is > facing far fewer opportunities to write new articles or expand > existing ones than they used to. This makes both continuing expansion > in size and editor numbers somewhat tricky. > > > > -- > geni > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > I'm just going by the statistics, I'm not making any judgements based > on anything else. At the moment, we seem to be following a logistic > curve which levels out at around 3.5 million articles in around > 2013-14. (It's asymptotic, but it will be pretty much there by then.) > So far, "low-hanging fruit" has dominated the growth pattern of Wikipedia. Rather than approaching a horizontal asymptote, we're probably approaching a stable growth rate (i.e., an oblique asymptote), since it's obvious that the number of potential articles yet to be written is not the limiting factor. Rather we're limited by a product of potential articles and users interested in those articles. But statistically it's probably impossible to know that just from the data, since low-hanging fruit swamps longer-term trends. -Sage (User:Ragesoss) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
2009/2/16 Charles Matthews : > Yeah, well, my reaction to the whole "fruit" discussion is that it is > systemic-bias-lite. Maybe but that doesn't address the problem. Wikipedia has already reached the point where most people find it includes most of the stuff they carry around in their heads. As a result the average person is facing far fewer opportunities to write new articles or expand existing ones than they used to. This makes both continuing expansion in size and editor numbers somewhat tricky. -- geni ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
2009/2/16 Charles Matthews : > Thomas Dalton wrote: >> 2009/2/16 Charles Matthews : >> >>> I believe we have another decade before Wikipedia lives up to its >>> potential as a comprehensive reference. My main hope is that life >>> around the wiki stays dull enough so that the job largely gets done. >>> >> >> Indeed. Current predictions show growth in terms of article numbers >> pretty much ending in around 4 or 5 years time. We'll then need >> several more years to actually get all the articles up the scratch. A >> decade may even be optimistic. >> >> > Yeah, well, my reaction to the whole "fruit" discussion is that it is > systemic-bias-lite. I'll settle for five years to start most of the > articles of interest to those with a fairly parochial view of what > constitutes an interesting topic, and 25 years more to catch up with the > rest of the planet. You're not telling me that we'll have articles > correspording to all the other language versions - total interwiki > converage - by 2014? I'm just going by the statistics, I'm not making any judgements based on anything else. At the moment, we seem to be following a logistic curve which levels out at around 3.5 million articles in around 2013-14. (It's asymptotic, but it will be pretty much there by then.) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/2/16 Charles Matthews : > >> I believe we have another decade before Wikipedia lives up to its >> potential as a comprehensive reference. My main hope is that life >> around the wiki stays dull enough so that the job largely gets done. >> > > Indeed. Current predictions show growth in terms of article numbers > pretty much ending in around 4 or 5 years time. We'll then need > several more years to actually get all the articles up the scratch. A > decade may even be optimistic. > > Yeah, well, my reaction to the whole "fruit" discussion is that it is systemic-bias-lite. I'll settle for five years to start most of the articles of interest to those with a fairly parochial view of what constitutes an interesting topic, and 25 years more to catch up with the rest of the planet. You're not telling me that we'll have articles correspording to all the other language versions - total interwiki converage - by 2014? Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
I would include biography as well. We are heavily weighted toward moderns, who are also, not coincidentally, the easiest to research using Google. That will change as more people get more familiar with using Google Books instead to research the biographies of people who have been more forgotten as time passes. We probably have 50,000 biographies of people who lived in the past 100 years, but only say 500 biographies of people who lived in the 18th century when we should, by population count, have perhaps ten times that number if we're truly trying to represent the knowledge which actually exists in all print sources. Even just to take an example, some noble houses of Great Britain, like the Dukes of Portland, or the Earls of Dundonald, we don't have a complete set of articles, one on each one. Even though such biographies do actually exist in print. In a message dated 2/16/2009 11:56:48 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, george.herb...@gmail.com writes: There are whole fields of engineering and science that we have barely scratched the surface of at the moment. **Need a job? Find an employment agency near you. (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=employment_agencies&ncid=emlcntusyelp0003) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia signpost: new issue and changes
Ha! That's user:Ragesoss, real name Sage Ross, who is taking over the 'Post. Clearly I need a good editor before my stories go to print! -- phoebe On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 12:31 PM, phoebe ayers wrote: > I'm pleased to announce the newest issue of the The Wikipedia Signpost: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost > which has several important changes: > > * A new editor: User:Sageross has agreed to take over as editor in > chief from User:Ral315, who was editor from Sept. 2005-Dec. 2008. > Ral315 did an amazing job in keeping the Signpost going for so long > and we are all very grateful for all his hard work. > > * A new look: with a design led by User:Pretzels, the main page of the > 'Post is redesigned. > > * New coverage: The Signpost plans to cover more community news, both > from within the English Wikipedia and from the whole family of other > Wikipedias and Wikimedia projects. For instance, this issue contains a > story on the Commons Picture of the year contest. This issue also > debuts a new feature: The "Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous > Articulations" (DRAMA) report, which covers ongoing discussion threads > that are happening on en:wp. We all know it's tough to keep up with > all the interesting discussions that happen, and it's our hope that > the Signpost can play a role in making these conversations more > accessible to busy editors. This new feature will be refined over the > coming weeks and suggestions are welcome. > > * As always, to keep this project going contributors are needed. If > you know of something interesting going on out there in wiki-land, > either on en:wp or on another Wikimedia project, or if you have an > idea for a story, please leave us a note on the Tipline: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions. > We want to hear about milestones, events, contests and any other > community news. > > General comments or suggestions can be left here: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost. > > On behalf of Signpost writers, thanks for reading the Signpost! > > -- Phoebe > -- * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers gmail.com * ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia signpost: new issue and changes
I'm pleased to announce the newest issue of the The Wikipedia Signpost: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost which has several important changes: * A new editor: User:Sageross has agreed to take over as editor in chief from User:Ral315, who was editor from Sept. 2005-Dec. 2008. Ral315 did an amazing job in keeping the Signpost going for so long and we are all very grateful for all his hard work. * A new look: with a design led by User:Pretzels, the main page of the 'Post is redesigned. * New coverage: The Signpost plans to cover more community news, both from within the English Wikipedia and from the whole family of other Wikipedias and Wikimedia projects. For instance, this issue contains a story on the Commons Picture of the year contest. This issue also debuts a new feature: The "Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations" (DRAMA) report, which covers ongoing discussion threads that are happening on en:wp. We all know it's tough to keep up with all the interesting discussions that happen, and it's our hope that the Signpost can play a role in making these conversations more accessible to busy editors. This new feature will be refined over the coming weeks and suggestions are welcome. * As always, to keep this project going contributors are needed. If you know of something interesting going on out there in wiki-land, either on en:wp or on another Wikimedia project, or if you have an idea for a story, please leave us a note on the Tipline: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions. We want to hear about milestones, events, contests and any other community news. General comments or suggestions can be left here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost. On behalf of Signpost writers, thanks for reading the Signpost! -- Phoebe ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Fwd: [Foundation-l] .YU domain transition
Forwarded from foundation-l.
At the time of writing we have 7272 links to *.yu sites on enwp; I'm
not offhand sure how many of those are in articlespace, but it looks
like a fair proportion.
