Mailing List Archive

Forking the Wiki
Wikipedia and Wikimedia were once created to start an encyclopedia.
Now we have more, we have wikis for dictionaries, books, source
material, citations, multimedia files, biological species, victims of
9/11... Why?

The positive way to say it would be to state that we are extending our
reach. But is that the case? Looking at the history, I have the
feeling they are all weak compromises between deletionists and
inclusionists. Some wanted to delete dictionary definitions, others
wanted to keep them. No agreement. So we make a special wiki for that,
and both can be happy. They are not deleted, and they are not kept in
Wikipedia. Some want to delete source files, others don't. Another
Wiki. Some want to include how-tos and such, others don't. Another
Wiki. Some want to include all 9/11 victims, others don't. And indeed.

Is this good? From one point of view it is. We have two parties, and
we find a compromise. From another point of view, it just shows that
we cannot make any real decisions. I guess it's the wiki way. We are
good at making compromises, we are totally incapable at making
decisions.

What am I saying here? I don't really know. But I do want to have said
it. Do your advantage with it, or throw it away. Whatever.

Andre Engels
Re: Forking the Wiki [ In reply to ]
A levelezõm azt hiszi, hogy Andre Engels a következõeket írta:
> Wikipedia and Wikimedia were once created to start an encyclopedia.
> Now we have more, we have wikis for dictionaries, books, source
> material, citations, multimedia files, biological species, victims of
> 9/11... Why?
>
> The positive way to say it would be to state that we are extending our
> reach. But is that the case? Looking at the history, I have the
> feeling they are all weak compromises between deletionists and
> inclusionists. Some wanted to delete dictionary definitions, others
> wanted to keep them. No agreement. So we make a special wiki for that,
> and both can be happy.

I was thinking about the same. This is what I am thinking about it:

Each Wiki page can be viewed as describing a knowledge scheme. The
additions I have seen so far are of two types:

* "Structural" schemes, describing some kind of structure of other
schemes.

* "Informational" schemes, describing some information.

Examples of structural schemes are the species and the contents of
wiktionary. These both structure other schemes which are normally
entries of wikipedia.

Examples of informational schemes are source material, citations,
multimedia files.

The structural schemes cannot describe the structures they want
to describe because disconnectedness. It is clearly shown in
wictionary: you can find multiple instances of the same word
across multiple language dictionaries (I mean you can find
words in each language in each language dictionary), and
these words are described independently of wikipedia,
which means much more inferior descriptions, in most cases
no description at all.

And what about informational schemes? We have a different place
for pictures. And we do have very nice, artistic graphics there.
But I would guess that there are much more graphics in wikipedia
as illustrations. Furthermore, content in common is also structured
according to some schemes: author, topic, type, etc.

One more thing to consider: the actual source of content is just
a technical detail.

Conclusion:

Wikimedia's approach to describe structures of schemes effectively
and aligned with human ways of thought needs further work.
So far only technical details have been considered, but the key
is the presentation approach.

Proposal:

There should be some well-established rules which widely acted upon.
The number of rules should be low, and they have to reflect sure
knowledge about human ways of thought. Some which might need
consideration:

* One concept should be described in only one place

* Relations of concept should be easily described. Every kind of
relations. (See wordnet for a very important experiment with this
in a very strict area: linguistics.)

* There might be separate wikis for separate approaches to gathering
information, but at the end of the day knowledge should be presented in
a coherent manner.

Now you can call me inclusionist if you want to miss the point.

--
GNU GPL: csak tiszta forrásból
Re: Forking the Wiki [ In reply to ]
Andre Engels wrote:
> Is this good? From one point of view it is. We have two parties, and
> we find a compromise. From another point of view, it just shows that
> we cannot make any real decisions. I guess it's the wiki way. We are
> good at making compromises, we are totally incapable at making
> decisions.

I'm not so sure, but of course this is something for us all to keep in
mind. Certainly, wiktionary is now maturing into something that it
could never have been without being separate from wikipedia, and so
having a separate reference work makes complete sense there.

For sep11, well, yes, it's not so great and it was a weak compromise
and we should do something about it.

--Jimbo
Re: Forking the Wiki [ In reply to ]
> Andre Engels wrote:
> > Is this good? From one point of view it is. We have two parties, and
< > we find a compromise...

I agree with Andre's observations here; community discussions in the
past do not seem to have distinguished between [.the need for separate
views for different contributors, and different policies for different
subprojects] and [.the need for separate wikis/databases, technical
arrangements, lists of administrators, interlang links].

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 03:18:21 -0800, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales <jwales@wikia.com> wrote:
> Certainly, wiktionary is now maturing into something that it
> could never have been without being separate from wikipedia, and so
> having a separate reference work makes complete sense there.

Being separate from -- in the sense of having its own policies,
community discussion areas, and goals -- does not necessarily require
having a separate wiki.

There are a number of wiki subprojects that set their own local
policy, have their own microcosmic village pumps and portal pages,
have dedicated contributors who use their watchlists to efffectively
create a specialized Recentchanges list without losing the ability to
tap into the 'global' recentchantes, etc.

