On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 18:17, wrote:
> On 04/10/2010 19:43, geni wrote:
>>
>> The Wikipedia that went from nothing to top ten site was never built
>> on verifiable knowledge. It was built on what people happened to have
>> in their heads. The whole citation thing outside the more
>> controversia
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Peter Gehres wrote:
> I uploaded my version of the "cloud" [1] to the same location. I removed
> all duplicate emails from the archives and omitted all subjects and quoted
> text.
Very nice.
Not surprisingly, ..
Wikipedia - huge
Commons - medium (blue, beneath '
I uploaded my version of the "cloud" [1] to the same location. I removed
all duplicate emails from the archives and omitted all subjects and quoted
text.
phoebe ayers, 04/10/2010 17:29:
> This is fun! thanks for doing it. It would be interesting to see a
> version with all of the headers stripped
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 11:17 AM, wrote:
> On 04/10/2010 19:43, geni wrote:
>>
>> The Wikipedia that went from nothing to top ten site was never built
>> on verifiable knowledge. It was built on what people happened to have
>> in their heads. The whole citation thing outside the more
>> controver
On 04/10/2010 19:43, geni wrote:
>
> The Wikipedia that went from nothing to top ten site was never built
> on verifiable knowledge. It was built on what people happened to have
> in their heads. The whole citation thing outside the more
> controversial areas came later. Don't believe me? This was
News and notes: German chapter remodeled to meet Foundation
requirements, and more
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-10-04/News_and_notes
In the news: Spanish police pursues BLP vandals, Jimbo interviewed,
advice for experts and spammers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi
>
> If it is including quoted passages, a simple way to address this is to
> remove any line starting with '>' and all attachments.
>
That is what I was planning to do. I was referring to it as a problem in
reference to incidence.
I am currently working on a python implementation that strips hea
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 7:48 AM, Peter Gehres wrote:
> In looking at the contents of the gzip'ed archives, stripping out the
> headers does not look trivial, but it appears that it could be done in most
> cases. A whole other problem is quoted text. Any preference on whether or
> not that should
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 12:10 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 4 October 2010 10:51, K. Peachey wrote:
>
>> Although I don't have a issue with it, but you may wish to double
>> check the licensing you have attached to those uploads, since from
>> understanding is that copyright and ownership does appl
Also, note that it is not "the Moldovans" who are being ignored. There
is one persistent spammer. Yes, it is clear people support him judging
by the petitions he's shown us, but I gave them a glance and found
many of the signatures are not from Moldovans. Here is one example of
a signature on that
2010/10/4 Nathan :
> alternate script of Romanian (i.e. mo.wp vs. ro-cyrl.wp). As for
> linguistic rights... Not really relevant, is it? But I guess the
How is it not relevant? To me, that is at the very heart of this case:
the right of a language community to exist and for us to provide
reasonabl
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 5:03 PM, M. Williamson wrote:
> That is a questionable assumption. Mo.wp's sitenotice explains that if
> you'd prefer to view Moldovan content in Latin, the official alphabet
> of the Republic of Moldova, you may find it at ro.wp.
>
> I am willing to bet that most of the peo
That is a questionable assumption. Mo.wp's sitenotice explains that if
you'd prefer to view Moldovan content in Latin, the official alphabet
of the Republic of Moldova, you may find it at ro.wp.
I am willing to bet that most of the people who have signed these
petitions will be upset if any Cyrill
In looking at the contents of the gzip'ed archives, stripping out the
headers does not look trivial, but it appears that it could be done in most
cases. A whole other problem is quoted text. Any preference on whether or
not that should be included as well? If it is included, the word are not
enti
2010/10/3 Marcus Buck :
> I saw it unfolded now. Thanks! One small issue: 'nds' is not Dutch. It's
> Low Saxon. And I have no subtitle selection menu (just an on/off switch
> that gives me random language subtitles) with HTML5, but I guess that's
> a problem of either my browser or YouTube and cann
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:02 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> Possibly putting it at the bottom of the *long* list of other problems
> in need of resolution (e.g. all the volunteer work that's backed up a
> year or more, as Simetrical noted on wikitech-l) would be an idea.
It already is, just like all of
Imho the problem is much deeper than citing sources or lack of them.
The wikipedian may cite newspaper X, or even researchpaper Y, but
because he has limited inderstanding and/or knowledge about the field,
he may misinterpret the source or judge its weight in much more
absolute terms than the real
> On 04.10.2010 20:43, geni wrote:
>> The Wikipedia that went from nothing to top ten site was never built
>> on verifiable knowledge. It was built on what people happened to have
>> in their heads. The whole citation thing outside the more
>> controversial areas came later. Don't believe me? This
phoebe ayers, 04/10/2010 17:29:
> This is fun! thanks for doing it. It would be interesting to see a
> version with all of the headers stripped out (dates & email terms:
> mailman/mimedel, etc.) so the content words would really show up.
