Re: [Foundation-l] [Commons-l] dumps
Excellent -- following up offlist. SJ On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Brion Vibber br...@wikimedia.org wrote: On 2/23/09 5:31 PM, Samuel Klein wrote: Copying the Commons list. I am interested in hosting (and running some scripts on) copies of the commons media dump on offline regional servers for offline-reading purposes. This is difficult without an image dump. Awesome -- can you work with an rsync3-over-ssh setup? Email me and we'll set it up. (Reminds me -- Greg, can we make sure we've got yours going again?) -- brion ___ Commons-l mailing list common...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Simple English Encyclopedia
2009/2/25 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com: Hoi, When the use case of the Simple Wikipedia is better understood, it may even make room for more simple projects as in simple projects in the biggest languages. This is quite an interesting thought. The language used by Simple English is (apparently) derived from two defined simplified versions of English which were deliberately designed - have there been projects to do the same for, say, French or Spanish, or would we have to do the heavy lifting ourselves? -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Simple English Encyclopedia
i agree that there are many problems with a discussion or vote on one project impacting another. community participation and language / context barriers are one. having people discussing who themselves aren't editors or readers is another. privileging having edited 100 articles in any one wikipedia over being an active daily reader, republisher, and online or offline user or being a developer or researcher working with WP data is silly. For the record, lots of people who use simple: are devs or researchers who need a good small simple testbed, or people who only intend to read and use in contexts away from the original editable wiki. I would bet, though with lower odds, that this is the case for most users of WP as well, Cary writes: In light of that, I understand that there is some kind of simple wikipedia usage among the OLPC (One Laptop per Child) distribution. Perhaps someone could clarify, but if this is the case, then that would make the likelihood that this already failing proposal would pass even more remote. Cary Bass The simple-english snapshot has been replaced (in practice and in popularity) in the OLPC collection list by a larger snapshot from en, because of the difference in article quality and coverage. However, simple: snapshots have been requested recently by people interested in basic literacy (who weren't using WP at all before, but are coming around to the idea that simple articles can make good short readers). (@Pharos: I think French is a good idea, and there is definite interest in simple spanish articles.) And two other ideas * this is a great thing to combine with wikikids efforts : kids learning to write articles tend to add simple stubs, write about topics of interest to other early eards, and may learn many things by trying to adhere to simplified encyclopedic style. * simple: and en: could well come in the same package for offline use. a link from the top of an article could take you between the two (with pride of place before links to other languages, for instance) one could imagine other same-language variants to show there -- specialist v. overview, for instance. I don't know the right way to make this visible for online editors/readers, but harder problems have been overcome. One of the primary things limiting the growth of simple: (and its theoretical twin, 'specialist:' for 172-style detail) is its lack of visibility, despite the fact that most editors of en: could contribute meaningfully, even casually as a fun exercise, in a different english sublanguage. SJ ps - Lars - what the creators of these sublanguages have in mind / how they test their criteria is fascinating... some cross referencing with decisions made in creating esperanto et al would be fun OR. -- Samuel Klein +1 617 529 4266 One Laptop per Child On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Cary Bass c...@wikimedia.org wrote: Ray Saintonge wrote: Brian Salter-Duke wrote: However my central point that a discussion of something as important as closing one of our most important projects in a way that few know about it remains. The !vote is 42:102. We get more at en:WP on a RFA. A further argument against having this principally discussed on Meta is that those who are best served by Simple do not have the language skills to participate fully in a discussion where there is unlimited use of language. Ec In light of that, I understand that there is some kind of simple wikipedia usage among the OLPC (One Laptop per Child) distribution. Perhaps someone could clarify, but if this is the case, then that would make the likelihood that this already failing proposal would pass even more remote. Cary Bass ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Amazon Public Data includes Wikipedia
http://www.nytimes.com/external/readwriteweb/2009/02/25/25readwriteweb-amazon_exposes_1_terrabyte_of.html According to this, a new project by Amazon that makes a terabyte of public data available includes a full dump of Wikipedia. It also includes the complete dbpedia - so it seems like there are likely to be lots of duplicates. Given the other information it says it includes (the whole human genome, all other publicly available DNA sequences, census data, etc.) I'm not sure how it all fits in a single terabyte. Interesting concept, though. I wonder how old the dump is, since they've been unavailable for some time? Nathan -- Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Amazon Public Data includes Wikipedia
2009/2/25 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com: http://www.nytimes.com/external/readwriteweb/2009/02/25/25readwriteweb-amazon_exposes_1_terrabyte_of.html According to this, a new project by Amazon that makes a terabyte of public data available includes a full dump of Wikipedia. It also includes the complete dbpedia - so it seems like there are likely to be lots of duplicates. Given the other information it says it includes (the whole human genome, all other publicly available DNA sequences, census data, etc.) I'm not sure how it all fits in a single terabyte. Interesting concept, though. I wonder how old the dump is, since they've been unavailable for some time? It probably only contains the latest copies of each page in the main namespace, rather than a full dump (I can't see why they would want a full dump). That's pretty small (a bit larger if they've included images, of course). I think there have been article dumps of enwiki reasonably recently, it's just the full dumps that always fail. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Amazon Public Data includes Wikipedia
