Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
- Original Message - From: David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 12:07 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Has Wikipedia changed since 2005? I am not qualified to judge articles on philosophy on my own understanding of the material. I must ask whether you are so very sure that academic consensus will endorse your views on the articles mentioned that you would be able to write a replacement article, and ask for an RfC on it, and convince outsiders by reference to multiple understandable authoritative sources? I've already mentioned this list, but here again is my analysis of some of the Wikipedia articles. http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/06/william-of-ockham.html This is a comment on the William of Ockham article. William was one of England's greatest philosophers. Gets barely a mention in Wikipedia and there a number of serious mistakes in the article itself. http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/07/francesco-patrizi.html Francest Patrizi. What a mess http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/06/avicennian-logic.html The Avicenna articles were so bad it got into the London Spectator. In this case, there was a Wikipedia RfC so you don't have to take my word for it. This was a case of a rogue editor who contributed to 8,115 pages, making 63,298 edits. Much of the problem material seems still to be there! http://logicmatters.blogspot.com/2009/05/wisdom-of-wikipedia.html This is by the distinguished philosopher and logician Peter Smith (editor of the Journal Analysis for many years). In my most recent post I commented on this gem here, in the article on Aristotle. Even Plato had difficulties with logic; although he had a reasonable conception of a deducting system, he could never actually construct one and relied instead on his dialectic. Consequently, Plato realized that a method for obtaining conclusions would be most beneficial. He never succeeded in devising such a method, but his best attempt was published in his book Sophist, where he introduced his division method. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Foundation-l word cloud
You may be interested in the word cloud I created with the full archive of foundation-l: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Foundation-l_word_cloud_small.png You can find it at a bigger resolution and with the source code (if you want to improve it) here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Foundation-l_word_cloud.png Nemo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
- Original Message - From: David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 12:07 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Has Wikipedia changed since 2005? On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 5:26 AM, Peter Damian peter.dam...@btinternet.com wrote: We were talking about very aggressive editors who know absolutely nothing of the subject, and drive away specialist editors. I see an equal proportion of very aggressive editors among the expert as well as the non-expert editors. Expertise does not necessarily mean a devotion to expressing all significant views and presenting them fairly. I have been involved a little with some articles in Wikipedia written by fully-credentialed experts --in one case with an international reputation and distinguished academic awards-- devoted to expressing their own peculiarly one-sided view of the subject. And there was a group of articles with several experts of established high reputation each taking the position that the other ones were hopelessly wrong. The irony is that this does not happen in Wikipedia in my experience, with philosophy. I know all of the small group and they get on very well and support each other. The problem is the aggressively belligerent non-trained editors who drive the specialists away. I think the best way to convince you of this is to get testimonials. There is one here http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/07/ohlocracy.html I could get plenty more. I am not qualified to judge articles on philosophy on my own understanding of the material. I must ask whether you are so very sure that academic consensus will endorse your views on the articles mentioned that you would be able to write a replacement article, and ask for an RfC on it, and convince outsiders by reference to multiple understandable authoritative sources? On the quality of the articles, even Wikipedia's own grading system shows a problem. http://toolserver.org/~enwp10/bin/list2.fcgi?run=yesprojecta=Philosophynamespace=0pagename=quality=importance=score=limit=100offset=1sorta=Importancesortb=Quality Any professional philosopher would support my view. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Foundation-l word cloud
Although I don't have a issue with it, but you may wish to double check the licensing you have attached to those uploads, since from understanding is that copyright and ownership does apply to emails. -Peachey ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I still have 80 mails to read to be up-to-date about the current polemic, but I would like to ask a question to you Peter. You said that experts can bring knowledge to readers, but that some editors are aggressive idiots with whom there is no possible discussion. This attitude towards expert knowledge is certainly also present amidst readers - it is simply not detected because of a lack of interaction with them. So, Peter, how is this communication failure [1] (and I think the mails I attached are a good sample of it, without judging who is right in calling the other an idiot) towards idiot editors is different from towards idiot readers? Apologies if my wording is bad, but as you would said, it's just a formal question, the knowledge is the same. :) [1]: according to this goal: Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. On 02/10/2010 19:21, Peter Damian wrote: - Original Message - From: wjhon...