Anyone interested in taking on the task of replacing them?
-- Forwarded message --
From: Nikola Smolenski
Date: 2009/2/16
Subject: [Foundation-l] .YU domain transition
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
I would like to draw Wikimedians' attention to the problem of expiring .yu top
level domain.
As is known, .yu top level domain ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.yu ) is
being replaced with .rs and .me TLDs. This means that all web pages under .yu
domain will stop working, including all 46102 that are linked from various
Wikimedia projects: some will stop as soon as March, while all will stop in
October. This further means that readers of Wikimedia projects will not be
able to access information that is now available to them, either if a domain
is used as an external link or if it is used as an article reference.
Especially the latter is very important since, with massive link loss, a
large number of references could no longer be evaluated by the readers and
editors.
To solve this problem, I have made a statistics of .yu domain use on Wikimedia
projects ( http://toolserver.org/~nikola/yustats.tar.bz2 ) and, with its
help, replaced at least the most common links on Serbian Wikipedia with their
appropriate equivalents.
However, given that I am not able to do the same on other projects, I would
like to attract attention of people who are willing to help and can do
necessary botwork to fix as many soon-to-be broken links as possible. Please
reply if you can help in any way or have any other advice. If you are a bot
operator, you can do it easily with the standard pywikipediabot. Here is a
sample command I used:
python
replace.py -weblink:webrzs.statserb.sr.gov.yu
"webrzs.statserb.sr.gov.yu" "webrzs.stat.gov.rs"
==The domains==
This is a list of domains that are already search/replaced on Serbian
Wikipedia. This list includes most of the most common domains and covered
perhaps a quarter of all links (even while not counting
webrzs.statserb.sr.gov.yu that was included via a few templates).
{|
!From!To
|-
||webrzs.statserb.sr.gov.yu||webrzs.stat.gov.rs
|-
||www.rastko.org.yu||www.rastko.org.rs
|-
||www.reprezentacija.co.yu||www.reprezentacija.rs
|-
||www.blic.co.yu||www.blic.co.rs
|-
||www.beograd.org.yu||www.beograd.org.rs
|-
||arhiva.glas-javnosti.co.yu||arhiva.glas-javnosti.rs
|-
||www.srpsko-nasledje.co.yu||www.srpsko-nasledje.co.rs
|-
||www.dnevnik.co.yu||www.dnevnik.rs
|-
||www.srbija.sr.gov.yu||www.srbija.gov.rs
|-
||www.kurir-info.co.yu/Arhiva||arhiva.kurir-info.rs/Arhiva
|-
||www.kurir-info.co.yu/arhiva||arhiva.kurir-info.rs/arhiva
|-
||www.kurir-info.co.yu||www.kurir-info.rs
|-
||arhiva.kurir-info.co.yu||arhiva.kurir-info.rs
|-
||www.prvaliga.co.yu||www.prvaliga.rs
|-
||www.mitropolija.cg.yu||www.mitropolija.me
|-
||www.spc.yu/sr||www.spc.rs/sr
|-
||www.sk.co.yu||www.sk.co.rs
|-
||www.ekoforum.org.yu||www.ekoforum.org
|-
||www.svevlad.org.yu||www.svevlad.org.rs
|-
||www.posta.co.yu||www.posta.rs
|-
||www.glas-javnosti.co.yu||www.glas-javnosti.rs
|-
||www.fscg.cg.yu||www.fscg.co.me
|-
||ww1.rts.co.yu/euro||ww1.rts.co.rs/euro
|}
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
Sage Ross wrote: > > I don't disagree. I'm just saying we should think of Citizendium as > another (small) place for people to produce free content similar to > the kind Wikipedia produces, as a potential collaborator with > Wikipedia rather than a competitor (which isn't realistic, if it ever > was). That's a very real possibility once the license change happens. > That's quite OK: someone who forks WP to make a site that is similar but has a different atmosphere doesn't have to prove a big philosophical difference, just to do it (which technically can't be so hard, these days). In other words, it would be nice if all the free-culture people agreed that this is not a zero-sum game. I don't read Sanger's comments in exactly that way, though. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
2009/2/16 Thomas Dalton : > 30% by articles, maybe, but they were stubs weren't they, so it won't > be 30% by words. (That may explain why their articles are longer on > average.) Incidentally, I don't think Rambot articles were that > significant - if you look at the graphs, rate of growth didn't > increase when they were added as one would expect is rate of growth > were simply proportional to size (which it what gives exponential > growth) which suggests rate of growth was actually proportional to the > number of non-Rambot articles. I remember them being a PITA at the time (early 2004). 200k articles with 30k Rambot articles meant [[Special:Random]] turned up Rambot articles entirely too often for my liking. I'm glad that (a) they're now vastly outnumbered (b) almost all have been significantly rewritten. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
2009/2/16 Charles Matthews : > I believe we have another decade before Wikipedia lives up to its > potential as a comprehensive reference. My main hope is that life > around the wiki stays dull enough so that the job largely gets done. Indeed. Current predictions show growth in terms of article numbers pretty much ending in around 4 or 5 years time. We'll then need several more years to actually get all the articles up the scratch. A decade may even be optimistic. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
George Herbert wrote: > There are > whole fields of engineering and science that we have barely scratched the > surface of at the moment. > > I think that's right. Engineering is not one of Wikipedia's strong areas, I believe, though I hardly spend time on that. I do spend time on history - looks like 2009 will be the year of the seventeenth century - and there is clearly a great deal of "placeholder text": stuff that will do until someone gets round to putting in an effort, but easy to add to in detail. I'm working today on [[John Wilkins]], the really big single name in getting the Royal Society founded - and there was a huge amount to do just to make the article reasonably comprehensive. I believe we have another decade before Wikipedia lives up to its potential as a comprehensive reference. My main hope is that life around the wiki stays dull enough so that the job largely gets done. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
2009/2/16 Eugene van der Pijll : >> My calculations come out as about 1/10 the size by articles and 1/3 >> the size by words (so their articles must be longer on average). > > About 30% of the volume of WP at the time consisted of Rambot articles, > which aren't too interesting as a measurement of growth (though they may > have been a significant reason for our success). 30% by articles, maybe, but they were stubs weren't they, so it won't be 30% by words. (That may explain why their articles are longer on average.) Incidentally, I don't think Rambot articles were that significant - if you look at the graphs, rate of growth didn't increase when they were added as one would expect is rate of growth were simply proportional to size (which it what gives exponential growth) which suggests rate of growth was actually proportional to the number of non-Rambot articles. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
