WikiEN-l June 2003

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

77 participants
271 discussions

Pronunciation guides
by Mirko Thiessen 23 Jul '03

23 Jul '03

Hello, I know that the pros and cons of pronunciation guides have been discussed before, but that was (AFAIR) before the Wiktionary project. I just had a new discussion with Arpingstone (if you can call this a discussion) about this topic: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Arpingstone It appears to me, that a guide how to pronounce a word would rather belong to the Wiktionary project than to Wikipedia. In Wiktionary the pronunciation appears to be a regular paragraph, while it is in Wikipedia in one per thousand articles. What are your opinions about this? In the above example Arpingstone added a sentence to the Bremen article: "The 'Bre' of Bremen rhymes with 'clay'." I removed that sentence, mainly because it is at most a rough approximation of the correct pronunciation. Mirko (Cordyph) -- Mirko Thiessen http://www.mirko-thiessen.de

12 21

wikipedia homepage
by Daniel Mayer 22 Jul '03

22 Jul '03

Daniel Ehrenberg wrote: >May I change the layout of the >homepage of the English Wikipedia >to that of the Esperanto Wikipedia? >I think that layout looks much better. >I would ask this on [[Talk:Main Page]], >but not many people look there that >often, and this would be a huge change. IMO that is HMTL madness -- WAY too many spurious colors that mean nothing and whose only purpose is to look "purty" in the eyes of the designer. We have already worked out a more conservative color scheme for the Main Page but were waiting for some earth-shattering announcement to make to go with the upgrade (such as "The Wikimedia Foundation is open for business and is now accepting donations!" - not that we would say that on the Main Page but we would have a link to a press release). See: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page/Temp Which is based on: http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page We really should be very conservative with making big noticeably changes to that page because so many people visit it every day. Making a big change is going to make people think that something is different and then they will be more likely to see the link to the press release (we did this for our last press release and it worked very well). Color rational: White is for articles (thus the background for the category links is white/unchanged), Yellow is for community (since all our user, talk, and wikipedia pages are yellow) and Blue is for hyperlinks. I guess red for edit links would also be neat (indicating there is always something else to cover) but that would be too many colors and red is also a bit heavy. -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

9 13

Re: [WikiEN-l] Let's follow Wikipedia rules for the Gaia articles
by steve vertigo 02 Jul '03

02 Jul '03

| >Toby: (Of course, RK also gave a false vandalism alert for | > an edit war, | > so he automatically loses it by my standards. ^_^) | > -- Toby Hehe. |Anthere: I fear I could be expecting to be a "troll" again very | soon :-( | I was apparently not offered the truce some suggested. | I think the the phrase "Gaia theory" does not refer | exclusively to a scientific thoery. | Thank you to those of you morally supporting me :-) Well, it was nothing. Thank you for keeping your composure, as it made it easier for us to discern the smoke from the real thing. The issue of whether these articles are properly organized, as I see it, are far less important than the issue of people treating others with distaste and accusation. So, regardless of that particular situation, ( I think Robert had a point) you should never feel intimidated or forced into positions that require you to compromise your dignity. Those who make attempts to cause you feel that way are to be looked upon with some distaste, if not moderated by sanction. Best. -Steve __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com

6 12

Cleaning out the old me
by Julie Kemp 01 Jul '03

01 Jul '03

HI all - Thanks, Toby for your suggestions on helping. I'm doing a lot of the cleanup by myself since I can understand Erik's reluctance to do a SQL search and replace. Out of curiosity, has my old name been replaced in article histories? Anyway, if anyone feels like helping do the changes by hand, that would be great. Otherwise, I'll keep going, and perhaps if someone runs into my old name, he or she could just change it to [[User:JHK|JHK]]? Thanks bunches! Jules