It makes a lot of sense to me, theoretically, to have the all projects
working on collective reference works share a single wiki [database].
Then to rethink namespaces in such a way that there is no extra fear
of naming conflicts; then to use URL-rewriting to take advantage of
the shorthand of the many top level domains we have, so that no URLs
break (or even redirect). I can see keeping non-reference projects
like, say, some kind of resource for original research, being separate
(that is, actively preventing users and readers from seeing a global
recent changes that suggests that such work is like the reference work
going on elsewhere).

It should be possible to do this without changing the user experience
for readers and users, except for the fact that all of the "external"
links that currently go to other wikimedia projects would become
blue/red internal links.

But many internals would change; the database schema, calculating
statistics, etc. And this system would ideally work cleanly with the
hazily-defined namespace policies of Wikibooks. I don't know that
this is something worth spending time on this year, but perhaps, in
the spirit of the Great Database Schema Change of 2005, we can start
discussing whether this would be a good idea in the future.

--
+sj+
Re: Forking the Wiki [ In reply to ]
--- Sj <2.718281828@gmail.com> wrote:
> Being separate from -- in the sense of having its own policies,
> community discussion areas, and goals -- does not necessarily require
> having a separate wiki.

But being different types of reference works does. Wikipedia is an
encyclopedia, Wikibooks is a collection of textbooks/manuals, Wiktionary is a
translating dictionary and thesaurus. Each has its own unique way of presenting
information to the reader (Wikibooks instructs, Wikipedia informs, Wikisource
regurgitates) and each has very different concepts about what goes onto a page
and linking (very few internal links in Wikibooks and Wikisource, for example).


The separation is both necessary and desirable. The only issue I see is the
abiltiy to link user accounts across wikis and maybe have the option of having
combined recent changes and watchlists.

-- mav



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Send a seasonal email greeting and help others. Do good.
http://celebrity.mail.yahoo.com
Re: Forking the Wiki [ In reply to ]
--- "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales@wikia.com> wrote:
> For sep11, well, yes, it's not so great and it was a weak compromise
> and we should do something about it.

Sep11wiki suffers from being too focused on one event. What we need is to have
a general memorial wiki that would have Sep11 as just one of many internal
WikiProjects. Such a project could also serve as a genealogy wiki (aka
Wikipeople).

-- mav



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com
Re: Forking the Wiki [ In reply to ]
It could include victims of the Holocaust, Viet Nam War dead, Civil War
dead, etc.

But would enough people actually work on it?

Fred

> From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149@yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@wikimedia.org>
> Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 11:01:13 -0800 (PST)
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Forking the Wiki
>
> --- "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales@wikia.com> wrote:
>> For sep11, well, yes, it's not so great and it was a weak compromise
>> and we should do something about it.
>
> Sep11wiki suffers from being too focused on one event. What we need is to have
> a general memorial wiki that would have Sep11 as just one of many internal
> WikiProjects. Such a project could also serve as a genealogy wiki (aka
> Wikipeople).
>
> -- mav
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
> http://my.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Forking the Wiki [ In reply to ]
Fred Bauder (fredbaud@ctelco.net) [050103 06:51]:

> It could include victims of the Holocaust, Viet Nam War dead, Civil War
> dead, etc.
> But would enough people actually work on it?


Perhaps the many hardworking editors on the Israeli-Palestine conflict
would have their energies usefully diverted there, before we simply block
every IP in the Middle East out of frustration ...


- d.
Re: Forking the Wiki [ In reply to ]
Fred Bauder wrote:

>It could include victims of the Holocaust, Viet Nam War dead, Civil War
>dead, etc.
>
>But would enough people actually work on it?
>
>Fred
>
>
>
>>From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149@yahoo.com>
>>Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@wikimedia.org>
>>Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 11:01:13 -0800 (PST)
>>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@wikimedia.org>
>>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Forking the Wiki
>>
>>--- "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales@wikia.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>For sep11, well, yes, it's not so great and it was a weak compromise
>>>and we should do something about it.
>>>
>>>
>>Sep11wiki suffers from being too focused on one event. What we need is to have
>>a general memorial wiki that would have Sep11 as just one of many internal
>>WikiProjects. Such a project could also serve as a genealogy wiki (aka
>>Wikipeople).
>>
>>

There are some other events that will certainly qualify as something
that needs memoralizing and can be done in a similar fashion. From what
I understand, there are entire villages that no longer exist due to the
Tsumai that hit the Indian Ocean, and I think they deserve more than a
mere mention somewhere. For an event that from some estimates I've
heard will have killed close to a half a million people, it certainly
deserves some sort of treatment beyond a simple wikipedia entry. I
wonder how many wikipedians are in or close to the affected areas?

Other events of similar nature, such as the loss of the Shuttle
Columbia, Tianamin Square, or the Columbine Massacre come to mind as
other candidates. Each of these generated quite a bit of news coverage,
and even spawned numerous web pages covering each of these events. I
for one support such a memorial wiki, especially if it provides a forum
for victims or familes of victims to express what these events meant to
them, as well as how such an event has changed your life.