thread convergence! It didn't include wikipedia-proper when I looked yesterday, but this was suggested... On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: Why not make the uncompressed dump available as an Amazon Public Dataset? http://aws.amazon.com/publicdatasets/ On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.nytimes.com/external/readwriteweb/2009/02/25/25readwriteweb-amazon_exposes_1_terrabyte_of.html According to this, a new project by Amazon that makes a terabyte of public data available includes a full dump of Wikipedia. It also includes the complete dbpedia - so it seems like there are likely to be lots of duplicates. Given the other information it says it includes (the whole human genome, all other publicly available DNA sequences, census data, etc.) I'm not sure how it all fits in a single terabyte. Interesting concept, though. I wonder how old the dump is, since they've been unavailable for some time? Nathan -- Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Simple English Encyclopedia
Andrew Gray wrote: 2009/2/25 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com: Hoi, When the use case of the Simple Wikipedia is better understood, it may even make room for more simple projects as in simple projects in the biggest languages. This is quite an interesting thought. The language used by Simple English is (apparently) derived from two defined simplified versions of English which were deliberately designed - have there been projects to do the same for, say, French or Spanish, or would we have to do the heavy lifting ourselves? My attempt at a constructive contribution to this thread would be to suggest that every Simple Wikipedia language, no matter large or small, should start at a Simple Incubator. The incubator seems a proven concept (it has delivered live babies, yes?). To me it seems a no-brainer that Simple Communities in every language would only activate a sub-set of their languages community, and this implies to me that as such the community could do with bootstrapping in the fashion that incubators do. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Simple English Encyclopedia
No, Absolutely not. The Incubator is a vital resource that can easily accomadote any language any project. If anything I would make the Incubator compulsory for ANY project. The reason for this is obvious; the Incubator works. Thanks. GerardM 2009/2/25 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com Andrew Gray wrote: 2009/2/25 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com: Hoi, When the use case of the Simple Wikipedia is better understood, it may even make room for more simple projects as in simple projects in the biggest languages. This is quite an interesting thought. The language used by Simple English is (apparently) derived from two defined simplified versions of English which were deliberately designed - have there been projects to do the same for, say, French or Spanish, or would we have to do the heavy lifting ourselves? My attempt at a constructive contribution to this thread would be to suggest that every Simple Wikipedia language, no matter large or small, should start at a Simple Incubator. The incubator seems a proven concept (it has delivered live babies, yes?). To me it seems a no-brainer that Simple Communities in every language would only activate a sub-set of their languages community, and this implies to me that as such the community could do with bootstrapping in the fashion that incubators do. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Simple English Encyclopedia
No, Absolutely not. Eh? No, Absolutely not. to what precisely? You say incubator should be a phase for projects? I said simple should incubate for even larger languages. Where is the No, Absolutely not. directed at? Gerard Meijssen wrote: No, Absolutely not. The Incubator is a vital resource that can easily accomadote any language any project. If anything I would make the Incubator compulsory for ANY project. The reason for this is obvious; the Incubator works. Thanks. GerardM 2009/2/25 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com Andrew Gray wrote: 2009/2/25 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com: Hoi, When the use case of the Simple Wikipedia is better understood, it may even make room for more simple projects as in simple projects in the biggest languages. This is quite an interesting thought. The language used by Simple English is (apparently) derived from two defined simplified versions of English which were deliberately designed - have there been projects to do the same for, say, French or Spanish, or would we have to do the heavy lifting ourselves? My attempt at a constructive contribution to this thread would be to suggest that every Simple Wikipedia language, no matter large or small, should start at a Simple Incubator. The incubator seems a proven concept (it has delivered live babies, yes?). To me it seems a no-brainer that Simple Communities in every language would only activate a sub-set of their languages community, and this implies to me that as such the community could do with bootstrapping in the fashion that incubators do. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Simple English Encyclopedia
Hoi, There is no room nor need for a simple Incubator. One suffices. Thanks. GerardM 2009/2/25 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com No, Absolutely not. Eh? No, Absolutely not. to what precisely? You say incubator should be a phase for projects? I said simple should incubate for even larger languages. Where is the No, Absolutely not. directed at? Gerard Meijssen wrote: No, Absolutely not. The Incubator is a vital resource that can easily accomadote any language any project. If anything I would make the Incubator compulsory for ANY project. The reason for this is obvious; the Incubator works. Thanks. GerardM 2009/2/25 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com Andrew Gray wrote: 2009/2/25 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com: Hoi, When the use case of the Simple Wikipedia is better understood, it may even make room for more simple projects as in simple projects in the biggest languages. This is quite an interesting thought. The language used by Simple English is (apparently) derived from two defined simplified versions of English which were deliberately designed - have there been projects to do the same for, say, French or Spanish, or would we have to do the heavy lifting ourselves? My attempt at a constructive contribution to this thread would be to suggest that every Simple Wikipedia language, no matter large or small, should start at a Simple Incubator. The incubator seems a proven concept (it has delivered live babies, yes?). To me it seems a no-brainer that Simple Communities in every language would only activate a sub-set of their languages community, and this implies to me that as such the community could do with bootstrapping in the fashion that incubators do. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Simple English Encyclopedia
