Mailing List Archive

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

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

> 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+

--- 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

--- "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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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/

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

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

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

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/

--- 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

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

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

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/

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

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/

On Jan 5.2005, at 08:57, Traroth wrote:

> Can you imagine
> Palestinians and Israelis, Iraqis and Americans
> writing about dead people, killed by the "other one" ?
> I can't...

Your discussion had long since left the original point, which had SOME
validity, and had degraded into a conversation about the specifics of
various military weapons and stores...

So either get it back on point, or take it off list. I could dispute
your original point (can you say: Editor!) but don't really feel like
it. I tend to see the world as full of greys, and this is an extremely
grey area.

Perhaps, for my benefit and that of the list, you could explain how
this has any relevance to the Wikimedia Foundation:

>> 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".

Unless the foundation is considering getting into the radioactive
and/or nuclear weapon business? The French certainly do very well with
it, and you could probably fund the entire Foundation with a couple of
sales for quite some time.
--
Scott Nelson

Living in a nuclear free zone.

Scott Nelson a écrit:

> Unless the foundation is considering getting into the radioactive and/or
> nuclear weapon business? The French certainly do very well with it, and
> you could probably fund the entire Foundation with a couple of sales for
> quite some time.
> --
> Scott Nelson
>
> Living in a nuclear free zone.

You are not exactly improving the situation Scott.

May I kindly ask you TWO to drop it off ?

Thanks a lot.



Anthere

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.
>
Jens' statement may have been stated a little too dramatically. I
support the tone of his comments even though I haven't heard of chemical
weapons being used in that incident. Siege warfare certainly took
place. Radioactivity does not mean that someone was nuked.
Metallurgically, uranium metal is well suited for making armour piercing
weapons. It incidentally happens to be radioactive, and these
radioactive shell shards will remain in the environment for centuries.
Mere excusable collateral damage.

>>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.
>
How does one distinguish between an ethical and an unethical weapon?

>This will probably do nothing except ignite an off-topic flame war,
>but I'm curious about these claims.
>
Not to worry! The American military is just receiving the same
genrously warm reception that it would give to similar Iraqi visitors in
Nebraska. :-)

Ec

On 5 Jan 2005, at 17:00, Scott Nelson wrote:

> Can this be taken off list?
>
> This conversation long since lost any relevance to the wiki project.
>

On 5 Jan 2005, at 18:04, Scott Nelson wrote:

> Unless the foundation is considering getting into the radioactive
> and/or nuclear weapon business? The French certainly do very well with
> it, and you could probably fund the entire Foundation with a couple of
> sales for quite some time.
> --
> Scott Nelson
>
> Living in a nuclear free zone.

Scott --

Do you think that publicly lobbing politically loaded insults at "the
other side" is a good way of getting people to stop arguing/defending
their political POV in public?

You can ask for this to go off-list in a neutral fashion.
You initially did that, fair enough. (NB: you and everyone's welcome to
post to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ropers ).
But you then turned around and threw a biggie into the opposite
direction. This effectively makes it impossible for the other side to
gracefully end a political thread (to the escalation of which I
probably contributed, which may not have been wise). The other side
will feel that if they don't defend their view, then you've won and
they've lost. This is like a partisan talk host who finishes with an
extreme partisan insult and then says: "Sorry. We've JUST run out of
time." and proceeds to signal for the targeted party to be cut out and
taken off the air. If you were the butt of such a "joke", would you
take it?

a not holier than thou (really)
--
Jens Ropers

Scott Nelson wrote:
> Can this be taken off list?
>
> This conversation long since lost any relevance to the wiki project.

Absolutely. The person who started it has already been warned in the
past for starting irrelevant political discussions on the mailing
lists. The next time, I'll resolve it by kicking him off the list.

--Jimbo

So, um, no matter how fun french/american/little green men from mars
bashing may be; how about we go back to the idea of wikipeople, what's
wrong with it? Its been around for quite a while and hasnt got up yet.
Why? We already have content to put into it (11/09wiki) and it could
tie up some loose ends, so what are the objections to it? The only
objection i have heard so far is that it would turn into one big flame
war (something i disagree with). Any other objecitons?

On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 12:03:33 -0800, Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales <jwales@wikia.com> wrote:
> Scott Nelson wrote:
> > Can this be taken off list?
> >
> > This conversation long since lost any relevance to the wiki project.
>
> Absolutely. The person who started it has already been warned in the
> past for starting irrelevant political discussions on the mailing
> lists. The next time, I'll resolve it by kicking him off the list.
>
> --Jimbo

--
hit me: robin.shannon.id.au
jab me: saudade@jabber.zim.net.au

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Recombo Plus License. To view a copy of this license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/

--- Magosányi Árpád <mag@bunuel.tii.matav.hu> 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 that an entry in a dictionary is about a word while an entry
in an encyclopedia is about the actual thing the word names. So while the
Wiktionary entry called 'dog' is about the word dog, the Wikipedia entry is
about the animal known by that name.