@aol.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 6:13 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005? You can't spell, you can't write, you shift ground constantly, you fail to understand even the most basic point. Your understanding of the subject is in inverse proportion to you arrogance and hostility. Wikipedia is full of people like you. This of course will be used as proof that specialists do not understand Wikipedia and are therefore unwelcome. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l On 02/10/2010 19:17, Peter Damian wrote: - Original Message - From: wjhon...@aol.com To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 6:13 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005? Haven't you ever read Atlas Shrugged! OK you're a nutcase. Sorry. This is exactly the problem I have with Wikipedia. End of conversation. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMqcPoAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6L/EAH/1v8OTs9wSPO8xA9EeOPmv+l c4ZZ3gRa8OL5Oj8IXQ+L8oIMIaJtxl7rAppSuLjv15/zi0oZbKepTvdKj0nus8Lr F8G+evtoSeW+n0j5xcRmEYHfLaCGD6quT50NK7T57TFRVN37061ZNEJapC5aHda0 npgfJ0MsU+dVNe5f8Z74IHEX0eVO+vQU9NBQc4JC2zFw7vCG+tv8Y6QYLCmXtoZB 9kGpkDAj2isK9DTk9gR3vEq6udDR6P4ysxC/spJIZNXaPTv3FUBdrjiZsPApawxA NJsXIxKhcVevAkTGgWR4HAwRb5WTKIElAV4FgFKqaLB3KvV1OkXVKmitLR9U3B8= =fcla -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Please delete mo. wikipedia
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 11:24 PM, M. Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: My proposal: Move mo.wp to mo-cyrl.wp or ro-cyrl.wp as an interim measure. Create converter, once converter is created AND enabled, delete mo-cyrl.wp. Thanks, Mark. Is there any opposition to naming such a temporary project ro-cyrl? In your proposal, the converter would eventually be available (as a user pref) on ro.wp? SJ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Please delete mo. wikipedia
--- El lun 4-oct-10, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com escribió: Is there any opposition to naming such a temporary project ro-cyrl? In your proposal, the converter would eventually be available (as a user pref) on ro.wp? The problem with the converter is that it only works for visualization. As it was pointed out before (I don't remember by whom), readers will have the option to visualize the content in Cyrillic, but editors are forced to use one single alphabet in an article. This might not be a problem in the Serbian Wikipedia, but I think it might be in this case when Romanian in Cyrillic is considered insulting by an important part of the editors. Would it be possible to change the source for editing and then back to be stored? I can think of a couple of problems to solve, including image and template names, or language links, but all of them should be solvable, and that should keep everyone happy, right? Cheers, MarianoC.- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Please delete mo. wikipedia
2010/10/4 Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com: Is there any opposition to naming such a temporary project ro-cyrl? In your proposal, the converter would eventually be available (as a user pref) on ro.wp? I agree that it should be called ro-cyrl as mo is no longer considered a valid ISO code, but thinking of that raises an additional problem: Romanian, like Catalan, is in the relatively uncommon situation of having two groups of speakers who call it two different things, in spite of being able to understand each other. Calling Moldovan Latin text Romanian is common and understood, but in Transnistria, Romanian generally means Latin-script and Moldovan means Cyrillic text, though I suppose this could be solved by simply having a different landing page for Cyrillic users to avoid a confusing situation. I do think the converter should be available as a user pref on ro.wp, but not hidden away somewhere, it should be a tab like on sr.wp or kk.wp. However, at the present state of national political sentiment, this seems unlikely to be accepted by ro.wikipedians, many of whom were offended by the mere idea of the language being written in Cyrillic. Perhaps a better idea, if this is technically feasible, would be to have a separate subdomain that was linked to the same content, so that http://ro-cyrl.wikipedia.org/ or http://mo-cyrl.wikipedia.org/ (or even http://ro.wikipedia.org/cyrl/ or http://mo.wikipedia.org/cyrl/ ) would automatically access the transliterated versions of articles. Just some ideas. Also, since mo: is considered to be a deprecated code for ro, ideally mo: and ro: should both work for ro: content the way nb: and no: both work for no: content. -m. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
- Original Message - From: David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 12:07 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Has Wikipedia changed since 2005? Oh yes and how could I forget this monstrosity http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Existenceoldid=386781174 You don't have to take my word for it. The tag says: This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. a.. It needs additional references or sources for verification. Tagged since April 2009. b.. It needs to be expanded. Tagged since April 2009. c.. It may need copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone or spelling. Tagged since April 2009. Since April 2009, note. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Foundation-l word cloud