2009/2/16 George Herbert : > We've picked off a lot of low hanging fruit, approaching all of it. Things We've picked up all the fruit that's actually on the ground with neon signs pointing to it. There's lots of low hanging fruit, e.g.: > A month-ish ago, I spent a week putting together an article on one > explosives engineering topic which was completely missing... leaving us with > about 95% of that field still uncovered so far. > Aerospace engineering is poorly covered. > Automobile engineering is somewhat covered, but not with really good > articles. Rocketry needs a lot more. Astrodynamics needs a lot more. > Naval architecture and ship design topics are poorly covered now. > Three of the last eight highly technical terms I went looking for > information on weren't in Wikipedia in any significant way, across a bunch > of fields. Yep :-) > This is just what's on my mind right now. Every time I've looked at it I've > found more gaps. Here's to red links, the signposts to future growth! > I could spend the rest of my life adding information to Wikipedia, at this > rate, if I didn't have to have a day job and didn't want to go sit on a > beach. Hopefully we can over time add more new editors / contributors in > these fields so I don't have to 8-P Careful, you might get a life with that sort of attitude! - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > We're shrinking because we've already written most of the stuff we > want to include. > This is orthogonal to the main conversation here, but this is not nearly the case. We've picked off a lot of low hanging fruit, approaching all of it. Things which haven't been dealt with include figuring out where a more liberal livable line lies in the inclusionism question, and filling in a lot of semi specialist topics which are currently woefully underrepresented. There are whole fields of engineering and science that we have barely scratched the surface of at the moment. A month-ish ago, I spent a week putting together an article on one explosives engineering topic which was completely missing... leaving us with about 95% of that field still uncovered so far. Aerospace engineering is poorly covered. Automobile engineering is somewhat covered, but not with really good articles. Rocketry needs a lot more. Astrodynamics needs a lot more. Naval architecture and ship design topics are poorly covered now. Three of the last eight highly technical terms I went looking for information on weren't in Wikipedia in any significant way, across a bunch of fields. This is just what's on my mind right now. Every time I've looked at it I've found more gaps. I could spend the rest of my life adding information to Wikipedia, at this rate, if I didn't have to have a day job and didn't want to go sit on a beach. Hopefully we can over time add more new editors / contributors in these fields so I don't have to 8-P -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > They've been going for over two years, if they were going to have a > big recruitment push wouldn't they have done so by now? But really, > trying to recruit writers is the wrong way round, they need to recruit > readers, that's where the writers come from for exponential growth > (which they need if they are going to get anywhere). However, I can't > see how they can recruit readers until they have enough articles to be > useful - it's a catch-22 and that's why I don't think any similar > project will ever rival Wikipedia, simply because we got there first. > I don't disagree. I'm just saying we should think of Citizendium as another (small) place for people to produce free content similar to the kind Wikipedia produces, as a potential collaborator with Wikipedia rather than a competitor (which isn't realistic, if it ever was). That's a very real possibility once the license change happens. -Sage (User:Ragesoss) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
Thomas Dalton schreef: > I don't see a claim of exponential growth (which would be complete > rubbish), just "good news". I don't think linear growth (even slightly > below linear) is good news, personally. I exaggerated somewhat. But he has spoken about ongoing exponential growth before, so it annoyed me a bit to see him in denial again. > My calculations come out as about 1/10 the size by articles and 1/3 > the size by words (so their articles must be longer on average). About 30% of the volume of WP at the time consisted of Rambot articles, which aren't too interesting as a measurement of growth (though they may have been a significant reason for our success). There are two kinds of CZ articles: copied from WP (mostly the best articles; generally large), and original ones. The percentage original articles has been rising steadily. Judging from clicking "random page" a few times, they are not too different in length from the average WP article, so the average length of the CZ article is falling. Eugene ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
2009/2/16 Sage Ross : > However, I don't think we should think of Citizendium as having > failed. Certainly, it has failed to realize Sanger's and a few > others' hopes to be on its way to eclipsing Wikipedia. But CZ has a > fairly stable community; it's shrinking a little, but so is > Wikipedia's community. We're shrinking because we've already written most of the stuff we want to include. We're over the hill and rolling down the other side, they never got up the hill and are rolling back down to the start. > It's a free content project that is producing > some useful material, and some editors find it a nicer place to work > than Wikipedia. It's licensed CC-by-SA 3.0, which means it will be > compatible with Wikipedia soon. And a rather high proportion of > content is stuff that isn't present on Wikipedia. The anti-Wikipedia > ethos of the project has also waned as they've begun to sort out their > own identity beyond "Wikipedia with real names where experts have > power". Sanger's anti-Wikipedia attitude doesn't seem to have changed much. I don't know about the rest of the community, I don't read their stuff in much detail. > Sanger keeps claiming that they aren't growing simply because they > haven't yet gotten serious about recruitment. I don't find that > convincing, but it's not inconceivable that concerted efforts at > recruitment could result in another wave of growth or two (though > probably never exponential growth). They've been going for over two years, if they were going to have a big recruitment push wouldn't they have done so by now? But really, trying to recruit writers is the wrong way round, they need to recruit readers, that's where the writers come from for exponential growth (which they need if they are going to get anywhere). However, I can't see how they can recruit readers until they have enough articles to be useful - it's a catch-22 and that's why I don't think any similar project will ever rival Wikipedia, simply because we got there first. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
2009/2/16 Eugene van der Pijll : > Thomas Dalton schreef: >> I've been following the CZ statistics page for some time, and I get >> the feeling that it doesn't matter because activity on CZ is shrinking >> (even Sanger doesn't seem very active) and it will never reach a size >> where anyone actually uses it. > > I've had a bit of an argument with him recently about the decline of CZ > (http://blog.citizendium.org/2009/02/04/write-a-thon-is-on-independent-notices/) > and he assured me that CZ has been growing exponentially, and will be > growing explosively, and that [[CZ:Statistics]] proved that. I don't see a claim of exponential growth (which would be complete rubbish), just "good news". I don't think linear growth (even slightly below linear) is good news, personally. >> It's a fraction of the size of >> Wikipedia at the same age (in terms of articles or total words) and >> growth is slowing (whereas Wikipedia showed exponential growth at that >> time). > > CZ is actually only about half WP's size at the same age, I think. I've > plotted the growth of both sites in number of words, and it is a > surpising difference. CZ started much larger than WP because they > imported a lot of WP articles[*], and then grew linearly. After a year, > both encyclopedias were the same size, but because of WP's exponential > growth, it is now outpacing CZ. > > CZ's growth in number of words has only just begun to fall; its lack of > new authors has been a problem for a much larger time. My calculations come out as about 1/10 the size by articles and 1/3 the size by words (so their articles must be longer on average). It doesn't really matter, though, when you have exponential vs linear, the exponential is always going to win regardless of precise numbers. (Of course, we're not growing exponentially any more, so I guess it's possible they could eventually catch up, but we're talking decades...) >> We could discuss why it failed but I think the real answer is >> simply that Wikipedia is "good enough" so there is very little >> interest in a new project doing the same thing (and which won't be >> anywhere near as useful for several years, even with the more generous >> assumptions). > > Could be. To succeed, a new encyclopedia will have to either have a very > dedicated team of authors, or find a specialistic niche (scholarpedia?), > or be useful from the start; perhaps by starting off with WP's entire > content. And I don't think we have seen WP's successor yet. A dedicated team of authors won't do it - Wikipedia grew exponentially because as it got bigger more people read it and more readers became writers. If all the writing is done by a set team the growth will only even be linear. A specialist niche is another matter entirely - wikis are good for all kinds of things, it's only the market for wiki general encyclopaedias that is filled. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