--
Robert Scott Horning
Re: Forking the Wiki [ In reply to ]
Daniel Mayer wrote:

>--- "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales@wikia.com> wrote:
>
>
>>For sep11, well, yes, it's not so great and it was a weak compromise
>>and we should do something about it.
>>
>>
>Sep11wiki suffers from being too focused on one event. What we need is to have
>a general memorial wiki that would have Sep11 as just one of many internal
>WikiProjects. Such a project could also serve as a genealogy wiki (aka
>Wikipeople).
>
>
This was the gist of the Wikimorial idea. It's about commemorating the
otherwise "unnotable" people who happened to be at the wong place at the
wrong time, and fell victims to historic events that overwhelmed them.
The recent tsunami may well generate other stories that merit inclusion.

Not all people referenced there need to have died in the events. The
project could include significant survival stories. I see it as a
"human interest" kind of project.

Ec
Re: Forking the Wiki [ In reply to ]
A levelezõm azt hiszi, hogy Daniel Mayer a következõeket írta:
> --- Sj <2.718281828@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Being separate from -- in the sense of having its own policies,
> > community discussion areas, and goals -- does not necessarily require
> > having a separate wiki.
>
> But being different types of reference works does. Wikipedia is an
> encyclopedia, Wikibooks is a collection of textbooks/manuals, Wiktionary is a
> translating dictionary and thesaurus. Each has its own unique way of presenting
> information to the reader (Wikibooks instructs, Wikipedia informs, Wikisource
> regurgitates) and each has very different concepts about what goes onto a page

I cannot see what should be the difference between words in wikipedia and
wiktionary beyond that wiktionary should have links to other words in
other languages, which can easily put into wikipedia in a
non-obstructive manner.

Think about yourself. If you are asked to instruct, you will instruct.
If you are asked for information, you will give it. If you are using a
word, you will be aware a lot of concepts attached to that word:
other ideas, events, pieces of art, quotations, forms of it in another
languages, etc.
Nevertheless you are an integral personality, and not a schizophrene,
and not a maniac.

What we now have is a schizophrene. If I ask it what a "kutya" is in
Hungarian, it tells me it is a "dog" in english. But I cannot really
figure out anything about what a "kutya" or "dog" is, is there
differences in the use of the words, and I would never arrive to
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. I cannot even figure out what "dog" is to
an Englishman: I won't even get to the english wiktionary page
for "dog", not even mentioning the wikipedia entry.
("kutya" is the example of how a wiktionary page should look like,
this is why I cite it as an example)

> and linking (very few internal links in Wikibooks and Wikisource, for example).

Our favourite wiki have never taken an art or literature class.
If it did, it would have a lot of asociations on each Wikisource items.
Also, when I have taken high school, our math, physics and chemistry
classes have been built upon each other. If they had been Wiki pages,
there would have been a lot of references.

--
GNU GPL: csak tiszta forrásból
Re: Forking the Wiki [ In reply to ]
Magosányi Árpád wrote:

>A levelezõm azt hiszi, hogy Daniel Mayer a következõeket írta:
>
>
>>--- Sj <2.718281828@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Being separate from -- in the sense of having its own policies,
>>>community discussion areas, and goals -- does not necessarily require
>>>having a separate wiki.
>>>
>>>
>>But being different types of reference works does. Wikipedia is an
>>encyclopedia, Wikibooks is a collection of textbooks/manuals, Wiktionary is a
>>translating dictionary and thesaurus. Each has its own unique way of presenting
>>information to the reader (Wikibooks instructs, Wikipedia informs, Wikisource
>>regurgitates) and each has very different concepts about what goes onto a page
>>
>>
>I cannot see what should be the difference between words in wikipedia and
>wiktionary beyond that wiktionary should have links to other words in
>other languages, which can easily put into wikipedia in a
>non-obstructive manner.
>
The difference is between what the words mean and the stories
surrounding them. For a dictionary writer it is enough guide a person
to describe and document how that word might be used in writing. If we
approach a hot-button word like "terrorist" we would offer a definition,
and show how it would have been used by various authors, but we would
have no need to attach that label to anybody. This allows us to look at
the word more objectively. We don't need to get into an NPOV battle
over it.

>Think about yourself. If you are asked to instruct, you will instruct.
>If you are asked for information, you will give it. If you are using a
>word, you will be aware a lot of concepts attached to that word:
>other ideas, events, pieces of art, quotations, forms of it in another
>languages, etc.
>
Precisely so. Words have denotations (specific dictionary meanings) and
connotations (supplementary impressions that are as much derived from
their context). Words like "miserly" and "frugal" have very similar
denotations but their connotations are worlds apart. When we look at
specific contexts, the word as a tool of the writer can easily be
overwhelmed.