I could be wrong, but I think you're misreading the point here. It's that we should Incubate more Simples in more languages, not that we need a Simple Incubator... -Chad On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, There is no room nor need for a simple Incubator. One suffices. Thanks. GerardM 2009/2/25 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com No, Absolutely not. Eh? No, Absolutely not. to what precisely? You say incubator should be a phase for projects? I said simple should incubate for even larger languages. Where is the No, Absolutely not. directed at? Gerard Meijssen wrote: No, Absolutely not. The Incubator is a vital resource that can easily accomadote any language any project. If anything I would make the Incubator compulsory for ANY project. The reason for this is obvious; the Incubator works. Thanks. GerardM 2009/2/25 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com Andrew Gray wrote: 2009/2/25 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com: Hoi, When the use case of the Simple Wikipedia is better understood, it may even make room for more simple projects as in simple projects in the biggest languages. This is quite an interesting thought. The language used by Simple English is (apparently) derived from two defined simplified versions of English which were deliberately designed - have there been projects to do the same for, say, French or Spanish, or would we have to do the heavy lifting ourselves? My attempt at a constructive contribution to this thread would be to suggest that every Simple Wikipedia language, no matter large or small, should start at a Simple Incubator. The incubator seems a proven concept (it has delivered live babies, yes?). To me it seems a no-brainer that Simple Communities in every language would only activate a sub-set of their languages community, and this implies to me that as such the community could do with bootstrapping in the fashion that incubators do. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Simple English Encyclopedia
Do you have a substantive opinion on the essence of my suggestion, that is that even large language simple projects should pass through the incubator? Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen Gerard Meijssen wrote: Hoi, There is no room nor need for a simple Incubator. One suffices. Thanks. GerardM 2009/2/25 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com No, Absolutely not. Eh? No, Absolutely not. to what precisely? You say incubator should be a phase for projects? I said simple should incubate for even larger languages. Where is the No, Absolutely not. directed at? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Simple English Encyclopedia
Hoi, Possibly. Now for some cold water. At this moment the policy is explicit. We do not accept any new Simple projects in any language. What I said was that it would be good when there are some good numbers that prove the value of a simple project. Once this is more clear, we may reconsider. Thanks, GerardM 2009/2/25 Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com I could be wrong, but I think you're misreading the point here. It's that we should Incubate more Simples in more languages, not that we need a Simple Incubator... -Chad On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, There is no room nor need for a simple Incubator. One suffices. Thanks. GerardM 2009/2/25 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com No, Absolutely not. Eh? No, Absolutely not. to what precisely? You say incubator should be a phase for projects? I said simple should incubate for even larger languages. Where is the No, Absolutely not. directed at? Gerard Meijssen wrote: No, Absolutely not. The Incubator is a vital resource that can easily accomadote any language any project. If anything I would make the Incubator compulsory for ANY project. The reason for this is obvious; the Incubator works. Thanks. GerardM 2009/2/25 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com Andrew Gray wrote: 2009/2/25 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com: Hoi, When the use case of the Simple Wikipedia is better understood, it may even make room for more simple projects as in simple projects in the biggest languages. This is quite an interesting thought. The language used by Simple English is (apparently) derived from two defined simplified versions of English which were deliberately designed - have there been projects to do the same for, say, French or Spanish, or would we have to do the heavy lifting ourselves? My attempt at a constructive contribution to this thread would be to suggest that every Simple Wikipedia language, no matter large or small, should start at a Simple Incubator. The incubator seems a proven concept (it has delivered live babies, yes?). To me it seems a no-brainer that Simple Communities in every language would only activate a sub-set of their languages community, and this implies to me that as such the community could do with bootstrapping in the fashion that incubators do. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Simple English Encyclopedia