-- mav



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250

--- Robin Shannon <robin.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, um, no matter how fun french/american/little green men from mars
> bashing may be; how about we go back to the idea of wikipeople, what's
> wrong with it? Its been around for quite a while and hasnt got up yet.
> Why? We already have content to put into it (11/09wiki) and it could
> tie up some loose ends, so what are the objections to it? The only
> objection i have heard so far is that it would turn into one big flame
> war (something i disagree with). Any other objecitons?

Up to this point there has not been enough interest in it and no one person has
been leading the charge and motivating people into being interested. In short,
Wikipeople needs a champion. I've put forth my ideas for the project at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimorial and others have done so at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipeople but nobody has been pushing for this
in a consistent way.

So it has been a back-burner idea. Perhaps now is the time to put Wikipeople
through the same process Wikinews went through to be established - that would
show if the Wikimedia community is ready for the idea.

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo

On Jan 5.2005, at 22:08, Robin Shannon wrote:

> how about we go back to the idea of wikipeople, what's
> wrong with it?

Why would these people not just be included in the Wikipedia?
Encyclopedia's are supposed to be the cumulative sum total of man's
knowledge: the major reason for excluding John Smith in the past has
been the cost of printing - there's an inherent limitation.

Wikipedia doesn't have this limitation: there's a marginal cost for
adding an entry. Why wouldn't you just add these entries to the
Wikipedia? People searching specifically for these people would find
them; people searching for victims of an event such as nine-eleven
would find them (either by finding the master entry in a search and
then following a link, or by searching for the specific person)

> Its been around for quite a while and hasnt got up yet.
> Why? We already have content to put into it (11/09wiki) and it could
> tie up some loose ends, so what are the objections to it?

Separating information into needless categories would be my only
"objection", and I use the word cautiously. It's not really an
objection, just a philosophy: I'd rather have life's information in one
single source, with a good search engine (i.e. well meta-tagged data or
really effective search) than have 100 sources.

Of course, I realize the former might be a pipe dream, but I still
think it's a good dream. Robarts library almost fulfilled it for me for
a while.
--
Skot Nelson
skot@penguinstorm.com

--- Scott Nelson <scott@penguinstorm.com> wrote:
> Why would these people not just be included in the Wikipedia?

Because encyclopedias only deal with notable people, things and events. And no,
this is not just a matter of space but about the goal and purpose of that type
of reference work.

-- mav



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com

My main concern is that it is likely to be boring and underutilized.
Underutilization means that errors are unlikely to be corrected and trivial
information included with important information left out.

While there are families, and certain ethnic groups who are into this kind
of thing, indeed almost a mass movement, those folks are already doing their
thing in other established venues and may not come over to our new project
in sufficient numbers to make it viable.

One may also criticize the project as lacking significance. Most geneologies
are not that interesting; few are of social signficance. Sadly the same is
true of most deaths. Including only memorials of victims of some event
increases significance. Including all who ever lived reduces it.

Fred

> From: Robin Shannon <robin.shannon@gmail.com>
> Reply-To: Robin Shannon <robin.shannon@gmail.com>, Wikimedia Foundation
> Mailing List <foundation-l@wikimedia.org>
> Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 17:08:51 +1100
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l@wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Forking the Wiki
>
> wikipeople, what's
> wrong with it? Its been around for quite a while and hasnt got up yet.
> Why? We already have content to put into it (11/09wiki) and it could
> tie up some loose ends, so what are the objections to it? The only
> objection i have heard so far is that it would turn into one big flame
> war (something i disagree with). Any other objections?

On Jan 6.2005, at 00:41, Daniel Mayer wrote:

>> Why would these people not just be included in the Wikipedia?
>
> Because encyclopedias only deal with notable people, things and
> events. And no,
> this is not just a matter of space but about the goal and purpose of
> that type
> of reference work.

Right. Sure. I understand that. Merriam Webster apparently doesn't,
instead defining an Encyclopaedia as:
> a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or
> treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in
> articles arranged alphabetically often by subject

and WordNet (Princeton, accessed through Apple's Sherlock tool) says
this:
> n : a reference work (often in several volumes) containing articles on
> various topics (often arranged in alphabetical order) dealing with the
> entire range of human knowledge or with some particular specialty

Even if one accepts your original statement as truth, this type of
reference work is also traditionally ivory tower driven, and the
Wikipedia has fundamentally changed that: it's a democratic encylopedia
(with good and bad impacts.)

So why bind a tool which is clearly designed to break down some of the
traditions by rigorously sticking to others?

