Re: [Foundation-l] policy and the guideline wikipedia - ja
2010年3月7日0:21 Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com: 2010/3/6 ksaka98 ksak...@gmail.com: Hi from jawp. 山吹色の御菓子(kigen2700nen) 's question is http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/foundation/190708#190708 Wikipedia英語版にはWikipedia's principlesがあります。 これは、各言語版に於いて参加者の裁量で自由に変更することができるのですか？ Wikipedia英語版にあるprinciple and guidelinesを純粋にコピーアンドペーストしたものを、 コミュニティの合意が無くてもprinciple and guidelinesにすること可能ですか？ コミュニティの合意が無いprinciple and guidelinesは有効ですか？ policy とguidelineは各言語版のコミュニティの合意を得ずに、英語版からコピーアンドペーストし、policyまたはguidelineのテンプレートを付けた文書は有効ですか？日本語版ではスタートしたときからコミュニティの合意を得ず、policy またはguidelineのテンプレートを付けた文書を使用していますが、これらは英語版と違反していても有効なのですか。 translation:(I'm not good at english, too) There is a wikipedia's principle on enwp. (maybe wikipedia's policys. [[Wikipedia:Principles]] redirect to Wikipedia:Five pillars) Can editers change Wikipedia's principles(policys) at the discretion of the participants of local project? Can anyone make an document copy-and-pasted from principles(policys) or guideline in enwp to policy or guideline in jawp without consensus ? Is policy or guideline without consensus valid ? I think that the rough idea of policies included in five pillars should be applied in all Wikipedias, but it does not mean that they have to be applied as direct translations - i.e each project has a right to rephrase the text of these policies according to its historical and cultural background - as long as the core meaning of the rule is not changed. Bear in mind that five pillars were also adopted in English Wikipedia gradually - ie. the text of them changed over the time substantially and it is even changing right now. All other policies can but not need to be applied. At least in Polish Wikipedia it works in such a way that we look at policies on English, German and other Wikipedias and apply some of them directly, some after rephrasing some we do not apply at all, and we have some regulation which are Polish-specific only :-) -- Tomek Polimerek Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ http://www.ptchem.lodz.pl/en/TomaszGanicz.html ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l Does Wikipedia's principles need consensus of the community? There is not consensus of the community, but does somebody pass if filled out the page with Policy? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] policy and the guideline wikipedia - ja
Does Wikipedia's principles need consensus of the community? There is not consensus of the community, but does somebody pass if filled out the page with Policy? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Hello Wikipedia
I heard that you have the biggest encyclopedia in the world. Is it true that there are no other English encyclopedias with about 3,000,000 articles? And what are the top 7 MediaWiki wikis as far ar number of articles? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Hello Wikipedia
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Tyler programmer...@comcast.net wrote: I heard that you have the biggest encyclopedia in the world. Is it true that there are no other English encyclopedias with about 3,000,000 articles? And what are the top 7 MediaWiki wikis as far ar number of articles? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l please take a look at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias i'd be happy to hear of any larger encyclopedia if you know of any? very best, oscar -- *edito ergo sum* ** The information contained in this message is confidential and may be legally privileged. The message is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, or reproduction is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. ** ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Changes in Language committee practice: ancient and constructed languages
This issue was discussed a number of times here. As some changes has happened, you should know that. Requests for Wikisource in Ancient Greek and Coptic have became eligible, as well as request for Ancient Greek Wikiquote. The condition for those projects is to keep default interface in English. Rationale: Both languages have large amount of texts and it is reasonable to keep them separately. At the other side, languages are not living, which means that interface can't be written in those languages. As the heritage written in those languages belong to the whole humanity, there is no common modern language for those who use those languages in scientific or cultural purposes, and English is world's lingua franca, the default interface should be in English. Consequences: All requests will be considered on case by case basis. For some ancient languages there is a sense to have separate Wikisource and Wikiquote, for some it is reasonably to have just Wikisource, for some it is not. And it is because of various reasons. For example, request for Wikisource in Classical Chinese has been rejected. Written Chinese is not very different for millenniums and WS in Classical Chinese would have interface in modern Chinese (probably, in Traditional Hanji), as person who knows Classical Chinese has to know modern Chinese. Thus, it would be just a fork of Chinese Wikisource. The other example which would be rejected is Wikisource in Old Church Slavonic. There are less than 20 preserved documents written in Old Church Slavonic and thus there is no need to create a project for such amount of texts. At the other side, Church Slavonic Wikisource would have sense and the default interface would be in Russian -- as the most of those who know to read Church Slavonic, know to read Russian, too. Requests for Wikisource and Wikinews in Esperanto have became eligible, too. Esperanto projects are treated as projects in any other language, as Esperanto is a living language. Rationale: Esperanto is a living language with significant number of native speakers. Consequences: Esperanto is an exceptional case for artificial languages. It is the only artificial language which has significant culture behind itself, as well as there are numerous examples of Esperanto as a native language. As it is a living language, it can have the full set of Wikimedia projects. The only comparable case with Esperanto is Latin, although Latin is not an artificial language. As it is a living language, it can get the full set of projects. Request for Wikipedia in Ancient Hebrew has been rejected. It is not possible to have article about train in Ancient Hebrew and it is not living language, which means that article about train won't be created at all. Consequences: It is not possible to get Wikipedia in ancient language. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 72, Issue 21
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen writes: It should be noted that the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse - which is the closest thing to a accessible public record of such notices - does not appear to hold more than 3 (count them, three) notices that deal with content on wikimedia sites. Notably it appears that none of them appears to have been entered by the WMF - with the caveat that perhaps the one involving German Wikipedia may have had some chapter involvement, though likely not. I would be interested to hear from some knowledgeable person in a position of responsibility within the Foundation (perhaps Mike Godwin), whether routine reporting of these kind of notices to Chilling Effects Clearinghouse has been explored in any depth. Two of the three notices you refer to here were forwarded to ChillingEffects.org by me. The one dated 2004 obviously isn't from me (I began work at WMF in 2007). There was no chapter involvement in my decision to forward the two notices in question to ChillingEffects.org. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Hello Wikipedia