If someone tells me how to do what Werdna suggested (I'm no
On 04.10.2010 20:43, geni wrote:
> On 4 October 2010 19:31, Henning Schlottmann wrote:
>> But those who don't have verifiable knowledge, should not write for
>> Wikipedia. Their contribution is at best useless, at worse they use up
>> time and energy of those who could make better use of their tim
On 4 October 2010 19:43, geni wrote:
> The Wikipedia that went from nothing to top ten site was never built
> on verifiable knowledge. It was built on what people happened to have
> in their heads. The whole citation thing outside the more
> controversial areas came later. Don't believe me? This
On 4 October 2010 19:31, Henning Schlottmann wrote:
> On 03.10.2010 17:03, geni wrote:
>
>> So I can run a 30 second search on the british library catalogue than
>> go back to doing what I was going to do all along. Great use of my
>> time.
>
> Wikipedia is about people with knowledge collaboratin
On 03.10.2010 17:03, geni wrote:
> So I can run a 30 second search on the british library catalogue than
> go back to doing what I was going to do all along. Great use of my
> time.
Wikipedia is about people with knowledge collaborating to add their part
to the project. This way Wikipedia is tryi
- Original Message -
From: "Noein"
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 5:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
> Note, Peter, that I am not rejecting the value of your knowledge, your
> critics about quality of articles o
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 10:47, Noein wrote:
>Teach a mind to be
> critical and it can learn everything. Teach a mind what you believe and
> you just shaped a sheep.
Exactly. Hence the importance of philosophy. When I argue in favour of
philosophy, I'm not arguing in favour of expertise directly, b
Mi piace molto, grazie :)
It's fun some particular timezones are highly visible than others, but
can you please generate another version which strips all headers like
Date:? More content oriented version would be also interested.
A presto,
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/10/2010 17:54, Peter Damian wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Noein"
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 4:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
>
>
>
>> I
- Original Message -
From: "Nathan"
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
> Peter wrote:
>
> 2. An initiative to highlight 5 "top importance" articles and get them to
> GA
> or FA.
Peter wrote:
2. An initiative to highlight 5 "top importance" articles and get them to GA
or FA. There are very few FA status articles, compared to the rest of the
project.
3. Another initiative to re-classify the top 50 articles in terms of
importance and quality (I looked at this and some are
>
on 10/4/10 11:06 AM, Noein at prono...@gmail.com wrote:
> Wouldn't self criticizing, openness of mind, intersubjective references,
> shared arguments, and the empathic capacity to understand what the other
> see a better approach to star a discussion?
>
Yes! With this you describe the very ess
- Original Message -
From: "Noein"
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 4:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
> I am sincerely asking you, without insinuation: how do you know you're
> not one of them? What's the differ
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 09:34, Nathan wrote:
> Perhaps because of some popular caricatures of the subject of
> philosophy, even those who choose to edit philosophy articles may not
> appreciate the actual expertise involved in being a trained
> philosopher. Philosophers, and philosophy in general,
- Original Message -
From: "Noein"
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 4:06 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
>> "Philosophy: I'm a philosopher; why don't I edit the article on my
>> subject?
>> Because it's hopeless. I
- Original Message -
From: "Nathan"
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
>
> Your own history, Peter, proves that you are incorrect; you are,
> yourself, an example of an exper
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:53 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 4 October 2010 14:36, Nathan wrote:
>
>> Since this regularly comes up on this list, and the request is
>> outstanding since 2006, maybe at the bottom of the to-do pile isn't
>> the right place. Wouldn't the smartest temporary solution be t
To sum up a little bit:
Perhaps because of some popular caricatures of the subject of
philosophy, even those who choose to edit philosophy articles may not
appreciate the actual expertise involved in being a trained
philosopher. Philosophers, and philosophy in general, are treated
with less respe
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 2:49 AM, Andrew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
> wrote:
>
>> Milos Rancic, 04/10/2010 11:29:
>> > May you exclude headers from the cloud?
>>
>> Well, I did. Which additional (parts of) headers would you like to
>> exclude? (Suggest the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thank you, your answers reveal quite clearly your vision. (I disagree,
though, but that's not important).
A few comments below...
On 04/10/2010 15:58, Peter Damian wrote:
> How is the problem of making a difficult subject clear different in the case
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 4:33 AM, Peter Damian
wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "David Goodman"
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 12:07 AM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
>
>
>> On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 5:26 A
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> Milos Rancic, 04/10/2010 11:29:
> > May you exclude headers from the cloud?
>
> Well, I did. Which additional (parts of) headers would you like to
> exclude? (Suggest them on talk page.)