Wikipedia is not an "encyclopedia" in the traditional sense. It's
owned, edited, and contributed to by the world at large. The same can't
be said for Britannica, or any other of the traditional
Encyclopaedia's.

Of course, if the answer is "we choose not to stretch THAT particular
rule" then I respectfully understand, but disagree and choose to
occasionally see it as somewhat silly, in a good natured way.
--
Skot Nelson
skot@penguinstorm.com

Scott Nelson (scott@penguinstorm.com) [050106 19:32]:

> Why would these people not just be included in the Wikipedia?


Read [[WP:VFD]] and note the talk of the spurious requirement of
'notability', which is not actually in the [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy]].
Imagine how long the stuff would last.

(A lack of notability will often indicate *problems* in verifiability or
encyclopedicness as per [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]], but isn't
actually a primary criterion in itself.)


- d.

Fred Bauder (fredbaud@ctelco.net) [050106 22:37]:

> While there are families, and certain ethnic groups who are into this kind
> of thing, indeed almost a mass movement, those folks are already doing their
> thing in other established venues and may not come over to our new project
> in sufficient numbers to make it viable.


How about pointing some of these genealogists at Wikicities, if they're
willing to use GFDL? Then the stuff could be ported to a future Wikipeople
if it looks workable.


- d.

That's easy : I haven't written that...

Traroth

Scott Nelson <scott@penguinstorm.com> wrote:

Your discussion had long since left the original point, which had SOME
validity, and had degraded into a conversation about the specifics of
various military weapons and stores...


Perhaps, for my benefit and that of the list, you could explain how
this has any relevance to the Wikimedia Foundation:

>> 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".

Unless the foundation is considering getting into the radioactive
and/or nuclear weapon business? The French certainly do very well with
it, and you could probably fund the entire Foundation with a couple of
sales for quite some time.



---------------------------------
Découvrez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail : 250 Mo d'espace de stockage pour vos mails !
Créez votre Yahoo! Mail

When we just speak about non-relevant bullshit...

Traroth

Scott Nelson <scott@penguinstorm.com> wrote:


Unless the foundation is considering getting into the radioactive
and/or nuclear weapon business? The French certainly do very well with
it, and you could probably fund the entire Foundation with a couple of
sales for quite some time.
--
Scott Nelson

Living in a nuclear free zone.


---------------------------------
Découvrez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail : 250 Mo d'espace de stockage pour vos mails !
Créez votre Yahoo! Mail

I think the little flame war between Scott Nelson and me is the perfect illustration of what will happen continously : What could possibly happen when you ask to people in conflict (and i mean real conflict, nothing to do with something like a Wikipeda revert war...) to write on what happened to them and there family, in a media where the other side can read it and react to it ? What could be the reaction of a palestinian, who have just lost his son in an israeli bombing, when he read complaints from an israeli who just lost his wife in a palestinian bomb attack ? The fundamental problem is that you ask for reactions about subjects which just cannot be treated calmly, and especially not by the victims.

Traroth

Robin Shannon <robin.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
So, um, no matter how fun french/american/little green men from mars
bashing may be; how about we go back to the idea of wikipeople, what's
wrong with it? Its been around for quite a while and hasnt got up yet.
Why? We already have content to put into it (11/09wiki) and it could
tie up some loose ends, so what are the objections to it? The only
objection i have heard so far is that it would turn into one big flame
war (something i disagree with). Any other objecitons?




---------------------------------
Découvrez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail : 250 Mo d'espace de stockage pour vos mails !
Créez votre Yahoo! Mail

I would think that wikipeople/memorial/foo wouldnt have a NPOV policy,
but rather a "sympathetic to the subject" policy (since that is what
memorials ARE). I really can not imagine many flame wars occuring for
"non-notable" poeple. Everyone has got an opinion on <insert world
leader here> or <insert any war here>, but does any one really have
strong feelings on bob black who died on 11/09? Here in Australia our
greatest military event was in WW1 on the Gallipoli peninsular. We
were fighting the Ottoman (turkish) empire. Now every anzac day
Australians/Kiwis and Truks get together to commemorate the event.
Even though we were the invaders, the turkish goverment welcomes
hundreds/thousands of Aussie/Kiwi diggers to mark the occasion in
Turkey, and we commemerate both the Aussie/Kiwi deaths as well as the
turkish deaths.

The loss of any life is a tradgedy, no matter the actions of the
person when they were alive.

As to starting it on wikicities first, i think jimbo has been preety
clear that he doesnt want any blurring of the lines between his stuff,
and wikimedia's stuff.