>Nevertheless you are an integral personality, and not a schizophrene,
>and not a maniac.
>
>What we now have is a schizophrene. If I ask it what a "kutya" is in
>Hungarian, it tells me it is a "dog" in english. But I cannot really
>figure out anything about what a "kutya" or "dog" is, is there
>differences in the use of the words, and I would never arrive to
>Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. I cannot even figure out what "dog" is to
>an Englishman: I won't even get to the english wiktionary page
>for "dog", not even mentioning the wikipedia entry.
>("kutya" is the example of how a wiktionary page should look like,
>this is why I cite it as an example)
>
A lot of these things will take time to sort out. Much depends on what
use a person has for another language. As an English speaker who has no
particular desire to learn Hungarian I could still want to know what a
Hungarian means when he says "kutya". The English Wiktionary entry for
"dog" does give two Hangarian words ("kutya" and "eb"), and I may wonder
what the difference is. If I wanted to write in Hungarian I would at
least need to refer back to the Hungarian Wiktionary to learn the
difference; this would also be the case of I were translating material
from Hungarian. Translating by just using a dictionary can give some
strange results. A "dog" in English can also mean an "andiron", and it
could very well seem strange for a Hungarian to find a "kutya" sitting
in a fireplace holding up logs. In any event, a person who wants to
know about the word "dog" may not be particularly interested in such
things as its biological history or about how it is used to herd sheep
in Scotland, or about children being killed by vicious breeds of dog.
These ideas are more suited to an encyclopedia.

In its basic usage "dog" can be interpreted very easily, because it is a
concrete idea. The more abstract ideas like "terrorst" or "frugal" can
be far more problematical. In English, perhaps more than in any other
major language, words are defined by their usage. There is no English
Academy to dictate the use of words. The English language may be the
richer for it since this gives it immense power to generate new words,
but at the same time it makes life more difficult for the lexicographers.

On Arthur Conan Doyle, I was disappointed that the person who began that
project on Wiktionary went away before he could take it further. He
made some very good points to support it, notably that a more recent
writer would better reflect the current state of the language than
Shakespeare. Looking at a prolific writer like Doyle that way is a huge
job, but it does reflect on the way the the Oxford Dictionary was
produced in the late 1800s. Doyle died in 1930, so even more recent
writers should also be so treated, but there we would also need to look
at possible copyright problems, and that is quite another story.

>>and linking (very few internal links in Wikibooks and Wikisource, for example).
>>
>>
>
>Our favourite wiki have never taken an art or literature class.
>If it did, it would have a lot of asociations on each Wikisource items.
>Also, when I have taken high school, our math, physics and chemistry
>classes have been built upon each other. If they had been Wiki pages,
>there would have been a lot of references.
>
This is all very fine, but what it comes down to is much work. As
valuable as these references may be it still takes someone to do the
work of creating all those links. If each one is to be checked properly
the work will be very slow.

Ec
Re: Forking the Wiki [ In reply to ]
A levelezõm azt hiszi, hogy Ray Saintonge a következõeket írta:
> Magosányi Árpád wrote:
> >>
> >I cannot see what should be the difference between words in wikipedia and
> >wiktionary beyond that wiktionary should have links to other words in
> >other languages, which can easily put into wikipedia in a
> >non-obstructive manner.
> >
> The difference is between what the words mean and the stories
> surrounding them. For a dictionary writer it is enough guide a person
> to describe and document how that word might be used in writing.

False assumption. You won't be able to use a word properly until you
learn exactly what it means. And there are no two words which have
the exact same meaning in any language. What you traditionally put
into a dictionary and into a lexicon is just specific aspects of
the same word, same idea. (The problem is actually worse because one word
labels more ideas, sometimes very distinct ones.)

Separating these different views so far away makes exploring it more
difficult. I think that ideas should be described in the whole wikimedia
in a way which makes easy to wander through them in the same way as we
process ideas in our brain. We don't know much about the latter, but
it would be fruitful if we would use the information we do have.

> If we
> approach a hot-button word like "terrorist" we would offer a definition,
> and show how it would have been used by various authors, but we would
> have no need to attach that label to anybody. This allows us to look at
> the word more objectively. We don't need to get into an NPOV battle
> over it.

I haven't yet found myself in a wikipedian NPOV battle, but I guess they
are about just some aspects of an entry, involving a few sentences.
If it would be about some dictionary example of the use of word
"terrorist", one side would use it as "Bush is a terrorist", the other
would use it as "Bin Laden is a terrorist", and I could still figure
out how to use this world to label someone as a terrorist. (And would
agree with both sides;)

I see only one potential problem by presenting all the relevant aspects
as one entry: volume of information. But this could be handled easily
by presenting it in a well thought-out manner.

But I can make a long list of problems arising because disconnectedness.

> >Think about yourself. If you are asked to instruct, you will instruct.
> >If you are asked for information, you will give it. If you are using a
> >word, you will be aware a lot of concepts attached to that word:
> >other ideas, events, pieces of art, quotations, forms of it in another
> >languages, etc.
> >
> Precisely so. Words have denotations (specific dictionary meanings) and
> connotations (supplementary impressions that are as much derived from
> their context). Words like "miserly" and "frugal" have very similar
> denotations but their connotations are worlds apart. When we look at
> specific contexts, the word as a tool of the writer can easily be
> overwhelmed.
[]

> If I wanted to write in Hungarian I would at
> least need to refer back to the Hungarian Wiktionary to learn the
> difference; this would also be the case of I were translating material
> from Hungarian. Translating by just using a dictionary can give some
> strange results.