Not cold water for me. I must confess I've never been a fan of Simple. -Chad On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote: Hoi, Possibly. Now for some cold water. At this moment the policy is explicit. We do not accept any new Simple projects in any language. What I said was that it would be good when there are some good numbers that prove the value of a simple project. Once this is more clear, we may reconsider. Thanks, GerardM 2009/2/25 Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com I could be wrong, but I think you're misreading the point here. It's that we should Incubate more Simples in more languages, not that we need a Simple Incubator... -Chad On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, There is no room nor need for a simple Incubator. One suffices. Thanks. GerardM 2009/2/25 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com No, Absolutely not. Eh? No, Absolutely not. to what precisely? You say incubator should be a phase for projects? I said simple should incubate for even larger languages. Where is the No, Absolutely not. directed at? Gerard Meijssen wrote: No, Absolutely not. The Incubator is a vital resource that can easily accomadote any language any project. If anything I would make the Incubator compulsory for ANY project. The reason for this is obvious; the Incubator works. Thanks. GerardM 2009/2/25 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com Andrew Gray wrote: 2009/2/25 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com: Hoi, When the use case of the Simple Wikipedia is better understood, it may even make room for more simple projects as in simple projects in the biggest languages. This is quite an interesting thought. The language used by Simple English is (apparently) derived from two defined simplified versions of English which were deliberately designed - have there been projects to do the same for, say, French or Spanish, or would we have to do the heavy lifting ourselves? My attempt at a constructive contribution to this thread would be to suggest that every Simple Wikipedia language, no matter large or small, should start at a Simple Incubator. The incubator seems a proven concept (it has delivered live babies, yes?). To me it seems a no-brainer that Simple Communities in every language would only activate a sub-set of their languages community, and this implies to me that as such the community could do with bootstrapping in the fashion that incubators do. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Free edition of Norways national encyklopedia Store Norske Leksikon
Our national lexicon here in Norway, Store Norske Leksikon, went online with its new free edition today. The new edition has user contributed articles. The chief editor says some of the reason for the new edition is the harsh competition from Wikipedia, especially no.wikipedia.org which outnumbered their previous article count last year, now counting 209,079 articles. Also the alternate version nn.wikipedia.org (a variation in Nynorsk) is growing steadilly, now counting 46,466 articles. Store Norske Leksikon now claims they has 300,000 articles after inclusion of two other encyclopedias, a medical encyclopedia Store medisinske leksikon and a biographical encyclopedia Biografisk leksikon. Previously they had 155,000 articles. Wikipedia in bokmål should have 300K articles around February or March next year, it depends on how we will be influenced by the changes in SNL. John Erling Blad jeblad ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Free edition of Norways national encyklopedia Store Norske Leksikon
Since our (WMF) aim is to provide free knowledge, I would say that SNL making a free online edition is a proof of our success more than a new competitor. They have a lot to learn from us, we have a lot to learn from them. And whoever is seeking free knowledge in Norwegian on the web will have more alternatives. Finn Rindahl 2009/2/25 John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no Our national lexicon here in Norway, Store Norske Leksikon, went online with its new free edition today. The new edition has user contributed articles. The chief editor says some of the reason for the new edition is the harsh competition from Wikipedia, especially no.wikipedia.org which outnumbered their previous article count last year, now counting 209,079 articles. Also the alternate version nn.wikipedia.org (a variation in Nynorsk) is growing steadilly, now counting 46,466 articles. Store Norske Leksikon now claims they has 300,000 articles after inclusion of two other encyclopedias, a medical encyclopedia Store medisinske leksikon and a biographical encyclopedia Biografisk leksikon. Previously they had 155,000 articles. Wikipedia in bokmål should have 300K articles around February or March next year, it depends on how we will be influenced by the changes in SNL. John Erling Blad jeblad ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] dumps
--- El mié, 25/2/09, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org escribió: De: Anthony wikim...@inbox.org Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] dumps Para: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Fecha: miércoles, 25 febrero, 2009 5:26 On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: Which uncompressed dump? The full history English Wikipedia dump doesn't exist, and there doesn't seem to be any demand for this anyway. Mmmm, sorry but then, I'm afraid that you missed some messages over the past year and a half on Wikitech-l, eagerly asking for the whole version of the English dump. Just to give a straightforward application: people analyzing Wikipedia from a quantitative point of view need the whole dump file, no matter what do you want to examine. And believe it or not, the number of scholars (in different disciplines) focusing on this topic is growing steadily (actually, we could be many more if we could have a stable process, updated with reasonable frequency ;) ). It's also really difficult for people like me to advocate in favor of this line of research when we have such problems, though we found the way to accept these limitations so far (better something than nothing). Best, F. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] dumps
Ahh ok. Anyone who wants to do processing on the full history (and there are a lot of these people who exist!) by definition *has* to be willing to throw some money at it. It simply doesn't fit on commercial drives. In fact, it would hardly fit on either of the two raid clusters I have access to. Making it available on Amazon means that, for a fair market rate, you don't have to download or uncompress the data. You can just start your data crunching. I can only speak for academics but there is generally funding available for Amazon EC2 etc... for specific projects. Professors are even known to pay for a fixed amount of processing for ambitious student projects, and these kinds of earmarks are easily fit into grants. The claim that there is no demand for having it on amazon is some kind of fallacy that I don't know the name for. Its never been available on Amazon, how could there be demand? Heck, it hasn't been available for several years in the first place so how could there be a demand for it? People *just want the data*. Many people would be willing to pay a fee. Thus, for an extremely reasonable price they can now create a new amazon disk image and download it to their own raid cluster if they want. The foundation doesn't have to foot the bill. Or they can find funding for their specific project, or whatever. I have a rare copy of the last available full text dump. Perhaps I should initiate the process myself. On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/2/25 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu: What has led you to believe there is no demand for a full dump of the english wikipedia? He didn't say there was no demand, he said there was no demand for having it on Amazon. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] dumps