2 1

an observation
by steve vertigo 01 Jul '03

01 Jul '03

I had email problems, so this wasnt posted earlier -= like around 9am PST -- but .here it is anyway Danny wrote >"Wikipedia is a project with a stated objective--creating an encyclopedia. Its objective is not to create an ideal >democratic >society a la Martin's perception of one. Nor is it a dumping ground, where anyone can put any crap they want in the name of free speech. It is a place that works best by consensus and compromise--not by making abrupt decisions that this must be the policy, come hell or high water. That is why I was opposed to making a final decision on the date format and spelling policies. "" >""The end result of all this is that some of the serious long term contributors have left--Zoe, for one, was one of the most ?>prolific Wikipedians and a real defender of the project against vandalism. While Martin is certainly prolific on the Recent Changes, a quick look at his past 500 changes show that his work is over 90 percent focused on users' Talk pages, and most of the rest on contentious pages, where it is bound to flame the fires of dispute."" How does having a democratic and responsive way of dealing with issues conflict with making an encyclopedia? -- Do not, Danny, fall victim to the typical assumptions and presumptions of academics. That said, your views on the usefulness of formalization seem to be inline with mine -- in terms of the nonsense details. In terms of process, however, and conducting administrative affairs, it seems the time is ripe to formalize under sunlight the way things get voted on, etc. >""What I would like to see are some solid contributions--an article culled out of a Talk page does not count---before >wasting our time with the Vandal Liberation Front. Instead I wonder when he was made a sysop whether it was to police it >over the rest of us or to further the goal of creating an encyclopedia."" You are 'free to wonder, Danny, but not aloud.' Hehe. Well... rather, if you make comments like the above, the rest of us might be inclined to point out that they are not in character for someone of your caliber, and that they need not be addressed if they are made as a slant, rather than as a formal complaint. In any case, your worthy history entitles you to some excusing. As for Zoe (sob!) and others leaving, I might point out that they by and large left under some stress. The stress comes from the conflict that their personal or institutionalized standards are not the absolute measure here, rather it is consensus that is. If a disagreement is met, it must be dealt with in ways (like co-operation and respect) that some academics seem to avoid learning. Aside from the fact that academics need to find non-academic hobbies, anyone who lets themselves get too stressed on the WP will soon enough have to face a monster of their own making, namely that same-said stress. This stress comes via various factors: Severed attachment to areas of concern, a negated sense of accomplishment when something is changed, personality issues, and so on. That academics eventually would call for higher standards, to "cut out the deadwood," and "weed out the weaklings," reflects only the fact that these professionals failed to understand what was Wikipedias founding spirit in the first place. Such people, despite their vast areas of rote knowledge, tend to have some fundamental inefficiencies that may make them in the end, extinct. Its kind of like the proverbial health-food junkie who dies if he eats bad food. Compared to the beefy, eat-anything robustness of a typically-poor diet, that health nut is an accident waiting to happen. (In some situations). The WP wont be obsolete, because it will be what it is. If Jim decided, say, to rename the WP, "Nupedia" -- saying "this henceforth a peer-reviewed thing," -- it will make no difference. It will still be the stagnant and dying Nupedia, regardless of how many articles it got via Wikipedic means. Zoe, ironically, seemed to be non-academic enough to qualify as being among the robust, but then she took it upon herself to be the top-cop, the Ken Starr chasing Clinton, and of course, like Starr, some of the methods, words and tactics Zoe chose tended to make some skeptical of her intent. And besides, how do we know she's just not hanging out at the beach more often? The WP is nice for stay at home dads and IT dungeon keepers, but for others the appeal of a topical argument stands short against the realization that life in front of a screen is a bad habit at best. So in short, I take issue with you, Danny, when you confuse the issues you presented, with the altogether different phenomenon of the changing guard. Get well soon, all -Steve __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com

4 3

re: An observation
by martin＠myreddice.freeserve.co.uk 01 Jul '03

01 Jul '03

Hi folks. Firstly, I would like to thank Danny. Despite your annoyance at my actions, and your concern for the wellbeing of Wikipedia, you were polite and calm in your criticism. Criticism is often a bitter pill to swallow, but you were a perfect gentleman, and I genuinely appreciate that. Secondly, I have been informed that some may feel that I am accusing Jimbo Wales, or Wikipedians generally, of hypocricy, regarding my comments on whether these lists are "unmoderated". I did not mean to imply any such thing, and, for the record I do not think that any of you are hypocritical. I *did* have a point behind my post, but it is not important, so I am happy to completely retract it. I apologise for the offence my careless choice of words has caused. Thirdly, I should note that my sysop powers were the result of a fairly informal decision by Ed Poor, rather than the general acclamation that has greeted recent sysops. As such I feel somewhat lacking in democratic accountability! :) While I wish to retain my deletion and undeletion powers solely for the purpose of merging page histories or moving page titles, I would like to announce here that I will no longer take any other sysop-restricted actions, until further notice. I hope you can all trust me to keep my word on this matter. Finally, I'm currently discussing this matter privately with Danny and other interested parties. If you have any feedback, positive or negative (especially negative feedback that is as polite and well-reasoned as Danny's), then I would be deleted to hear from any of you. In particular, I would like to hear from Jtdirl, who I have much respect for, despite our diametrically opposed views. My email adress is wikipedia(a)myreddice.co.uk. -Martin "MyRedDice" Harper

2 1

Over the weekend... (IP block status?)
by a.crossman＠blueyonder.co.uk 01 Jul '03

01 Jul '03

Brion writes: > Evercat writes: > >> Question: did the proposed blocking of IP addresses occur over the >> weekend, > > Yes. > >> and has it now been lifted? > > No. > >> I ask because things seemed quiet over the weekend, but a user in >> the last hour has displayed suspicious DW-like behaviour. > > Er, more information? User:Janet Dayton - continuation of the theme of treating every sysop's every word as gospel, and proceeding upon their instructions to harmful effect. Also the "I think you are DW" stuff... (to Camembert) Contributions here: http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&targ et=Janet_Dayton -- Allan Crossman a.crossman(a)blueyonder.co.uk http://dogma.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