I think this supports my POV.

> A "dog" in English can also mean an "andiron", and it
> could very well seem strange for a Hungarian to find a "kutya" sitting
> in a fireplace holding up logs. In any event, a person who wants to
> know about the word "dog" may not be particularly interested in such
> things as its biological history or about how it is used to herd sheep
> in Scotland, or about children being killed by vicious breeds of dog.
> These ideas are more suited to an encyclopedia.

But if the person interested can easily find the interesting aspect,
and when it proves to be too scant, can refer to the whole, this is
much better than what we have now.

> On Arthur Conan Doyle, I was disappointed that the person who began that
> project on Wiktionary went away before he could take it further.

I was just referring to his book "The Hound of the Baskervilles",
because its title contains a dog. Did not know about such project
on Wiktionary (I am a newbie here), but you made me curious.

> >Our favourite wiki have never taken an art or literature class.
> >If it did, it would have a lot of asociations on each Wikisource items.
> >Also, when I have taken high school, our math, physics and chemistry
> >classes have been built upon each other. If they had been Wiki pages,
> >there would have been a lot of references.
> >
> This is all very fine, but what it comes down to is much work. As
> valuable as these references may be it still takes someone to do the
> work of creating all those links. If each one is to be checked properly
> the work will be very slow.

Such a work would be of great value.

And now think about references between different wikies, like
wiktionary, wikispecies and wikipedia. As the current structure
encourages disconnectednes, such work now is not just slow;
it is _impossible_: the number of disconnectednesses grow larger
than the reconnections.

--
GNU GPL: csak tiszta forrásból
Re: Forking the Wiki [ In reply to ]
Magosányi Árpád wrote:

>A levelezõm azt hiszi, hogy Ray Saintonge a következõeket írta:
>
>
>>Magosányi Árpád wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I cannot see what should be the difference between words in wikipedia and
>>>wiktionary beyond that wiktionary should have links to other words in
>>>other languages, which can easily put into wikipedia in a
>>>non-obstructive manner.
>>>
>>he difference is between what the words mean and the stories
>>surrounding them. For a dictionary writer it is enough guide a person
>>to describe and document how that word might be used in writing.
>>
>>
>False assumption. You won't be able to use a word properly until you
>learn exactly what it means. And there are no two words which have
>the exact same meaning in any language. What you traditionally put
>into a dictionary and into a lexicon is just specific aspects of
>the same word, same idea. (The problem is actually worse because one word
>labels more ideas, sometimes very distinct ones.)
>
They may be specific aspects, but together they approach an
understanding of a word, which is as much as we can hope for.

>Separating these different views so far away makes exploring it more
>difficult. I think that ideas should be described in the whole wikimedia
>in a way which makes easy to wander through them in the same way as we
>process ideas in our brain. We don't know much about the latter, but
>it would be fruitful if we would use the information we do have.
>
I would not go too far to presume how we process things in our brains.
It may not be as orderly as some would believe.

>I see only one potential problem by presenting all the relevant aspects
>as one entry: volume of information. But this could be handled easily
>by presenting it in a well thought-out manner.
>
>But I can make a long list of problems arising because disconnectedness.
>
The connectedness won't happen by forcing things together prematurely.

>>>Think about yourself. If you are asked to instruct, you will instruct.
>>>If you are asked for information, you will give it. If you are using a
>>>word, you will be aware a lot of concepts attached to that word:
>>>other ideas, events, pieces of art, quotations, forms of it in another
>>>languages, etc.
>>>
>>Precisely so. Words have denotations (specific dictionary meanings) and
>>connotations (supplementary impressions that are as much derived from
>>their context). Words like "miserly" and "frugal" have very similar
>>denotations but their connotations are worlds apart. When we look at
>>specific contexts, the word as a tool of the writer can easily be
>>overwhelmed.
>>
>>
>>If I wanted to write in Hungarian I would at
>>least need to refer back to the Hungarian Wiktionary to learn the
>>difference; this would also be the case of I were translating material
>>from Hungarian. Translating by just using a dictionary can give some
>>strange results.
>>
>>
>
>I think this supports my POV.
>
Perhaps, but if you give some people more of the other language than
they need they will go away in confusion.

>>On Arthur Conan Doyle, I was disappointed that the person who began that
>>project on Wiktionary went away before he could take it further.
>>
>>
>
>I was just referring to his book "The Hound of the Baskervilles",
>because its title contains a dog. Did not know about such project
>on Wiktionary (I am a newbie here), but you made me curious.
>
Some time ago a user put in an alphabetical list of all the words used
by Doyle in his Sherlock Holmes writings. It was an interesting idea,
but still needed a lot more work to make it really usefull.