2009/2/25 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu: Ahh ok. Anyone who wants to do processing on the full history (and there are a lot of these people who exist!) by definition *has* to be willing to throw some money at it. It simply doesn't fit on commercial drives. In fact, it would hardly fit on either of the two raid clusters I have access to. Making it available on Amazon means that, for a fair market rate, you don't have to download or uncompress the data. You can just start your data crunching. I can only speak for academics but there is generally funding available for Amazon EC2 etc... for specific projects. Professors are even known to pay for a fixed amount of processing for ambitious student projects, and these kinds of earmarks are easily fit into grants. Academics usually have access to the necessary computers (or clusters thereof) to do such processing directly. I think Amazon hosting of dumps would appeal mainly to non-academics who only have access to home PCs. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] dumps
--- El jue, 26/2/09, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu escribió: De: Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] dumps Para: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Fecha: jueves, 26 febrero, 2009 12:33 Ahh ok. Anyone who wants to do processing on the full history (and there are a lot of these people who exist!) by definition *has* to be willing to throw some money at it. It simply doesn't fit on commercial drives. Not necessarily. For instance, WikiXRay is capable of parsing the dump file on the fly, so you don't need to uncompress the whole file if you don't want to, and the result tipically fits in a 6-8 GB DB (depending on the amount of data your recover), which fits perfectly in commodity hw. On the other hand, I completely agree with you in that working with the huge XML file requires specific hw (we bought a couple of servers for that). People *just want the data*. Many people would be willing to pay a fee. Probably, but anyway, I would like to avoid paying a fee to access what should be publicly available (at least, until the dump process broke, it was). Some universities (including ourselves) has offered storage capacity and some bandwith to distribute mirrors and improve the dump availability, at no cost at all :). I have a rare copy of the last available full text dump. Perhaps I should initiate the process myself. Nothing prevents you to do that (I think) and it could be a stimulus for thinking on subsequent solutions. Best, F. On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/2/25 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu: What has led you to believe there is no demand for a full dump of the english wikipedia? He didn't say there was no demand, he said there was no demand for having it on Amazon. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] dumps
One of the academics I am speaking of wrote the textbook on natural language processing. He has a 3TB raid cluster. Of course, for about a thousand dollars you can create a bigger raid cluster than that using the new 2TB drives, but funding comes and goes. Our 26 node cluster has a 26 20GB drives in a glusterfs configuration (disk space isn't key to us, so we skimped). So I'm not sure what you mean by usually have access. They have to pay for this access, or negotiate for it, or receive grant money specifically for it. Most academics *do not* have what you are describing. This is an exceptionally large dataset. On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: 2009/2/25 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu: Ahh ok. Anyone who wants to do processing on the full history (and there are a lot of these people who exist!) by definition *has* to be willing to throw some money at it. It simply doesn't fit on commercial drives. In fact, it would hardly fit on either of the two raid clusters I have access to. Making it available on Amazon means that, for a fair market rate, you don't have to download or uncompress the data. You can just start your data crunching. I can only speak for academics but there is generally funding available for Amazon EC2 etc... for specific projects. Professors are even known to pay for a fixed amount of processing for ambitious student projects, and these kinds of earmarks are easily fit into grants. Academics usually have access to the necessary computers (or clusters thereof) to do such processing directly. I think Amazon hosting of dumps would appeal mainly to non-academics who only have access to home PCs. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Free edition of Norways national encyklopedia Store Norske Leksikon
But is it free as in free beer or freedom? --Ian [[User:Poeloq]] On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Finn Rindahl finnrindw...@gmail.comwrote: Since our (WMF) aim is to provide free knowledge, I would say that SNL making a free online edition is a proof of our success more than a new competitor. They have a lot to learn from us, we have a lot to learn from them. And whoever is seeking free knowledge in Norwegian on the web will have more alternatives. Finn Rindahl 2009/2/25 John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no Our national lexicon here in Norway, Store Norske Leksikon, went online with its new free edition today. The new edition has user contributed articles. The chief editor says some of the reason for the new edition is the harsh competition from Wikipedia, especially no.wikipedia.org which outnumbered their previous article count last year, now counting 209,079 articles. Also the alternate version nn.wikipedia.org (a variation in Nynorsk) is growing steadilly, now counting 46,466 articles. Store Norske Leksikon now claims they has 300,000 articles after inclusion of two other encyclopedias, a medical encyclopedia Store medisinske leksikon and a biographical encyclopedia Biografisk leksikon. Previously they had 155,000 articles. Wikipedia in bokmål should have 300K articles around February or March next year, it depends on how we will be influenced by the changes in SNL. John Erling Blad jeblad ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] dumps