On 7 March 2010 17:35, oscar os...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Tyler programmer...@comcast.net wrote: I heard that you have the biggest encyclopedia in the world. Is it true that there are no other English encyclopedias with about 3,000,000 articles? And what are the top 7 MediaWiki wikis as far ar number of articles? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l please take a look at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias i'd be happy to hear of any larger encyclopedia if you know of any? very best, oscar Hudong is larger but is Chinese not English. -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texas Instruments signing key controversy
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen writes: It should be noted that the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse - which is the closest thing to a accessible public record of such notices - does not appear to hold more than 3 (count them, three) notices that deal with content on wikimedia sites. Notably it appears that none of them appears to have been entered by the WMF - with the caveat that perhaps the one involving German Wikipedia may have had some chapter involvement, though likely not. I would be interested to hear from some knowledgeable person in a position of responsibility within the Foundation (perhaps Mike Godwin), whether routine reporting of these kind of notices to Chilling Effects Clearinghouse has been explored in any depth. Two of the three notices you refer to here were forwarded to ChillingEffects.org by me. The one dated 2004 obviously isn't from me (I began work at WMF in 2007). There was no chapter involvement in my decision to forward the two notices in question to ChillingEffects.org. --Mike ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Wikipedia is fun
How do you edit Wikipedia anonymously? When I click edit this page, a blank edit box appears, and the page, including wiki markup, appears below the box. And, just for my info, how many of you on this list have heard of Uncyclopedia? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is fun
On 03/08/2010 12:17 AM, Tyler wrote: How do you edit Wikipedia anonymously? we do not. We are registered users When I click edit this page, a blank edit box appears, and the page, including wiki markup, appears below the box. And, just for my info, how many of you on this list have heard of Uncyclopedia? I've heard masti ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is fun
How come, when I go to the edit history of the main page, I can't find a revision from 2001? Only 2002. Is it because of that software change? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is fun
The main page is generally generated with templates, so there are little to none direct edits to the page. -Peachey ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is fun
That's not what I asked. I said, in 2001, Wikipedia was founded, right? The earliest edit in edit history is 2002. What was the home page in 2001 then? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is fun
On 8 March 2010 01:14, Tyler programmer...@comcast.net wrote: That's not what I asked. I said, in 2001, Wikipedia was founded, right? The earliest edit in edit history is 2002. What was the home page in 2001 then? Since you are talking about the software, MediaWiki, maybe you ought to look that up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_release_history Seems the first release was in 2003. I bet that means the software was first written for Wikipedia around 2002. Also, some revisions was lost, I've heard. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is fun
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Tyler programmer...@comcast.net wrote: That's not what I asked. I said, in 2001, Wikipedia was founded, right? The earliest edit in edit history is 2002. What was the home page in 2001 then? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l Some revisions from a long time ago don't exist anymore. Such is life. -Chad ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is fun
Very early on in the history of the project, there was only one server and it was shared with the parent company (Bomis). Once it filled up it was simply cleared out. Unfortunately, this means that the earliest edits to the English Wikipedia are now lost :-( Ward Cunningham did the same thing with the first ever Wiki. Unfortunately, people never know what is going to be interesting to the future and discard seemingly unimportant things only to discover their value later on - the archivists' perpetual problem. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wikipedia and also http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/wiki/HomePage (how the website used to look). -Liam [[witty lama]] wittylama.com/blog Peace, love metadata On 8 March 2010 11:07, Tyler programmer...@comcast.net wrote: How come, when I go to the edit history of the main page, I can't find a revision from 2001? Only 2002. Is it because of that software change? ___ 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] Wikipedia is fun
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Tyler programmer...@comcast.net wrote: How come, when I go to the edit history of the main page, I can't find a revision from 2001? Only 2002. Is it because of that software change? You hit the nail on the head. Revisions from the UseModWiki days are sketchy at best; many of them were converted, but it wasn't a 100% reliable process, and iirc much of the revision history simply wasn't kept (by design). I love your enthusiasm, Tyler, and I don't want to tread on that. You should absolutely keep learning about Wikimedia's history, because if you want to contribute, there's no such thing as too much background knowledge. I do, however, feel the need to point out that this isn't really the forum for the questions you've been asking over the past couple of weeks. I'm sure there are tons of people who'd be happy to help you out with these sorts of questions, and if you haven't already discovered it I'd like to point you to IRC[1], where there are lots of old-timers with a plethora of institutional knowledge. Most of your questions can be answered with a link to an article on Meta, or in the Wikipedia namespace on the English Wikipedia, and you're probably best off finding people who know where to direct you. Cheers, Austin Hair Foundation-l Administrator [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is fun
On 8 March 2010 00:14, Tyler programmer...@comcast.net wrote: That's not what I asked. I said, in 2001, Wikipedia was founded, right? The earliest edit in edit history is 2002. What was the home page in 2001 then? Nope oldest edit is 2001: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:UuUoldid=291430 -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Is the consensus to the policy necessary?