Andrew Garrett, 04/10/2010 11:49: It's probably easier to strip them entirely before pushing them into the generator, rather than using them as stopwords. Ehm, I can't do that. :-p Moreover, I didn't want to exclude /everything/ (e.g. subjects, names, dates). K. Peachey, 04/10/2010 11:51: Although I don't have a issue with it, but you may wish to double check the licensing you have attached to those uploads, since from understanding is that copyright and ownership does apply to emails. Yes, but not to /words/ (and their frequency), AFAIK. Nemo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Foundation-l word cloud
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 11:28, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: You may be interested in the word cloud I created with the full archive of foundation-l: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Foundation-l_word_cloud_small.png You can find it at a bigger resolution and with the source code (if you want to improve it) here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Foundation-l_word_cloud.png Nemo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l May you exclude headers from the cloud? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Please delete mo. wikipedia
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 4:39 AM, Mariano Cecowski marianocecow...@yahoo.com.ar wrote: Would it be possible to change the source for editing and then back to be stored? I can think of a couple of problems to solve, including image and template names, or language links, but all of them should be solvable, and that should keep everyone happy, right? Possible? Maybe...would need work. I guess it comes down to whether it's deemed to be worth the work or not. -Chad ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Foundation-l word cloud
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:10 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 4 October 2010 10:51, K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au wrote: Although I don't have a issue with it, but you may wish to double check the licensing you have attached to those uploads, since from understanding is that copyright and ownership does apply to emails. Not even within Commons level of copyright paranoia is a word count chart encumbered. I'm sure we can find somebody to debate it, if you'd like to go down that road ;-) Nemo: This is really cool! -Chad ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Foundation-l word cloud
Milos Rancic, 04/10/2010 11:29: May you exclude headers from the cloud? Well, I did. Which additional (parts of) headers would you like to exclude? (Suggest them on talk page.) I left only timezones, years and months to give a clue on activity in different times; and text/plain vs. html given the frequent discussions there are on this topic. :-p Nemo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Please delete mo. wikipedia
On 4 October 2010 14:36, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Since this regularly comes up on this list, and the request is outstanding since 2006, maybe at the bottom of the to-do pile isn't the right place. Wouldn't the smartest temporary solution be to redirect mo.wp to ro.wp and move mo.wp to ro-cyrl.wp? That doesn't seem like a terribly difficult change to implement. We don't need a perfect final solution in order to make a reasonable interim change that will likely satisfy most if not all parties. What would satisfy the one regular spammer who shows any care is its complete removal in every regard, and nothing less. It is unclear how your proposal addresses this. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
- Original Message - From: Noein prono...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 1:09 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005? So, Peter, how is this communication failure [1] (and I think the mails I attached are a good sample of it, without judging who is right in calling the other an idiot) towards idiot editors is different from towards idiot readers? Apologies if my wording is bad, but as you would said, it's just a formal question, the knowledge is the same. :) How is the problem of making a difficult subject clear different in the case of editors than readers? That's an interesting one. Good teaching and communication is about getting the maximum number of interested people to get the intended idea across. This is very difficult. Even in the best case, I estimate only about 20% of people will understand in any way what you are saying. A simple proof of this is exam results. In any exam (an exam being a method of test which aims to assess how well some one has understood the teaching) there is a neat dispersion of results. There is always a bottom 10 percentile of those who sadly don't get it, and frankly probably ever aren't going to get it. I'm a realist. Now most of those bottom 10% realise this, and will go away to study something more congenial. Most of them. There is a tiny tiny fraction of those who don't get it, who believe they are fundamentally right, and that the teachers are wrong, and that they have been done some injustice, and the world owes them something. Now the problem: in the old days that bottom percentile fraction would self-publish some rant or other, or would just go away. But now there is this thing called Wikipedia which is practically inviting them to edit. It says anyone can edit. I had an experience with such an editor in late 2006. He fundamentally wrecked the Philosophy article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophyoffset=20061228033655action=history, drove away a fine bunch of editors, and the article has