I went ahead and submitted it to Amazon. I'll leave the file up for a week or so if anyone else wants it (18GB): http://mist.colorado.edu/enwiki-20080103-pages-meta-history.xml.7z Just to emphasize my point - I have never been able to unpack this file. I've got no place to put it!! On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Felipe Ortega glimmer_phoe...@yahoo.eswrote: I have a rare copy of the last available full text dump. Perhaps I should initiate the process myself. Nothing prevents you to do that (I think) and it could be a stimulus for thinking on subsequent solutions. Best, F. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Free edition of Norways national encyklopedia Store Norske Leksikon
There are no formal license so I would say free beer as for now. John Ian A. Holton skrev: But is it free as in free beer or freedom? --Ian [[User:Poeloq]] On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Finn Rindahl finnrindw...@gmail.comwrote: Since our (WMF) aim is to provide free knowledge, I would say that SNL making a free online edition is a proof of our success more than a new competitor. They have a lot to learn from us, we have a lot to learn from them. And whoever is seeking free knowledge in Norwegian on the web will have more alternatives. Finn Rindahl 2009/2/25 John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no Our national lexicon here in Norway, Store Norske Leksikon, went online with its new free edition today. The new edition has user contributed articles. The chief editor says some of the reason for the new edition is the harsh competition from Wikipedia, especially no.wikipedia.org which outnumbered their previous article count last year, now counting 209,079 articles. Also the alternate version nn.wikipedia.org (a variation in Nynorsk) is growing steadilly, now counting 46,466 articles. Store Norske Leksikon now claims they has 300,000 articles after inclusion of two other encyclopedias, a medical encyclopedia Store medisinske leksikon and a biographical encyclopedia Biografisk leksikon. Previously they had 155,000 articles. Wikipedia in bokmål should have 300K articles around February or March next year, it depends on how we will be influenced by the changes in SNL. John Erling Blad jeblad ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] dumps
Brian wrote: Ahh ok. Anyone who wants to do processing on the full history (and there are a lot of these people who exist!) by definition *has* to be willing to throw some money at it. It simply doesn't fit on commercial drives. I've personally never found much of a compelling reason to actually uncompress the dump, rather than working on the stream as it's being decompressed. 7zip decompression is pretty fast, and can use multiple cores on multi-core machines, so it never seems to be a bottleneck, for me at least--- I get somewhere around 30-40 MB/s typically. From what I can tell, the top-end EC2 instances do perform rather better than that, topping out at around 200 MB/s for sequential reads. But I don't personally run anything that can't run 5x slower in return for being free, and I suspect lots of analysis is of that just let it run for a week, who cares variety. I'm not going to argue that nobody could benefit from using EC2 to do their analysis instead, but it's hardly the case that it's impossible to do full-history analysis on commodity hardware. -Mark ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] dumps
Yep a typo, here is the right link: http://grey.colorado.edu/enwiki-20080103-pages-meta-history.xml.7z On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote: I can't even ping the host. Typo? -Chad On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: I went ahead and submitted it to Amazon. I'll leave the file up for a week or so if anyone else wants it (18GB): http://mist.colorado.edu/enwiki-20080103-pages-meta-history.xml.7z Just to emphasize my point - I have never been able to unpack this file. I've got no place to put it!! On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Felipe Ortega glimmer_phoe...@yahoo.es wrote: I have a rare copy of the last available full text dump. Perhaps I should initiate the process myself. Nothing prevents you to do that (I think) and it could be a stimulus for thinking on subsequent solutions. Best, F. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] dumps
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 15:48, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: One of the academics I am speaking of wrote the textbook on natural language processing. He has a 3TB raid cluster. Of course, for about a thousand dollars you can create a bigger raid cluster than that using the new 2TB drives, but funding comes and goes. Using 1TB hard drives and a bit of creativity, you can build a 9TB storage server for that $1000. Disk space is getting cheaper all the time, and it's one of those cases where you can save a small fortune by building the computer yourself. -- Mark ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Simple English Encyclopedia
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 5:34 AM, Samuel Klein s...@laptop.org wrote: For the record, lots of people who use simple: are devs or researchers who need a good small simple testbed, or people who only intend to read and use in contexts away from the original editable wiki. I would bet, though with lower odds, that this is the case for most users of WP as well, That's probably the best possible use for Simple, but I don't think it alone justifies Simple's existence. Cary writes: In light of that, I understand that there is some kind of simple wikipedia usage among the OLPC (One Laptop per Child) distribution. Perhaps someone could clarify, but if this is the case, then that would make the likelihood that this already failing proposal would pass even more remote. Cary Bass The simple-english snapshot has been replaced (in practice and in popularity) in the OLPC collection list by a larger snapshot from en, because of the difference in article quality and coverage. However, simple: snapshots have been requested recently by people interested in basic literacy (who weren't using WP at all before, but are coming around to the idea that simple articles can make good short readers). (@Pharos: I think French is a good idea, and there is definite interest in simple spanish articles.) If someone can find the first request for deletion of Simple, they'll find that I made my case against it then. I still think that encyclopedia articles should be in plain language, and that splitting efforts from enwiki (though not that big a deal, anymore) doesn't help