>>>Our favourite wiki have never taken an art or literature class.
>>>If it did, it would have a lot of asociations on each Wikisource items.
>>>Also, when I have taken high school, our math, physics and chemistry
>>>classes have been built upon each other. If they had been Wiki pages,
>>>there would have been a lot of references.
>>>
>>his is all very fine, but what it comes down to is much work. As
>>valuable as these references may be it still takes someone to do the
>>work of creating all those links. If each one is to be checked properly
>>the work will be very slow.
>>
>>
>
>Such a work would be of great value.
>
>And now think about references between different wikies, like
>wiktionary, wikispecies and wikipedia. As the current structure
>encourages disconnectednes, such work now is not just slow;
>it is _impossible_: the number of disconnectednesses grow larger
>than the reconnections.
>
Of course! More connections would have great value. Your observation is
also correct, but this is a wiki where anyone can add in the links.
Maintining a balance between joint and separate projects is never easy.

Ec
Re: Forking the Wiki [ In reply to ]
I'm very curious to see it. From time to time,
somebody speaks about it, but nothing happens. I would
like to see reactions about a testimony like "my 4
years daughter was killed by a US marine in Fallujah".
With a lot of readers/contributors in the United
States, it could be really funny...

Traroth

--- Daniel Mayer <maveric149@yahoo.com> a écrit :
> Sep11wiki suffers from being too focused on one
> event. What we need is to have
> a general memorial wiki that would have Sep11 as
> just one of many internal
> WikiProjects. Such a project could also serve as a
> genealogy wiki (aka
> Wikipeople).
>
> -- mav
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
> http://my.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>






Découvrez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail : 250 Mo d'espace de stockage pour vos mails !
Créez votre Yahoo! Mail sur http://fr.mail.yahoo.com/
Re: Forking the Wiki [ In reply to ]
On 4 Jan 2005, at 16:09, Traroth wrote:

> I'm very curious to see it. From time to time,
> somebody speaks about it, but nothing happens. I would
> like to see reactions about a testimony like "my 4
> years daughter was killed by a US marine in Fallujah".
> With a lot of readers/contributors in the United
> States, it could be really funny...
>
> Traroth

1. I think Fallujah's survivors of siege warfare and radioactive and
chemical weapons have more pressing needs right now than logging on to
the Internet and editing some website.
2. Do you think that Muslim residents of a hitherto-branded "axis of
evil"-country would have better luck than Christian-dominated US allies
in convincing the US American "Moral" Majority that "Thou shalt not
kill" really DOES mean just that? Me neither.
3. Adding to that, well, what do you think -- if a foreign army lays
siege to, and napalm-bombs someone's hometown, would it be unreasonable
to assume that the person so affected might rather be WAY past
contributing friendly edits to a joint encyclopedia? (Which is why I
reckon that the US has guaranteed itself one or two sequels, al Qaeda
branded or otherwise. But then, that's just my hunch and I could be
wrong.)
4. Leaving aside the unlikeliness of seeing a lot of Fallujan
contributors anytime soon, if you've given up on the US as such and
only expect mere sordid entertainment -- yes, a hypothetical advent of
Fallujan contributors would provide copious amounts of that. Let the
games begin, but don't forget to duck and cover!

-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]]
www.ropersonline.com
Re: Forking the Wiki [ In reply to ]
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 21:37:30 +0100, Jens Ropers <ropers@ropersonline.com> wrote:
> 1. I think Fallujah's survivors of siege warfare and radioactive and
> chemical weapons have more pressing needs right now than logging on to
> the Internet and editing some website.

Just out of curiosity, when was Fallujah nuked and sprayed down? I
must have missed it, between eating my double-Supersized Big Mac and
filling up my 2-mile-per-gallon SUV.

> 3. Adding to that, well, what do you think -- if a foreign army lays
> siege to, and napalm-bombs someone's hometown, would it be unreasonable
> to assume that the person so affected might rather be WAY past
> contributing friendly edits to a joint encyclopedia? (Which is why I
> reckon that the US has guaranteed itself one or two sequels, al Qaeda
> branded or otherwise. But then, that's just my hunch and I could be
> wrong.)

The U.S. military destroyed the last of its napalm a few years ago, if
memory serves me right. I could be mistaken, though.

This will probably do nothing except ignite an off-topic flame war,
but I'm curious about these claims.

--Slowking Man
Re: Forking the Wiki [ In reply to ]
On 5 Jan 2005, at 05:46, Christopher Larberg wrote:

> On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 21:37:30 +0100, Jens Ropers
> <ropers@ropersonline.com> wrote:
>> 1. I think Fallujah's survivors of siege warfare and radioactive and
>> chemical weapons have more pressing needs right now than logging on to
>> the Internet and editing some website.
>
> Just out of curiosity, when was Fallujah nuked and sprayed down? I
> must have missed it, between eating my double-Supersized Big Mac and
> filling up my 2-mile-per-gallon SUV.