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 17:07:47 +0100 (CET), Traroth <traroth@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> I think the little flame war between Scott Nelson and me is the perfect illustration of what will happen continously : What could possibly happen when you ask to people in conflict (and i mean real conflict, nothing to do with something like a Wikipeda revert war...) to write on what happened to them and there family, in a media where the other side can read it and react to it ? What could be the reaction of a palestinian, who have just lost his son in an israeli bombing, when he read complaints from an israeli who just lost his wife in a palestinian bomb attack ? The fundamental problem is that you ask for reactions about subjects which just cannot be treated calmly, and especially not by the victims.
>
> Traroth
>
> Robin Shannon <robin.shannon@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, um, no matter how fun french/american/little green men from mars
> bashing may be; how about we go back to the idea of wikipeople, what's
> wrong with it? Its been around for quite a while and hasnt got up yet.
> Why? We already have content to put into it (11/09wiki) and it could
> tie up some loose ends, so what are the objections to it? The only
> objection i have heard so far is that it would turn into one big flame
> war (something i disagree with). Any other objecitons?

--
hit me: robin.shannon.id.au
jab me: saudade@jabber.zim.net.au

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Recombo Plus License. To view a copy of this license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/

David Gerard wrote:

>Fred Bauder (fredbaud@ctelco.net) [050106 22:37]:
>
>
>>While there are families, and certain ethnic groups who are into this kind
>>of thing, indeed almost a mass movement, those folks are already doing their
>>thing in other established venues and may not come over to our new project
>>in sufficient numbers to make it viable.
>>
>>
>How about pointing some of these genealogists at Wikicities, if they're
>willing to use GFDL? Then the stuff could be ported to a future Wikipeople
>if it looks workable.
>
>
Actually, since genealogy focuses almost exclusively on factual
information (family relationships, dates and places of birth, marriage,
death, etc.) the use of a given license is not particularly an issue. At
least under US law, this material is no more susceptible to copyright
than a telephone directory. (The content of written memorials, variously
proposed for inclusion in Wikipeople, would be a different matter legally.)

Besides the fact that "free as in speech" is less applicable, another
challenge for the idea generally is the fact that vast amounts of it are
already available for free (the other kind of freedom), including on the
internet. So while it might fit in with our mission philosophically, the
necessity for us to get involved is much less.

Where information is needed in the genealogical field, it is more often
because it was never generated as public records, or because such
records were destroyed or have yet to be uncovered. And filling these
gaps runs into the "original research" territory that we largely avoid.

--Michael Snow

RS> So, um, no matter how fun french/american/little green men from mars
RS> bashing may be; how about we go back to the idea of wikipeople, what's
RS> wrong with it? Its been around for quite a while and hasnt got up yet.
RS> Why? We already have content to put into it (11/09wiki) and it could
RS> tie up some loose ends, so what are the objections to it? The only
RS> objection i have heard so far is that it would turn into one big flame
RS> war (something i disagree with). Any other objecitons?

The problem is it would be even easier to insert false data in such a
wiki, as most of it will be impossible to check in sources, and would
also be higly POV.

--
Ausir
Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia
http://pl.wikipedia.org

On Jan 8.2005, at 09:09, Pawe©© 'Ausir' Dembowski wrote:

> The problem is it would be even easier to insert false data in such a
> wiki, as most of it will be impossible to check in sources, and would
> also be higly POV.

Sure, but this goes back to an earlier comment from Robin:

>> I really can not imagine many flame wars occuring for
>> "non-notable" poeple. Everyone has got an opinion on <insert world
>> leader here> or <insert any war here>, but does any one really have
>> strong feelings on bob black who died on 11/09?

Mistakes can creep into the most rigorously edited documents; even
encyclopaedias. Read "The Know it All" for some details about a few in
the Britannica (a good book too.)

How sensitive these mistakes are is proportionate to how often the
information is read. A mistake in an entry about Helmut Kohl could be a
serious problem, leading decades of school chidren astray. A mistake in
an entry about Scott Nelson isn't likely to have much of an impact on
anybody.

There's nothing wrong with POV; the Wiki's goal of a neutral POV is a
valiant, but flawed, quest. That it will never be perfectly neutral
doesn't invalidate the attempt to achieve such a thing.

So these entries would have a POV, as they should.

On 8 Jan 2005, at 18:32, Scott Nelson wrote:

>>> I really can not imagine many flame wars occuring for
>>> "non-notable" poeple. Everyone has got an opinion on <insert world
>>> leader here> or <insert any war here>, but does any one really have
>>> strong feelings on bob black who died on 11/09?

Not trying to be a smart-aleck, but I can *easily* imagine flamewars
over entirely non-notable people -- flamewars perpetuated by the very
people and people that know them. Because Bob drools over Jane and Jane
thinks Bob is a Jerk and Jane's brother is dating Bob's sister and Bob
can't stand Jane's brother's guts. Now Jane is leaning into Bob's
Wikipeople entry and Bob is eager to let the world know that..., etc.
etc. etc.
Ad infinitum et ad nauseam.

-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]]
www.ropersonline.com