anyone, particularly when you're dealing with an entirely undefined subset of English. And, again, what's the goal? English is horribly irregular and difficult to learn, but what problem is Simple actually solving? When Simple Spanish was proposed, I opposed it even more strongly. The eswiki community was already fractured (read: gone); and, to its credit, Spanish isn't that hard. It's a pretty regular language when it comes to grammar, and it shares a vocabulary with most Romance languages. There's not a whole lot you can do to simplify it. And two other ideas * this is a great thing to combine with wikikids efforts : kids learning to write articles tend to add simple stubs, write about topics of interest to other early eards, and may learn many things by trying to adhere to simplified encyclopedic style. Efforts targeted at kids should definitely use simpler language. Kids should also be encouraged to contribute to Wikipedia articles in their native language, at whatever level they're comfortable with. Others can come by later and polish up their prose. ps - Lars - what the creators of these sublanguages have in mind / how they test their criteria is fascinating... some cross referencing with decisions made in creating esperanto et al would be fun OR. I'm actually very interested in this, academically, and hope we get more information. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Free edition of Norways national encyklopedia Store Norske Leksikon
Their license text indicates that they are aiming o be free as in freedom, but they do not have a proper license as of yet (all it says is that you can use our stuff in the same way as with Wikipedia's stuff, and a bunch of articles are marked with free license, but without specifying that any further). But it does look very promising, in my opinion. 2009/2/26 Ian A. Holton poe...@gmail.com But is it free as in free beer or freedom? --Ian [[User:Poeloq]] On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Finn Rindahl finnrindw...@gmail.com wrote: Since our (WMF) aim is to provide free knowledge, I would say that SNL making a free online edition is a proof of our success more than a new competitor. They have a lot to learn from us, we have a lot to learn from them. And whoever is seeking free knowledge in Norwegian on the web will have more alternatives. Finn Rindahl 2009/2/25 John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no Our national lexicon here in Norway, Store Norske Leksikon, went online with its new free edition today. The new edition has user contributed articles. The chief editor says some of the reason for the new edition is the harsh competition from Wikipedia, especially no.wikipedia.org which outnumbered their previous article count last year, now counting 209,079 articles. Also the alternate version nn.wikipedia.org (a variation in Nynorsk) is growing steadilly, now counting 46,466 articles. Store Norske Leksikon now claims they has 300,000 articles after inclusion of two other encyclopedias, a medical encyclopedia Store medisinske leksikon and a biographical encyclopedia Biografisk leksikon. Previously they had 155,000 articles. Wikipedia in bokmål should have 300K articles around February or March next year, it depends on how we will be influenced by the changes in SNL. John Erling Blad jeblad ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Jon Harald Søby http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jon_Harald_S%C3%B8by ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Simple English Encyclopedia
I didn't know the language committee was empowered to decide on whether or not Simples were made. I thought your job was to determine valid languages. I absolutely cannot support the continued existence of this body due to these unknown powers and will make my voice known the next time someone offers to can it. From: Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:19:47 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Simple English Encyclopedia Hoi, Possibly. Now for some cold water. At this moment the policy is explicit. We do not accept any new Simple projects in any language. What I said was that it would be good when there are some good numbers that prove the value of a simple project. Once this is more clear, we may reconsider. Thanks, GerardM 2009/2/25 Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com I could be wrong, but I think you're misreading the point here. It's that we should Incubate more Simples in more languages, not that we need a Simple Incubator... -Chad On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, There is no room nor need for a simple Incubator. One suffices. Thanks. GerardM 2009/2/25 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com No, Absolutely not. Eh? No, Absolutely not. to what precisely? You say incubator should be a phase for projects? I said simple should incubate for even larger languages. Where is the No, Absolutely not. directed at? Gerard Meijssen wrote: No, Absolutely not. The Incubator is a vital resource that can easily accomadote any language any project. If anything I would make the Incubator compulsory for ANY project. The reason for this is obvious; the Incubator works. Thanks. GerardM 2009/2/25 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com Andrew Gray wrote: 2009/2/25 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com: Hoi, When the use case of the Simple Wikipedia is better understood, it may even make room for more simple projects as in simple projects in the biggest languages. This is quite an interesting thought. The language used by Simple English is (apparently) derived from two defined simplified versions of English which were deliberately designed - have there been projects to do the same for, say, French or Spanish, or would we have to do the heavy lifting ourselves? My attempt at a constructive contribution to this thread would be to suggest that every Simple Wikipedia language, no matter large or small, should start at a Simple Incubator. The incubator seems a proven concept (it has delivered live babies, yes?). To me it seems a no-brainer that Simple Communities in every language would only activate a sub-set of their languages community, and this implies to me that as such the community could do with bootstrapping in the fashion that incubators do. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Simple English Encyclopedia