> I left only timezones, years and months to give
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:02 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 4 October 2010 13:54, Chad wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 4:39 AM, Mariano Cecowski
>> wrote:
>
>>> Would it be possible to change the source for editing and then back to be
>>> stored? I can think of a couple of problems to solve, incl
On 4 October 2010 13:54, Chad wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 4:39 AM, Mariano Cecowski
> wrote:
>> Would it be possible to change the source for editing and then back to be
>> stored? I can think of a couple of problems to solve, including image and
>> template names, or language links, but a
Since this regularly comes up on this list, and the request is
outstanding since 2006, maybe at the bottom of the to-do pile isn't
the right place. Wouldn't the smartest temporary solution be to
redirect mo.wp to ro.wp and move mo.wp to ro-cyrl.wp? That doesn't
seem like a terribly difficult change
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:10 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 4 October 2010 10:51, K. Peachey wrote:
>
>> Although I don't have a issue with it, but you may wish to double
>> check the licensing you have attached to those uploads, since from
>> understanding is that copyright and ownership does apply
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 4:39 AM, Mariano Cecowski
wrote:
> Would it be possible to change the source for editing and then back to be
> stored? I can think of a couple of problems to solve, including image and
> template names, or language links, but all of them should be solvable, and
> that sho
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 11:28, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> You may be interested in the word cloud I created with the full archive
> of foundation-l:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Foundation-l_word_cloud_small.png
> You can find it at a bigger resolution and with the "source code" (if
Andrew Garrett, 04/10/2010 11:49:
> It's probably easier to strip them entirely before pushing them into the
> generator, rather than using them as stopwords.
Ehm, I can't do that. :-p Moreover, I didn't want to exclude
/everything/ (e.g. subjects, names, dates).
K. Peachey, 04/10/2010 11:51:
>
- Original Message -
From: "Noein"
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 1:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
> So, Peter, how is this communication failure [1] (and I think the mails
> I attached are a good sample of it,
2010/10/4 Samuel Klein :
> Is there any opposition to naming such a temporary project ro-cyrl?
> In your proposal, the converter would eventually be available (as a
> user pref) on ro.wp?
I agree that it should be called ro-cyrl as mo is no longer considered
a valid ISO code, but thinking of that
Milos Rancic, 04/10/2010 11:29:
> May you exclude headers from the cloud?
Well, I did. Which additional (parts of) headers would you like to
exclude? (Suggest them on talk page.)
I left only timezones, years and months to give a clue on activity in
different times; and text/plain vs. html given
- Original Message -
From: "David Goodman"
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 12:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
Oh yes and how could I forget this monstrosity
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Existen
--- El lun 4-oct-10, Samuel Klein escribió:
> Is there any opposition to naming such a temporary project
> ro-cyrl?
> In your proposal, the converter would eventually be
> available (as a user pref) on ro.wp?
The problem with the converter is that it only works for visualization.
As it was poi
On 4 October 2010 10:51, K. Peachey wrote:
> Although I don't have a issue with it, but you may wish to double
> check the licensing you have attached to those uploads, since from
> understanding is that copyright and ownership does apply to emails.
Not even within Commons level of copyright pa
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 11:24 PM, M. Williamson wrote:
> My proposal: Move mo.wp to mo-cyrl.wp or ro-cyrl.wp as an interim
> measure. Create converter, once converter is created AND enabled,
> delete mo-cyrl.wp.
Thanks, Mark.
Is there any opposition to naming such a temporary project ro-cyrl?
In
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I still have 80 mails to read to be up-to-date about the current
polemic, but I would like to ask a question to you Peter.
You said that experts can bring knowledge to readers, but that some
editors are aggressive idiots with whom there is no possible
Although I don't have a issue with it, but you may wish to double
check the licensing you have attached to those uploads, since from
understanding is that copyright and ownership does apply to emails.
-Peachey
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@l
- Original Message -
From: "David Goodman"
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 12:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
> On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 5:26 AM, Peter Damian
> wrote:
>>
>
>>We were talking
>> about very ag
You may be interested in the word cloud I created with the full archive
of foundation-l:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Foundation-l_word_cloud_small.png
You can find it at a bigger resolution and with the "source code" (if
you want to improve it) here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki
On 4 October 2010 14:36, Nathan wrote:
> Since this regularly comes up on this list, and the request is
> outstanding since 2006, maybe at the bottom of the to-do pile isn't
> the right place. Wouldn't the smartest temporary solution be to
> redirect mo.wp to ro.wp and move mo.wp to ro-cyrl.wp? T
- Original Message -
From: "David Goodman"
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 12:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
> I am not qualified to judge articles on philosophy on my own
> understanding of the material.
60 matches
Mail list logo