2 1

Let's follow Wikipedia rules for the Gaia articles
by Robert 01 Jul '03

01 Jul '03

Let me say this one more time. Wikipedia has simple coventions for disambiguation: We have Disambiguation pages. We also have "See also" links at the bottom of most articles. Further, this is the *English* Wikipedia, and we need to us enaming conventions and spellings that most English speakers are familiar with, and like to use. What about this is so difficult to grasp? For as long as I have been on Wikipedia, we all have had to follow the same rules. For instance, Wikipedia does NOT break apart every topic into topic-fragments by author. Let me give you an example: We DO NOT have Evolution (Gould) Evolution (Dawkins) Evolution (Darwin) Evolution (Mayr) and...Evolution! We DO NOT have: Quantum Mechanics (Heisenberg) Quantum Mechanics (Schr�dinger) Quantum Mechanics (Dirac) and...Quantum Mechanics! We DO NOT have: Relativity (classical) Relativity (Einstein) Relativity (Superstring extension) Relativity (Supersymmetry extension) and...Relativity So why do we now have: Gaia theory Gaia hypothesis Gaia (goddess)...including BIOLOGY theories?!?! Gaia theory (Biology) Anthere's obsession with having more and more articles on the same topic is unjustifiable, confusing, and misleading. She also is using a naming terminology that English speakers DO NOT use. Jimbo Wales and others have already made clear that our primary purpose here is to make this project accessible and clear to an English speaking audience. The terms we use are extremely imporant, otherwise people looking for one topic could very well miss much of what we have to offer on it. Chopping up articles like Anthere does is confusing to the reader. Someone will read one article, and think that they have read what they need to on the subject...all the while mising the other critical information on the other pages. (And let's be real, most people DO NOT follow most links. They follow a few links, that's all.) Anthere's method prevents future edits from being useful. Someone new will come along, and find one or two of her Gaia articles; they might want to contribute, and make an addition or an edit. Sounds good...but they probably will only make the edit to one part of the whole; what about all the other articles on the same topic? And it gets worse. Many scientists have written on the Gaia theory, not just the two that Anthere is dwelling on. Will she create even more, such as [[Gaia theory (Dawkins)]]? If not, why? She already is doing so now...if we follow her convention, we will have to do so for many more articles. And why is her naming convention being defended for this one topic only, but rejected for other topics? Again, this is not about content or NPOV. Anthere should not be jamming tiny bits of an entire subject into four separate articles. Worst of all, the primary page [[Gaia theory]] is very misleading...because Anthere refuses to let us discuss gaia theory here! Instead, she focuses on pre-gaia theory theology and mysticism, and on radical left-wing politics! She forces any real discussion of Gaia theory into sub-pages. That is bizarre. I don't know what her college is like, but among *English* speakers, the phrase "Gaia theory" refers exclusively to a scientific thoery. We English speakers to use the phrase "Gaia theory" to refer to biological theories by Lovelock, Margulis, et. al. Only on the rarest of occasions does anyone use it to refer to anything else. Anthere's demands for namin conventions are totally backwards. It is the [[Gaia theory]] article which should be about the Gaia biological theories by Lovelock, Margulis. If someone wants to read about Anthere's other interests, such as quasi-Gaian mystial theories of other people from previous decades and centuries, that should be on some other page such as "Gaia theory (precedents)". If someone wants to read about radical left-wing political groups, that should not be here either, but rather in another article. This article should be about biology, because most English speakers who want to discuss this subject will use this name. What about this is so unreasonable? All I am asking is that we follow the same rules as we follow everywhere else. Robert (RK) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com

5 7

Over the weekend... (IP block status?)
by a.crossman＠blueyonder.co.uk 01 Jul '03

01 Jul '03

Question: did the proposed blocking of IP addresses occur over the weekend, and has it now been lifted? I ask because things seemed quiet over the weekend, but a user in the last hour has displayed suspicious DW-like behaviour. Evercat -- Allan Crossman a.crossman(a)blueyonder.co.uk http://dogma.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

2 1

A question to a "wikipedian"
by Daniel Mayer 30 Jun '03

30 Jun '03

Anthere wrote: >>Danny wrote: >>[a long letter about some of his concerns] > >Have you understood the principles upon which >Wikipedia is built ? Do you? We are here to build an encyclopedia. The community aspect is a means to an end, not an end in itself (and I think that was the underlying message that Danny was writing about). And please consider how insulting it appears to put in quotes the word "Wikipedian" when referring to another contributor; in English this implies that you believe the other person is not a real Wikipedian. That isn't nice and I hope you will do the right thing and apologize to Danny - who /is/ a damn good and very real Wikipedian. See also: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav) ===== __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l June 2003