Mailing List Archive

Re: Forking the Wiki [ In reply to ]
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.
Re: Forking the Wiki [ In reply to ]
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
Re: Forking the Wiki [ In reply to ]
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
Re: Forking the Wiki [ In reply to ]
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
Re: Forking the Wiki [ In reply to ]
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
Re: Forking the Wiki [ In reply to ]
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/
Re: Forking the Wiki [ In reply to ]
--- 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
Re: Forking the Wiki [ In reply to ]
--- 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
Re: Forking the Wiki [ In reply to ]
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
Re: Forking the Wiki [ In reply to ]
--- 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
Re: Forking the Wiki [ In reply to ]
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?
Re: Forking the Wiki [ In reply to ]
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
Re: Forking the Wiki [ In reply to ]
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.
Re: Forking the Wiki [ In reply to ]
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.
Re: Forking the Wiki [ In reply to ]
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
Re: Forking the Wiki [ In reply to ]
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
Re: Forking the Wiki [ In reply to ]
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
Re: Forking the Wiki [ In reply to ]
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/
Re: Forking the Wiki [ In reply to ]
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
Re: Forking the Wiki [ In reply to ]
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
Re: Forking the Wiki [ In reply to ]
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.
Re: Forking the Wiki [ In reply to ]
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

1 2  View All