Thomas Dalton schreef: > I've been following the CZ statistics page for some time, and I get > the feeling that it doesn't matter because activity on CZ is shrinking > (even Sanger doesn't seem very active) and it will never reach a size > where anyone actually uses it. I've had a bit of an argument with him recently about the decline of CZ (http://blog.citizendium.org/2009/02/04/write-a-thon-is-on-independent-notices/) and he assured me that CZ has been growing exponentially, and will be growing explosively, and that [[CZ:Statistics]] proved that. > It's a fraction of the size of > Wikipedia at the same age (in terms of articles or total words) and > growth is slowing (whereas Wikipedia showed exponential growth at that > time). CZ is actually only about half WP's size at the same age, I think. I've plotted the growth of both sites in number of words, and it is a surpising difference. CZ started much larger than WP because they imported a lot of WP articles[*], and then grew linearly. After a year, both encyclopedias were the same size, but because of WP's exponential growth, it is now outpacing CZ. CZ's growth in number of words has only just begun to fall; its lack of new authors has been a problem for a much larger time. > We could discuss why it failed but I think the real answer is > simply that Wikipedia is "good enough" so there is very little > interest in a new project doing the same thing (and which won't be > anywhere near as useful for several years, even with the more generous > assumptions). Could be. To succeed, a new encyclopedia will have to either have a very dedicated team of authors, or find a specialistic niche (scholarpedia?), or be useful from the start; perhaps by starting off with WP's entire content. And I don't think we have seen WP's successor yet. Eugene [*] In fact, they imported all of Wikipedia. But I'm only counting the articles they changed. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 2:10 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > I've been following the CZ statistics page for some time, and I get > the feeling that it doesn't matter because activity on CZ is shrinking > (even Sanger doesn't seem very active) and it will never reach a size > where anyone actually uses it. It's a fraction of the size of > Wikipedia at the same age (in terms of articles or total words) and > growth is slowing (whereas Wikipedia showed exponential growth at that > time). We could discuss why it failed but I think the real answer is > simply that Wikipedia is "good enough" so there is very little > interest in a new project doing the same thing (and which won't be > anywhere near as useful for several years, even with the more generous > assumptions). > I also have been following their stats page (as well as their forums), and I agree with the fundamental issue: Wikipedia had the first mover advantage, and has proved good enough for enough people to prevent any serious competition. However, I don't think we should think of Citizendium as having failed. Certainly, it has failed to realize Sanger's and a few others' hopes to be on its way to eclipsing Wikipedia. But CZ has a fairly stable community; it's shrinking a little, but so is Wikipedia's community. It's a free content project that is producing some useful material, and some editors find it a nicer place to work than Wikipedia. It's licensed CC-by-SA 3.0, which means it will be compatible with Wikipedia soon. And a rather high proportion of content is stuff that isn't present on Wikipedia. The anti-Wikipedia ethos of the project has also waned as they've begun to sort out their own identity beyond "Wikipedia with real names where experts have power". Sanger keeps claiming that they aren't growing simply because they haven't yet gotten serious about recruitment. I don't find that convincing, but it's not inconceivable that concerted efforts at recruitment could result in another wave of growth or two (though probably never exponential growth). -Sage (User:Ragesoss) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
Carcharoth schreef: > Weirdly, most of the history is not there: > > http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Homeopathy&action=history > > But has been moved to a draft page: > > http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Homeopathy/Draft&action=history That's how they do that there. The approved page is a copy; the draft is moved to /Draft, and is a living document. > So maybe I should have read that draft instead. It would be nice to > know which versions were approved by the three editors above, and at > what stage. The exact version that is now at [[Homeopathy]] was approved by the three editors. (These are "editors" in the CZ sense: experts in the article's workgroup, Health.) It's a bit suprising to see one of the parties to the "edit war" as an approving editor... Eugene ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
2009/2/16 Eugene van der Pijll : > Charles Matthews schreef: >> Guess what - sometimes you have to put up with the pesky >> business of people needing to argue the matter out on talk pages. > > I've been following CZ for some time, and one gets the feeling that > Larry Sanger doesn't really like arguementsi, or open discussion. I've been following the CZ statistics page for some time, and I get the feeling that it doesn't matter because activity on CZ is shrinking (even Sanger doesn't seem very active) and it will never reach a size where anyone actually uses it. It's a fraction of the size of Wikipedia at the same age (in terms of articles or total words) and growth is slowing (whereas Wikipedia showed exponential growth at that time). We could discuss why it failed but I think the real answer is simply that Wikipedia is "good enough" so there is very little interest in a new project doing the same thing (and which won't be anywhere near as useful for several years, even with the more generous assumptions). ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
Charles Matthews schreef:
> Guess what - sometimes you have to put up with the pesky
> business of people needing to argue the matter out on talk pages.
I've been following CZ for some time, and one gets the feeling that
Larry Sanger doesn't really like arguementsi, or open discussion.
One of the rules at CZ is that you cannot complain about another editor
at all. This is to prevent long discussions on who is right, but
according to Adam Cuerden's blog post, it is one of the reasons why the
Homeopathy article is so bad.
The "anti-homeopathy" side started to make complaints about the other
side, and regardless of whether the complaints were justified, they were
templated with {{nocomplaints}}. (No [[WP:DTTR]] at CZ...) And then the
other side won.
The idea behind the nocomplaints policy seems a good one, perhaps, but
in reality, it hampers discussion. After one of the latest intervention
by Larry Sanger, the reply was "I don't think you should have removed
that", which was promptly replaced by another {{nocomplaints}}...
I think there is a lesson in here for the other thread in this mailing
list at the moment: A zero-tolerance policy on incivility will be
interpreted loosely at times, which will hamper discussion, which leads
to bad articles if the number of editors is low (like on CZ or at
low-visibility WP articles).