We are not, and you're misinterpreting Gerard's post; what he says is that we do not allow any more simple projects; deciding over existing projects is not something we do, and not something we even *want* to do. 2009/2/26 Geoffrey Plourde geo.p...@yahoo.com I didn't know the language committee was empowered to decide on whether or not Simples were made. I thought your job was to determine valid languages. I absolutely cannot support the continued existence of this body due to these unknown powers and will make my voice known the next time someone offers to can it. From: Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:19:47 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Simple English Encyclopedia Hoi, Possibly. Now for some cold water. At this moment the policy is explicit. We do not accept any new Simple projects in any language. What I said was that it would be good when there are some good numbers that prove the value of a simple project. Once this is more clear, we may reconsider. Thanks, GerardM 2009/2/25 Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com I could be wrong, but I think you're misreading the point here. It's that we should Incubate more Simples in more languages, not that we need a Simple Incubator... -Chad On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, There is no room nor need for a simple Incubator. One suffices. Thanks. GerardM 2009/2/25 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com No, Absolutely not. Eh? No, Absolutely not. to what precisely? You say incubator should be a phase for projects? I said simple should incubate for even larger languages. Where is the No, Absolutely not. directed at? Gerard Meijssen wrote: No, Absolutely not. The Incubator is a vital resource that can easily accomadote any language any project. If anything I would make the Incubator compulsory for ANY project. The reason for this is obvious; the Incubator works. Thanks. GerardM 2009/2/25 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com Andrew Gray wrote: 2009/2/25 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com: Hoi, When the use case of the Simple Wikipedia is better understood, it may even make room for more simple projects as in simple projects in the biggest languages. This is quite an interesting thought. The language used by Simple English is (apparently) derived from two defined simplified versions of English which were deliberately designed - have there been projects to do the same for, say, French or Spanish, or would we have to do the heavy lifting ourselves? My attempt at a constructive contribution to this thread would be to suggest that every Simple Wikipedia language, no matter large or small, should start at a Simple Incubator. The incubator seems a proven concept (it has delivered live babies, yes?). To me it seems a no-brainer that Simple Communities in every language would only activate a sub-set of their languages community, and this implies to me that as such the community could do with bootstrapping in the fashion that incubators do. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Jon Harald Søby
Re: [Foundation-l] Simple English Encyclopedia
Hoi, The language committee is empowered to decide on all new projects. It has been this way since its start. Nothing new here. Thanks, GerardM 2009/2/26 Geoffrey Plourde geo.p...@yahoo.com I didn't know the language committee was empowered to decide on whether or not Simples were made. I thought your job was to determine valid languages. I absolutely cannot support the continued existence of this body due to these unknown powers and will make my voice known the next time someone offers to can it. From: Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:19:47 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Simple English Encyclopedia - Show quoted text - Hoi, Possibly. Now for some cold water. At this moment the policy is explicit. We do not accept any new Simple projects in any language. What I said was that it would be good when there are some good numbers that prove the value of a simple project. Once this is more clear, we may reconsider. Thanks, GerardM 2009/2/25 Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com I could be wrong, but I think you're misreading the point here. It's that we should Incubate more Simples in more languages, not that we need a Simple Incubator... -Chad On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, There is no room nor need for a simple Incubator. One suffices. Thanks. GerardM 2009/2/25 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com No, Absolutely not. Eh? No, Absolutely not. to what precisely? You say incubator should be a phase for projects? I said simple should incubate for even larger languages. Where is the No, Absolutely not. directed at? Gerard Meijssen wrote: No, Absolutely not. The Incubator is a vital resource that can easily accomadote any language any project. If anything I would make the Incubator compulsory for ANY project. The reason for this is obvious; the Incubator works. Thanks. GerardM 2009/2/25 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com Andrew Gray wrote: 2009/2/25 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com: Hoi, When the use case of the Simple Wikipedia is better understood, it may even make room for more simple projects as in simple projects in the biggest languages. This is quite an interesting thought. The language used by Simple English is (apparently) derived from two defined simplified versions of English which were deliberately designed - have there been projects to do the same for, say, French or Spanish, or would we have to do the heavy lifting ourselves? My attempt at a constructive contribution to this thread would be to suggest that every Simple Wikipedia language, no matter large or small, should start at a Simple Incubator. The incubator seems a proven concept (it has delivered live babies, yes?). To me it seems a no-brainer that Simple Communities in every language would only activate a sub-set of their languages community, and this implies to me that as such the community could do with bootstrapping in the fashion that incubators do. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list
Re: [Foundation-l] Free edition of Norways national encyklopedia Store Norske Leksikon
The release has been given a lot of press coverage, and some comparisons between the encyclopedias has been done. Two of them, in Dagbladet[1] and Dagsavisen[2], has concluded that Wikipedia is best. According to Aftenposten the new edition will cost Kunskapsforlaget and their owners Aschehoug og Gyldendal NOK 25 mill over the next 3 years, approx USD 3.6 mill.[3] John [1]http://www.dagbladet.no/2009/02/25/kultur/tekno/store_norske/wikipedia/5029776/ [2]http://www.dagsavisen.no/kultur/article400676.ece [3]http://www.aftenposten.no/kul_und/article2946755.ece ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