There's a difference between the terms "radioactive weapons" and
"nuclear weapons".
Granted, there is also a fierce argument out there whether or not D.U.
also counts as a ''radiation'' and/or ''radiological'' weapon (or--to
some--even as a "nuclear" weapon). Statistics on the incidence of
cancers and malformed children born in places like Iraq would
reportedly seem to support the description of D.U. ammo as
"radiological/radiation weapons", but such claims/definitions are far
from universally accepted -- which is why I chose to be on the safe
side and said ''radioactive'' weapons and not ''radiation'' weapons.
NB: Search for Iraqi cancer statistics. Use "teratogenic" and "Iraq" as
Google search terms.
(
http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=teratogenic+iraq&btnG=Search&meta=
)

I suppose your expression "sprayed down" refers to the US' continued
use of chemical weapons. See comment below. Note that I'm not buying
into the Mullarkey of denying napalm is a chemical weapon on grounds
that the incendiary effects of its CHEMICALS are even greater than
their direct CHEMICAL action. I know this one is a matter of dispute
but I have nothing but contempt for people who quibble on this point.

>> 3. Adding to that, well, what do you think -- if a foreign army lays
>> siege to, and napalm-bombs someone's hometown, would it be
>> unreasonable
>> to assume that the person so affected might rather be WAY past
>> contributing friendly edits to a joint encyclopedia? (Which is why I
>> reckon that the US has guaranteed itself one or two sequels, al Qaeda
>> branded or otherwise. But then, that's just my hunch and I could be
>> wrong.)
>
> The U.S. military destroyed the last of its napalm a few years ago, if
> memory serves me right. I could be mistaken, though.

Yes you are. As this article
<http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/08/1060145870882.html?
oneclick=true> will tell you, the difference between napalm of the
"Napalm-B" brand and napalm of the "Mark 77" brand is the use of
slightly different chemicals for thickening the inflammable fuel
(and--presumably--added oxidisers with Mark 77 -- which should make it
even MORE lethal)). We already had this discussion a while ago. Search
the list archives and/or use Google.
(
http://www.google.ie/search?
hl=en&q=Napalm+Mark+77&btnG=Google+Search&meta= )

Of course one might say that the Pentagon's relevant statements were
beyond pharisaic (in the "hypocritical" sense). But hey! -- You're
talking about a country that actively manufactures, stores and uses
WMD. The latter--"uses"--is meant to currently "only" pertain to WMD of
the "explosive" type; I'm following the US' own civil defense WMD
definition here. Of course US Gulf war vets have alleged US use of
tactical nuclear weapons as well, but I've not seen sufficient evidence
to support that claim. It wouldn't surprise me though. After all, the
US also manufactures, stores and uses stuff like cluster bombs and
landmines (condemned by the UN, Red Cross/Red Crescent, etc. etc.).

-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]]
www.ropersonline.com
Re: Forking the Wiki [ In reply to ]
Sorry, but you totally misunderstood me. What I wanted
to say is that I'm curious to see the reactions of
americans. They seem very impatient to express all
their pain about the evil world, and all what they had
to suffer in Viet-Nam war (50 000 americans killed...
and 3 000 000 Vietnamese) and Korea war and Gulf war,
and so on. What could be their reaction if we let all
human beings express the pain of war, including in all
wars where americans behaved like butchers, like Irak,
Afghanistan, Grenada, Somalia, Korea, Viet-Nam,
Panama, Chile (not-exhaustive list. Oh no ! really
not...). Hold in mind that a lot of contributors are
americans...

Traroth

--- Jens Ropers <ropers@ropersonline.com> a écrit :

> 1. I think Fallujah's survivors of siege warfare and
> radioactive and
> chemical weapons have more pressing needs right now
> than logging on to
> the Internet and editing some website.
> 2. Do you think that Muslim residents of a
> hitherto-branded "axis of
> evil"-country would have better luck than
> Christian-dominated US allies
> in convincing the US American "Moral" Majority that
> "Thou shalt not
> kill" really DOES mean just that? Me neither.
> 3. Adding to that, well, what do you think -- if a
> foreign army lays
> siege to, and napalm-bombs someone's hometown, would
> it be unreasonable
> to assume that the person so affected might rather
> be WAY past
> contributing friendly edits to a joint encyclopedia?
> (Which is why I
> reckon that the US has guaranteed itself one or two
> sequels, al Qaeda
> branded or otherwise. But then, that's just my hunch
> and I could be
> wrong.)
> 4. Leaving aside the unlikeliness of seeing a lot of
> Fallujan
> contributors anytime soon, if you've given up on the
> US as such and
> only expect mere sordid entertainment -- yes, a
> hypothetical advent of
> Fallujan contributors would provide copious amounts
> of that. Let the
> games begin, but don't forget to duck and cover!
>
> -- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]]
> www.ropersonline.com







Découvrez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail : 250 Mo d'espace de stockage pour vos mails !
Créez votre Yahoo! Mail sur http://fr.mail.yahoo.com/
Re: Forking the Wiki [ In reply to ]
--- Fred Bauder <fredbaud@ctelco.net> wrote:

> It could include victims of the Holocaust, Viet Nam War dead, Civil War
> dead, etc.

Or the recent tsunami disaster. Or just all your past ancestors. Wikipeople
would have room for all dead persons.

-- mav



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
Re: Forking the Wiki [ In reply to ]
That should draw my relatives (and the rest of the Germans from Russia) into
the project. Sometimes that seems to be the only thing they are interested
in, other than reading the Bible and the Farm Journal.