Eugene
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A wide selection of Drama
Daniel R. Tobias wrote: > My latest Netflix confirmation e-mail had this: > > Get personalized recommendations from our wide selection in Drama. > The more movies you rate, the better your recommendations will be. > > My first thought was that they were going to start suggesting areas > of Wikipedia internal politics for me to get involved in. "You > showed an interest in the debate over the BADSITES policy in the > past. Our recommendation engine indicates that it is likely you > would be interested in the SPAM-BLACKLIST debates going on now." > > > Our actors create drama; they don't rate it (except for some when "rate" is used in the sense of "to merit"). It reminds one of the old speech: "All the world's a wiki." :-) Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Short 3RR-like blocks for incivility
Agreeing in large part with George's insightful commentary. Adding a few points outside the range of his comments. Regarding block duration, extremely short blocks tend to backfire. Human nature is that people usually become less grumpy after a good meal and a night's rest. Nearly everyone will eat and sleep within 24 hours, so my threshold for civility blocks was 'Did this go far enough that the person should sleep on it?' If it wasn't that serious then the thing to do is engage the editor politely or shrug it off. It's a misnomer to call really short blocks 'cool-down blocks': an editor who gets blocked at 9pm after missing dinner may return in the wee hours hungrier, more fatigued and more upset than before. A lot of editors won't promise to cease the behavior either. We often can't get that type of promise even for situations where it's really needed such as threats and privacy policy violations. Often enough the editor is actually willing to not do it again, but dislikes the one-down position they perceive in that. It comes too close to a coerced apology for some people's tastes. So while it may be appropriate to seek this promise before unblocking for bannable behavior, garden variety incivility doesn't merit it--unless perhaps the incivility itself is so habitual and extreme that it's actually bannable. Also it's very important for administrators to familiarize themselves with the surrounding context. Incivility is easy to determine, but the cause of an editor's frustration may be less visible. Disruptive editors who become wise to that may try to exploit that. The classic example was the Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson arbitration case. Chris had serious civility problems and seemed on his way to a siteban. I blocked him for incivility while the case was ongoing, and a few minutes after his block an impersonation account appeared with a username that resembled the other party and trolled until it got blocked. That's Chris socking, right? Actually no. Checkuser revealed that Jmfangio was actually the reincarnation of a community banned editor, and a *second* sneaky IP editor had created the impersonation sock. The timing of that sock's creation suggested very strongly that the IP editor was trying to frame Chris and get him banned. What really happened was that Chris was trollable, and two trolls had been baiting him. The trolls both got banned properly and Chris has about 50,000 edits now. Admins, please remember that there may be more below the surface when you see incivility. -Durova On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 5:39 AM, Marc Riddell wrote: > > > Marc Riddell wrote: > >> on 2/15/09 2:59 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > >> > >>> Many cases of "incivility" are in-my-mind completely justified. > >>> > >> Will, by this statement, and your attitudes displayed in other of your > posts > >> on this subject clearly shows that you are a big part of the problem > here. > >> What really are your objections to this whole issue? > >> > >> on 2/16/09 4:36 AM, Ray Saintonge at sainto...@telus.net wrote: > > > This really highlights a quite different aspect of the problem: how we > > use words. An absence of linguistic rigour is not at all rare in this > > kind of discussion. I think that Will is using the word in a very broad > > sense while you are reading it more narrowly and precisely. Perhaps > > "understandable" or even "pardonable" may have been a better choice. > > > > Edit wars have often broken out in article space over the subtleties of > > imperfect synonyms. In time one hopes to find a word that will satisfy > > both parties. A word used in a mailing thread is not so easily > > retractable when it is unintentionally misused or ambiguous. Some Brit > > earlier in this thread listed a number of. words that he considered > > uncivil when they were used to characterise a person. One of these > > words was "wanker". From the perspective of the left side of the pond > > this is just one more of these quaintly humorous British words. > > > > Third party interventions in cases of perceived incivility should only > > take place where the offence is clear. Two thick skinned editors can > > often exchange epithets one day, and be at their co-operative best the > > next day on a different issue. > > > > In cases of schoolyard bullying it is important to consider the > > interests of the bullied as well as the bully. Kind words can go a long > > way with a traumatised newbie. > > > Thank you for this, Ray. And thank you, most especially, for the last > sentence. The road toward constructive collaboration is going to be a rocky > one. But I do believe the majority of the community is firmly behind it. > That is why I'm still here. > > Marc > > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ _
Re: [WikiEN-l] Is "Copyrighted Freeware" CCbySA?
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 5:57 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote: > Carcharoth wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Sam Korn wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Thomas Dalton >>> wrote: >>> 2009/2/16 Alvaro García : > Doesn't the -ware suffix only show that the software isn't paid? > No... the "free" part shows that. The "ware" part shows that it's software... >>> But, generally, yes: "freeware" means free-gratis, not free-libre. >>> >> And the -ware suffix does show that it is a product. >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-ware >> >> That article's a bit rubbish, but gives you some idea. >> > > Treating "ware" as a suffix is what makes it rubbish as much as anything > else. "Ware" is the root noun in the word, and it would be more correct > to treat "free-" or "share-" or "soft-" as attributive prefixes. Interesting. I wouldn't disagree, and "ware" (usually plural) is a word in its own right. How would *you* reorganise things relating to "ware" on Wikipedia? There is Ware (disambiguation) and the town. Where do you go from there? Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 5:40 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Nathan wrote:
>> I say, let them congregate on Citizendium. We should have a template
>> {{trycitizendium}} that we can post on the pages of our more aggressive POV
>> pushers.
>
>
> The template need not limit itself to Citizendium, though the symbolism
> of having it in the template name has a certain value. If the posted
> list contains several other such approved projects, with a one-line
> blurb about what they are, the aggressive person may more easily and
> quietly find one to his liking without actually stumbling upon
> WikipediaReview.
It can include sister WMF projects as well. Though care should be
taken to not push malcontents on unsuspecting people. It is best to
have a mentor or guide that can introduce you. It all depends whether
the reason for the breakdown in editing relations is due to the
person, the topic, or the environment. Sometimes it is all three.
Carcharoth
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Is "Copyrighted Freeware" CCbySA?
Carcharoth wrote: > On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Sam Korn wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Thomas Dalton >> wrote: >> >>> 2009/2/16 Alvaro García : >>> Doesn't the -ware suffix only show that the software isn't paid? >>> No... the "free" part shows that. The "ware" part shows that it's >>> software... >>> >> But, generally, yes: "freeware" means free-gratis, not free-libre. >> > And the -ware suffix does show that it is a product. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-ware > > That article's a bit rubbish, but gives you some idea. > Treating "ware" as a suffix is what makes it rubbish as much as anything else. "Ware" is the root noun in the word, and it would be more correct to treat "free-" or "share-" or "soft-" as attributive prefixes. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Upcoming break
on 2/16/09 12:32 PM, Jon at scr...@datascreamer.com wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Friends, > > I'm going into the field for the next three weeks. This means that I > won't have internet for about four weeks. I've been particularly > inactive for the past two weeks, in preparation for the field I've not > had much time. I've brought everything I'm involved with on the > foundation and on local projects to a orderly pause as far as my > involvement goes. I expect to return sometime in late March. > > Very best, > Jon > Jon, enjoy the learning time. Be healthy, Marc Riddell ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
Nathan wrote:
> I say, let them congregate on Citizendium. We should have a template
> {{trycitizendium}} that we can post on the pages of our more aggressive POV
> pushers.
The template need not limit itself to Citizendium, though the symbolism
of having it in the template name has a certain value. If the posted
list contains several other such approved projects, with a one-line
blurb about what they are, the aggressive person may more easily and
quietly find one to his liking without actually stumbling upon
WikipediaReview.