Does Wikipedia's principles need consensus of the community? There is not consensus of the community, but does somebody pass if filled out the page with Policy? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Is the consensus to the policy necessary?
Does Wikipedia's principles need consensus of the community? There is not consensus of the community, but does somebody pass if filled out the page with Policy? They do. A recently created policy page is only a proposal. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Is the consensus to the policy necessary?
Hi, I reviewed his contribs to Japanese Wikipedia and found him post raw (not translated yet) EnWP policy without any effort to building any consensus of the community, before posting to this list. Just for your information. Best, On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Does Wikipedia's principles need consensus of the community? There is not consensus of the community, but does somebody pass if filled out the page with Policy? They do. A recently created policy page is only a proposal. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Changes in Language committee practice: ancient and constructed languages
A pure question: is there any means we have a multilingual website for those Classical language rather than saying the default is English? On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 2:58 AM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: This issue was discussed a number of times here. As some changes has happened, you should know that. Requests for Wikisource in Ancient Greek and Coptic have became eligible, as well as request for Ancient Greek Wikiquote. The condition for those projects is to keep default interface in English. Rationale: Both languages have large amount of texts and it is reasonable to keep them separately. At the other side, languages are not living, which means that interface can't be written in those languages. As the heritage written in those languages belong to the whole humanity, there is no common modern language for those who use those languages in scientific or cultural purposes, and English is world's lingua franca, the default interface should be in English. Consequences: All requests will be considered on case by case basis. For some ancient languages there is a sense to have separate Wikisource and Wikiquote, for some it is reasonably to have just Wikisource, for some it is not. And it is because of various reasons. For example, request for Wikisource in Classical Chinese has been rejected. Written Chinese is not very different for millenniums and WS in Classical Chinese would have interface in modern Chinese (probably, in Traditional Hanji), as person who knows Classical Chinese has to know modern Chinese. Thus, it would be just a fork of Chinese Wikisource. I find here a wrong assupmtion. First wrong assumption is Written Chinese is not very different for millenniums, they aren't same, and consequently Edo period Japanese who were taught Classical Chinese already found difficulty to understand the contemporary which was similar to the modern one. Second wrong assumption is person who knows Classical Chinese has to know modern Chinese. In East Asia, Classical Chinese had been lingua franca of the literate for millenniums, and there are many written sources, the earliest of them are dated at mid 19th C. And it is still taught in some countries including Japan. I, as a highly educated Japanese, read Classical Chinese to some extent, but I don't understand modern Chinese beyond the tourist level. I know many people who can enjoy zh-classical-Wikipedia but cannot (modern) zhwiki. So I object your statement and it wouldn't be just a fork of ZhWS but preferable to be a multilingual project. The other example which would be rejected is Wikisource in Old Church Slavonic. There are less than 20 preserved documents written in Old Church Slavonic and thus there is no need to create a project for such amount of texts. At the other side, Church Slavonic Wikisource would have sense and the default interface would be in Russian -- as the most of those who know to read Church Slavonic, know to read Russian, too. Requests for Wikisource and Wikinews in Esperanto have became eligible, too. Esperanto projects are treated as projects in any other language, as Esperanto is a living language. Rationale: Esperanto is a living language with significant number of native speakers. Consequences: Esperanto is an exceptional case for artificial languages. It is the only artificial language which has significant culture behind itself, as well as there are numerous examples of Esperanto as a native language. As it is a living language, it can have the full set of Wikimedia projects. The only comparable case with Esperanto is Latin, although Latin is not an artificial language. As it is a living language, it can get the full set of projects. Request for Wikipedia in Ancient Hebrew has been rejected. It is not possible to have article about train in Ancient Hebrew and it is not living language, which means that article about train won't be created at all. Consequences: It is not possible to get Wikipedia in ancient language. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