There is a bunch of people who enthusiatically catalog ancesters.

Fred

> From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149@yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@wikimedia.org>
> Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 07:47:15 -0800 (PST)
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Forking the Wiki
>
> --- Fred Bauder <fredbaud@ctelco.net> wrote:
>
>> It could include victims of the Holocaust, Viet Nam War dead, Civil War
>> dead, etc.
>
> Or the recent tsunami disaster. Or just all your past ancestors. Wikipeople
> would have room for all dead persons.
>
> -- mav
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
> http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: Forking the Wiki [ In reply to ]
Can this be taken off list?

This conversation long since lost any relevance to the wiki project.

On Jan 5.2005, at 05:52, Traroth wrote:

> Sorry, but you totally misunderstood me. What I wanted
> to say is that I'm curious to see the reactions of
> americans. They seem very impatient to express all
> their pain about the evil world, and all what they had
> to suffer in Viet-Nam war (50 000 americans killed...
> and 3 000 000 Vietnamese) and Korea war and Gulf war,
> and so on. What could be their reaction if we let all
> human beings express the pain of war, including in all
> wars where americans behaved like butchers, like Irak,
> Afghanistan, Grenada, Somalia, Korea, Viet-Nam,
> Panama, Chile (not-exhaustive list. Oh no ! really
> not...). Hold in mind that a lot of contributors are
> americans...
>
> Traroth
>
> --- Jens Ropers <ropers@ropersonline.com> a écrit :
>
>> 1. I think Fallujah's survivors of siege warfare and
>> radioactive and
>> chemical weapons have more pressing needs right now
>> than logging on to
>> the Internet and editing some website.
>> 2. Do you think that Muslim residents of a
>> hitherto-branded "axis of
>> evil"-country would have better luck than
>> Christian-dominated US allies
>> in convincing the US American "Moral" Majority that
>> "Thou shalt not
>> kill" really DOES mean just that? Me neither.
>> 3. Adding to that, well, what do you think -- if a
>> foreign army lays
>> siege to, and napalm-bombs someone's hometown, would
>> it be unreasonable
>> to assume that the person so affected might rather
>> be WAY past
>> contributing friendly edits to a joint encyclopedia?
>> (Which is why I
>> reckon that the US has guaranteed itself one or two
>> sequels, al Qaeda
>> branded or otherwise. But then, that's just my hunch
>> and I could be
>> wrong.)
>> 4. Leaving aside the unlikeliness of seeing a lot of
>> Fallujan
>> contributors anytime soon, if you've given up on the
>> US as such and
>> only expect mere sordid entertainment -- yes, a
>> hypothetical advent of
>> Fallujan contributors would provide copious amounts
>> of that. Let the
>> games begin, but don't forget to duck and cover!
>>
>> -- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]]
>> www.ropersonline.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Découvrez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail : 250 Mo d'espace de stockage pour
> vos mails !
> Créez votre Yahoo! Mail sur http://fr.mail.yahoo.com/
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
--
Skot Nelson
skot@penguinstorm.com
Re: Forking the Wiki [ In reply to ]
Just let me guess : you're american...

Traroth

--- Scott Nelson <scott@penguinstorm.com> a écrit :
> Can this be taken off list?
>
> This conversation long since lost any relevance to
> the wiki project.
>







Découvrez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail : 250 Mo d'espace de stockage pour vos mails !
Créez votre Yahoo! Mail sur http://fr.mail.yahoo.com/
Re: Forking the Wiki [ In reply to ]
On Jan 5.2005, at 08:24, Traroth wrote:

> Just let me guess : you're american...

Not sure this is relevant, or that it has any place on the list
either....I mean - the point is you've long since stopped discussing
anything wiki related.

But no, I am not American. And you should be more careful about making
assumptions and jumping to conclusions.

Let me guess - you're French?

> --- Scott Nelson <scott@penguinstorm.com> a écrit :
>> Can this be taken off list?
>>
>> This conversation long since lost any relevance to
>> the wiki project.
--
Skot Nelson
skot@penguinstorm.com
Re: Forking the Wiki [ In reply to ]
This was easy to guess looking my email... :)
And the point IS relevant : I think to do such a
"universal" memorial is not possible, because of the
sensitivity of the potential contributors, and to try
it will degenerate into a chaos. Can you imagine
Palestinians and Israelis, Iraqis and Americans
writing about dead people, killed by the "other one" ?
I can't...

Traroth

--- Scott Nelson <scott@penguinstorm.com> a écrit :
> On Jan 5.2005, at 08:24, Traroth wrote:
>
> > Just let me guess : you're american...
>
> Not sure this is relevant, or that it has any place
> on the list
> either....I mean - the point is you've long since
> stopped discussing
> anything wiki related.
>
> But no, I am not American. And you should be more
> careful about making
> assumptions and jumping to conclusions.
>
> Let me guess - you're French?
>






Découvrez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail : 250 Mo d'espace de stockage pour vos mails !
Créez votre Yahoo! Mail sur http://fr.mail.yahoo.com/

1 2  View All