Ec
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Upcoming break
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Friends, I'm going into the field for the next three weeks. This means that I won't have internet for about four weeks. I've been particularly inactive for the past two weeks, in preparation for the field I've not had much time. I've brought everything I'm involved with on the foundation and on local projects to a orderly pause as far as my involvement goes. I expect to return sometime in late March. Very best, Jon -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkmZoyoACgkQ6+ro8Pm1AtXFrwCfW3EumwljQm0jzKUWsQB4obwe AgMAn2cUVICrsHa7zeinTCaebSJl9E7B =i5Za -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
David Gerard wrote: > Which in practice will end up a bit like this: > http://reinderdijkhuis.com/wordpress/2009/02/12/citizendium-the-encyclopedia-only-pro-homeopathy-editors-can-edit/ > > Precis: experts are not a panacea. > Mmmm, Larry of course does have a valid point in there, which is that edit warring correlates with a lower quality of article. It looks like his solution is this: decide who should win the edit wars in advance. Bingo! No serious edit wars. Sadly, as this case apparently indicates, the syllogism that this will get you a higher quality of article isn't valid. Guess what - sometimes you have to put up with the pesky business of people needing to argue the matter out on talk pages. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
What Citizendium's Homeopathy article shows more than anything is that a
wide base of editors, and therefore a wide audience, is essential for the
success of Wikipedia or any similar project. The article shows a distinct
lack of the cleansing effects of sunlight; few people read it, few people
contribute to it, and it's become the home of fringe POV editors who have
tried and failed to sling the same on Wikipedia. Citizendium might do better
if it made a more concerted attempt to discern between actual experts in
fact and self-described experts in name only, but they apparently have
chosen not to do that or don't have enough people from which to pick.
I say, let them congregate on Citizendium. We should have a template
{{trycitizendium}} that we can post on the pages of our more aggressive POV
pushers.
Nathan
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
On 16/02/2009, Charles Matthews wrote: > The good articles are good basically because smart people take the > trouble to research them and write them to a decent standard. The > article on topic X is good, when it is, not usually because A, an expert > on X, has filled it with A's expert knowledge, but because B and C and > maybe others have looked at some literature on the topic and done a > decent job of constructing a precis for the general reader. To be slightly more accurate, the wikipedia does indeed depend heavily on experts and smart and knowledgeable people, but only after their material has been published; and only then if the publisher is judged to have good filtering processes in place to minimise the non negligible chance that these people are wrong or unbalanced about what they say. Looked at like this, Sanger wants to take this a stage further- he wants to actually *weaken* the fact checking by using unfiltered experts saying more or less whatever they want. I would expect that this can result in poorer articles than the wikipedias model, in addition to the many obvious problems about how you find and validate and keep these experts engaged. > Charles -- -Ian Woollard We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly imperfect world would be much better. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
2009/2/16 Carcharoth : > One thing that strikes me is that both articles are difficult to read > and poorly written. In other words, when something is controversial > and has a high rate of editing, the readability quality invariably > decreases in the ensuing chaos. That doesn't just apply to controversial subjects. Any subject with a high edit rate shows the same problem - current events, for example (they generally end up being timelines in very poor disguise). What it needs is for someone to periodically go through the whole thing tidying it up - not a fun job, admittedly, but a necessary one. (This does happen with some articles, and you can tell the difference.) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:29 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> However, the Citizendium article on homeopathy is still an
> NPOV disaster.
I hadn't visited Citizendium for ages.
It is an interesting exercise to read through the Wikipedia article on
Homeopathy and the Citizendium one, and see the strengths and
weaknesses of both, and also the similarities and places where the
differences are very subtle (different order of sections) and less
subtle ("Professional homeopaths: who are they?"). But equally, the
Wikipedia article lacks a section on homeopaths, professional or
otherwise.
One thing that strikes me is that both articles are difficult to read
and poorly written. In other words, when something is controversial
and has a high rate of editing, the readability quality invariably
decreases in the ensuing chaos.
The name of the three editors who have approved the Citizendium
article makes interesting reading as well:
Gareth Leng
D. Matt Innis
Dana Ullman
Weirdly, most of the history is not there:
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Homeopathy&action=history
But has been moved to a draft page:
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Homeopathy/Draft&action=history
So maybe I should have read that draft instead. It would be nice to
know which versions were approved by the three editors above, and at
what stage.
Carcharoth
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > In that sentence there are buried assumptions as follows: > > 1. There are people on wikipedia who will not permit > quality. > > 2. People who won't permit quality are aggressive. > > 3. There is a clear unambiguous metric for quality. > > 4. Aggressive people who won't permit quality will > follow an article. > > 5. Over the long term, the dynamics of wikipedias > practices will not prevent editors who will not > allow quality on wikipedia from dragging it down > to the level that they aggressively and persistently > insist on bringing it down to. There are no working > heuristics to allow it to transcend that attractor. > > *Understanding* the logical flaws of those 5 statements > is left to the student. > It would be rash to say you couldn't find any examples where this is true - there is a large selection of articles. It might be a fair model for the article about, for example, a controversial Governor of Alaska who didn't get chosen as a candidate for Vice-President. But you could click Random Article for a little while before you came up with an article to which this argument really would apply. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
2009/2/16 Charles Matthews : > K. Peachey wrote: > >'But the failure to take seriously the suggestion of any role of > experts can only be considered a failure of imagination,' writes Sanger. > 'One need only ask what an open, bottom-up system with a role for expert > decision-making would be like.' > In other words, despite all appearances, CZ is superior to WP. Well, I > think we saw where this was going a little earlier. Which in practice will end up a bit like this: http://reinderdijkhuis.com/wordpress/2009/02/12/citizendium-the-encyclopedia-only-pro-homeopathy-editors-can-edit/ Precis: experts are not a panacea. cf: Stirling Newberry's many posts several years ago to wikien-l and wikipedia-l pointing out that the problem with a lot of experts is that they got to be experts by pushing a POV better than anyone else. (Larry Sanger is aware of this blog post, and dismisses it as missing the point. However, the Citizendium article on homeopathy is still an NPOV disaster.) In any case, we're not short of experts on Wikipedia. You can hardly move without bumping into a Ph.D. It's not nicknamed "Unemployed Ph.D Deathmatch" for nothing. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
K. Peachey wrote: > Just a Heads Up slashdot has new article about wikipedia up and it's > use of experts - "The Role of Experts In Wikipedia" > http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/16/0210251 > >Sanger says the main reason that Wikipedia's articles are as good as they are is that they are edited by knowledgeable people to whom deference is paid, although voluntarily, but that some articles suffer precisely because there are so many aggressive people who 'guard' articles and drive off others (PDF), including people more expert than they are. The good articles are good basically because smart people take the trouble to research them and write them to a decent standard. The article on topic X is good, when it is, not usually because A, an expert on X, has filled it with A's expert knowledge, but because B and C and maybe others have looked at some literature on the topic and done a decent job of constructing a precis for the general reader. I would make an exception for some areas (e.g. mathematics, medicine) where an expert is going to have a view that is 1000% clearer than someone coming in from outside. The bit about "deference" shows a fixation on the more combative aspects of WP. Most articles aren't that contentious. >'Without granting experts any authority to overrule such people, there is no reason to think that Wikipedia'a articles are on a vector toward continual improvement,' writes Sanger. No reason for Sanger to think that, since he continually misses the point of the wiki. Most articles, numerically speaking, just wait until someone who cares comes along and upgrades them. >Wikipedia's success cannot be explained by its radical egalitarianism or its rejection of expert involvement, but instead by its freedom, openness, and bottom-up management and there is no doubt that many experts would, if left to their own devices, dismantle the openness that drives the success of Wikipedia. Yeah, we know about such experts, but they are not experts _on Wikipedia_! How about a little respect for the expertise of people who spend time doing it, rather than talking about it? >'But the failure to take seriously the suggestion of any role of experts can only be considered a failure of imagination,' writes Sanger. 'One need only ask what an open, bottom-up system with a role for expert decision-making would be like.' In other words, despite all appearances, CZ is superior to WP. Well, I think we saw where this was going a little earlier. The brass neck involved in implying that WP is "unimaginative", which is largely wrong, rather than too utopian, which is certainly an arguable point, is breath-taking. A propos FR, or other such things, there has been this constant debate in which the "pure wiki" model is held up against what amount to pragmatic suggestions for change in aid of the encyclopedic mission. This discussion goes on all the time. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
Well... that does happen. It's basically WP:OWNership. I find that ownership usually, but not always, stops an article reaching its maximum quality and/or coverage. But ownership doesn't seem to dominate the wikipedia. And sometimes if the owner really is really good then the article can end up just fine. On 16/02/2009, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > Carl Beckhorn wrote: >> Regardless of the history, Sanger does have a viewpoint that would be >> worth reading even if the author were anonymous. In particular, the >> following claim is quite accurate to my experience: >> >> Over the long term, the quality of a given Wikipedia article will do a >> random walk around the highest level of quality permitted by the most >> persistent and aggressive people who follow an article. >> > > It is a nice use of rhetoric, but accurate? NOWAI! > > Let me paraphrase it in a way that will make the logical flaws > more apparent. > > In that sentence there are buried assumptions as follows: > > 1. There are people on wikipedia who will not permit > quality. > > 2. People who won't permit quality are aggressive. > > 3. There is a clear unambiguous metric for quality. > > 4. Aggressive people who won't permit quality will > follow an article. > > 5. Over the long term, the dynamics of wikipedias > practices will not prevent editors who will not > allow quality on wikipedia from dragging it down > to the level that they aggressively and persistently > insist on bringing it down to. There are no working > heuristics to allow it to transcend that attractor. > > *Understanding* the logical flaws of those 5 statements > is left to the student. > > > Yours, > > Jussi-Ville Heiskanen > > > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > -- -Ian Woollard We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly imperfect world would be much better. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Is "Copyrighted Freeware" CCbySA?
Oh Oh Oh sorry!!! Gratis. That happens to me when I do two things at the same time. On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 11:15, Nathan wrote: > On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Alvaro García wrote: > > > Yeah, that was what I meant. That when 'free' is used along with > > 'ware', it's because it's free (libre). > > > > > > -- > > Alvaro > > > > You've just contradicted yourself - you were right the first time. > > Nathan > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > -- Alvaro ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Is "Copyrighted Freeware" CCbySA?
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Alvaro García wrote: > Yeah, that was what I meant. That when 'free' is used along with > 'ware', it's because it's free (libre). > > > -- > Alvaro > You've just contradicted yourself - you were right the first time. Nathan ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Is "Copyrighted Freeware" CCbySA?
Yeah, that was what I meant. That when 'free' is used along with 'ware', it's because it's free (libre). -- Alvaro On 16-02-2009, at 10:50, Sam Korn wrote: > On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Thomas Dalton > wrote: >> 2009/2/16 Alvaro García : >>> Doesn't the -ware suffix only show that the software isn't paid? >> >> No... the "free" part shows that. The "ware" part shows that it's >> software... > > But, generally, yes: "freeware" means free-gratis, not free-libre. > > -- > Sam > PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Is "Copyrighted Freeware" CCbySA?
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Sam Korn wrote: > On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Thomas Dalton > wrote: >> 2009/2/16 Alvaro García : >>> Doesn't the -ware suffix only show that the software isn't paid? >> >> No... the "free" part shows that. The "ware" part shows that it's software... > > But, generally, yes: "freeware" means free-gratis, not free-libre. And the -ware suffix does show that it is a product. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-ware That article's a bit rubbish, but gives you some idea. Better is this: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ware "manufactured goods, goods for sale," O.E. waru ..." O.E. is Old English. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Is "Copyrighted Freeware" CCbySA?
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/2/16 Alvaro García : >> Doesn't the -ware suffix only show that the software isn't paid? > > No... the "free" part shows that. The "ware" part shows that it's software... But, generally, yes: "freeware" means free-gratis, not free-libre. -- Sam PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Is "Copyrighted Freeware" CCbySA?
2009/2/16 Alvaro García : > Oh, but what I mean is that "freeware" means "free (gratis) software", not > "free (libre) software" Indeed, it does. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Is "Copyrighted Freeware" CCbySA?
Oh, but what I mean is that "freeware" means "free (gratis) software", not "free (libre) software" On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 10:47, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/2/16 Alvaro García : > > Doesn't the -ware suffix only show that the software isn't paid? > > No... the "free" part shows that. The "ware" part shows that it's > software... > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > -- Alvaro ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Is "Copyrighted Freeware" CCbySA?
2009/2/16 Alvaro García : > Doesn't the -ware suffix only show that the software isn't paid? No... the "free" part shows that. The "ware" part shows that it's software... ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Short 3RR-like blocks for incivility
> Marc Riddell wrote: >> on 2/15/09 2:59 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: >> >>> Many cases of "incivility" are in-my-mind completely justified. >>> >> Will, by this statement, and your attitudes displayed in other of your posts >> on this subject clearly shows that you are a big part of the problem here. >> What really are your objections to this whole issue? >> >> on 2/16/09 4:36 AM, Ray Saintonge at sainto...@telus.net wrote: > This really highlights a quite different aspect of the problem: how we > use words. An absence of linguistic rigour is not at all rare in this > kind of discussion. I think that Will is using the word in a very broad > sense while you are reading it more narrowly and precisely. Perhaps > "understandable" or even "pardonable" may have been a better choice. > > Edit wars have often broken out in article space over the subtleties of > imperfect synonyms. In time one hopes to find a word that will satisfy > both parties. A word used in a mailing thread is not so easily > retractable when it is unintentionally misused or ambiguous. Some Brit > earlier in this thread listed a number of. words that he considered > uncivil when they were used to characterise a person. One of these > words was "wanker". From the perspective of the left side of the pond > this is just one more of these quaintly humorous British words. > > Third party interventions in cases of perceived incivility should only > take place where the offence is clear. Two thick skinned editors can > often exchange epithets one day, and be at their co-operative best the > next day on a different issue. > > In cases of schoolyard bullying it is important to consider the > interests of the bullied as well as the bully. Kind words can go a long > way with a traumatised newbie. > Thank you for this, Ray. And thank you, most especially, for the last sentence. The road toward constructive collaboration is going to be a rocky one. But I do believe the majority of the community is firmly behind it. That is why I'm still here. Marc ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] A wide selection of Drama
Do you frequently get *confirmation* e-mails? How many times do you sign up? -- Alvaro On 16-02-2009, at 10:18, "Daniel R. Tobias" wrote: > My latest Netflix confirmation e-mail had this: > > Get personalized recommendations from our wide selection in Drama. > The more movies you rate, the better your recommendations will be. > > My first thought was that they were going to start suggesting areas > of Wikipedia internal politics for me to get involved in. "You > showed an interest in the debate over the BADSITES policy in the > past. Our recommendation engine indicates that it is likely you > would be interested in the SPAM-BLACKLIST debates going on now." > > > -- > == Dan == > Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ > Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ > Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/ > > > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Is "Copyrighted Freeware" CCbySA?
Doesn't the -ware suffix only show that the software isn't paid? -- Alvaro On 16-02-2009, at 2:57, Todd Allen wrote: > On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Jay Litwyn wrote: >> That's the description of the license on the software from >> http://www.fractint.org/ (requires a FAT32 partition under Windows >> XP, BTW. >> You might need another hard drive or a partition resizer to save >> anything >> from it). >> >> The following text is probably not as cogent or understandable as >> just >> getting the software, opening a DOS window, and entering DEMO or >> FRACTINT, >> then pressing F1 when you want to know what the other keys do. Like >> so many >> things in your computer, it is not necessary to know a lot of nitty >> gritty >> details about how it works to make it work, and it helps. One of >> the first >> lessons I had to learn, because I like inversions, is that you >> cannot invert >> an inversion. >> >> You might chafe at just about everything going through keys, and if >> you ever >> get good at Advanced Paint by Number, then you will appreciate >> speed from >> that interface. >> >> I think that there is a copyright on the default parameters for >> internally >> defined fractal types (most of them are complications of [Benoit >> Mandelbrot]'s z=z^2 +c assignment, where zed and "c" are complex >> numbers on >> the cartesian plane such that real components *start* at a value of >> x and >> imajinary components *start* at a value of y. In other words, both >> starting >> points vary according to which part of the plane your screen is >> mapped to. >> Fractint lets you zoom, pan, and skew; it _could_ let you apply two >> kinds of >> skew and a trapezoid, and currently, all fractal mappings are >> defined with >> three points. The loop is applied to all of those starting points, >> mapped to >> a screen. Then there is a boundary condition that determines when >> you expect >> the point to approach infinity. Fractint colours pixels according >> to how >> many times it took the the loop to reach that boundary condition >> (iterations). There are about six other ways to colour the point, >> and my >> favourite is the arctangent it makes with the orijin (makes nice gray >> scales). Many of my fractals do *not* start on the cartesian plane; >> I start >> many of my loops with a function. FWIW, there are two massive >> qualifications >> on [fractal] saying in effect "I do not see all those rules!". I am >> inclined >> to ignore it, because it seems to encourage taking another look to >> understand them. >> >> There is one rule for me concerning fractals: Simple rules with >> _relatively_ >> complex results. [fractal] is more informative than [chaos theory], >> which >> contains a rule about topological mixing that I do not understand, >> despite >> the internal pointer. >> >> To answer the question in the subject, I would say yes. The reason >> for the >> copyright is so that contributors (at least fifty) would get paid >> in the >> event of a rich distributor of either output or the software >> itself. Last >> time I checked (about four years ago), Jason Osuch was CEO and >> concentrating >> on an >> X-windows version. >> >> It does sound, too. >> ___ >> http://edmc.net/~brewhaha/Fractal_Gallery.HTM >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> WikiEN-l mailing list >> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >> > > If the intent of the license is "We could force someone to pay for > distribution rights at some point and deny them those rights if they > don't pay up", it is not a free license. Free licenses include freedom > to use commercially. > > -- > Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows. > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] A wide selection of Drama
My latest Netflix confirmation e-mail had this: Get personalized recommendations from our wide selection in Drama. The more movies you rate, the better your recommendations will be. My first thought was that they were going to start suggesting areas of Wikipedia internal politics for me to get involved in. "You showed an interest in the debate over the BADSITES policy in the past. Our recommendation engine indicates that it is likely you would be interested in the SPAM-BLACKLIST debates going on now." -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Short 3RR-like blocks for incivility
Will Johnson, he wasn't being incivil, he was being frankincivility is * never* warranted ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Short 3RR-like blocks for incivility
Marc Riddell wrote: > on 2/15/09 2:59 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > >> Many cases of "incivility" are in-my-mind completely justified. >> > Will, by this statement, and your attitudes displayed in other of your posts > on this subject clearly shows that you are a big part of the problem here. > What really are your objections to this whole issue? > > This really highlights a quite different aspect of the problem: how we use words. An absence of linguistic rigour is not at all rare in this kind of discussion. I think that Will is using the word in a very broad sense while you are reading it more narrowly and precisely. Perhaps "understandable" or even "pardonable" may have been a better choice. Edit wars have often broken out in article space over the subtleties of imperfect synonyms. In time one hopes to find a word that will satisfy both parties. A word used in a mailing thread is not so easily retractable when it is unintentionally misused or ambiguous. Some Brit earlier in this thread listed a number of. words that he considered uncivil when they were used to characterise a person. One of these words was "wanker". From the perspective of the left side of the pond this is just one more of these quaintly humorous British words. Third party interventions in cases of perceived incivility should only take place where the offence is clear. Two thick skinned editors can often exchange epithets one day, and be at their co-operative best the next day on a different issue. In cases of schoolyard bullying it is important to consider the interests of the bullied as well as the bully. Kind words can go a long way with a traumatised newbie. Ec ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
Carl Beckhorn wrote: > Regardless of the history, Sanger does have a viewpoint that would be > worth reading even if the author were anonymous. In particular, the > following claim is quite accurate to my experience: > > Over the long term, the quality of a given Wikipedia article will do a > random walk around the highest level of quality permitted by the most > persistent and aggressive people who follow an article. > It is a nice use of rhetoric, but accurate? NOWAI! Let me paraphrase it in a way that will make the logical flaws more apparent. In that sentence there are buried assumptions as follows: 1. There are people on wikipedia who will not permit quality. 2. People who won't permit quality are aggressive. 3. There is a clear unambiguous metric for quality. 4. Aggressive people who won't permit quality will follow an article. 5. Over the long term, the dynamics of wikipedias practices will not prevent editors who will not allow quality on wikipedia from dragging it down to the level that they aggressively and persistently insist on bringing it down to. There are no working heuristics to allow it to transcend that attractor. *Understanding* the logical flaws of those 5 statements is left to the student. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Short 3RR-like blocks for incivility
Patton 123 wrote: > "I hate Ottava Rima" (An editor) is clearly incivility > I don't find that uncivil at all, especially not in the context in which it was found. It says nothing about Ottava Rima. Instead, the speaker is saying something about himself. Ec > On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote >> Patton 123 wrote: >> >>> Well after the recent lengthy discussion and civility etc on this >>> list, and this >>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FBackslash_Forwardslash&diff=270554330&oldid=270553832 >> >>> comment, >>> I've been thinking about a solution for incivility. Wouldn't a 3RR-like >>> system be good? Users get a warning for a personal attack, and if they do it >>> >>> again a short block. There's obviously the problem that different people >>> regard different things as personal attacks, but it's food for thought >>> >> Definition of incivility is clearly important. I find no incivility in >> the linked diff. >> >> Ec >> >> ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Short 3RR-like blocks for incivility
2009/2/16 : > Marc I will not continue the discussion with you, until you apologize for > stating that "I was a big part of the problem". > I find that remark highly offensive and a personal attack. That you > apparently don't see that seems relatively curious to me. Not in the slightest. The problem is that people are much better at perceiving faults in others than themselves. I would presume that's what's happening here. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