never really recovered since (a group of us act as caretakers but on the principle of preventing any change, not improving it. I quote again from Mel Etitis (who himself was a casualty of this incident) Philosophy: I'm a philosopher; why don't I edit the article on my subject? Because it's hopeless. I've tried at various times, and each time have given up in depressed disgust. Philosophy seems to attract aggressive zealots who know a little (often a very little), who lack understanding of key concepts, terms, etc., and who attempt to take over the article (and its Talk page) with rambling, ground-shifting, often barely comprehensible rants against those who disagree with them. Life's too short. I just tell my students and anyone else I know not to read the Wikipedia article except for a laugh. It's one of those areas where the ochlocratic nature of Wikipedia really comes a cropper. So in summary. Most people who aren't very good, know they aren't very good. A tiny proportion of those, don't realise this. Quite a large proportion of those end up on Wikipedia. Some disciplines have more of a problem than others. 'Hard sciences' have less of a problem. Philosophy, however, is a crank magnet. Does that explain the difference you were asking for? There will sadly always be a communication failure. Some people will never 'get it'. However, in the case of readers, you are remote from this and they don't give you a problem. In the case of editors, they are there in your face, with their rambling barely comprehensible rants against those who disagree with them. That is the difference, and that is the problem. Peter ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Foundation-l word cloud
On 4 October 2010 10:51, K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au wrote: Although I don't have a issue with it, but you may wish to double check the licensing you have attached to those uploads, since from understanding is that copyright and ownership does apply to emails. Not even within Commons level of copyright paranoia is a word count chart encumbered. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Please delete mo. wikipedia
Since this regularly comes up on this list, and the request is outstanding since 2006, maybe at the bottom of the to-do pile isn't the right place. Wouldn't the smartest temporary solution be to redirect mo.wp to ro.wp and move mo.wp to ro-cyrl.wp? That doesn't seem like a terribly difficult change to implement. We don't need a perfect final solution in order to make a reasonable interim change that will likely satisfy most if not all parties. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Please delete mo. wikipedia
On 4 October 2010 13:54, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 4:39 AM, Mariano Cecowski marianocecow...@yahoo.com.ar wrote: Would it be possible to change the source for editing and then back to be stored? I can think of a couple of problems to solve, including image and template names, or language links, but all of them should be solvable, and that should keep everyone happy, right? Possible? Maybe...would need work. I guess it comes down to whether it's deemed to be worth the work or not. In this case, the problem is a visceral hatred by some persons on ro:wp of anything even slightly Cyrillic. The Cyrillic letter was even missing from the ro:wp puzzle globe for a time. (I see it's present in the current version.) So treating this as in any way merely a technical problem will not resolve the cause of these regular messages. I see the messager has resorted to spamming multiple lists now. Possibly putting it at the bottom of the *long* list of other problems in need of resolution (e.g. all the volunteer work that's backed up a year or more, as Simetrical noted on wikitech-l) would be an idea. Because everything else is more urgent and indeed more important than one annoying nationalist spammer. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Please delete mo. wikipedia
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:02 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 4 October 2010 13:54, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 4:39 AM, Mariano Cecowski marianocecow...@yahoo.com.ar wrote: Would it be possible to change the source for editing and then back to be stored? I can think of a couple of problems to solve, including image and template names, or language links, but all of them should be solvable, and that should keep everyone happy, right? Possible? Maybe...would need work. I guess it comes down to whether it's deemed to be worth the work or not. In this case, the problem is a visceral hatred by some persons on ro:wp of anything even slightly Cyrillic. The Cyrillic letter was even missing from the ro:wp puzzle globe for a time. (I see it's present in the current version.) I've been around long enough to know this is very true. So treating this as in any way merely a technical problem will not resolve the cause of these regular messages. I see the messager has resorted to spamming multiple lists now. This has been going on for what...2 years now? 3? I'm tired of getting spammed a few times a year and dragging this horse out of the ground to flog it a few more times. Possibly putting it at the bottom of the *long* list of other problems in need of resolution (e.g. all the volunteer work that's backed up a year or more, as Simetrical noted on wikitech-l) would be an idea. Because everything else is more urgent and indeed more important than one annoying nationalist spammer. I think was saying pretty much the same thing ;-) -Chad ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Foundation-l word cloud
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.comwrote: Milos Rancic, 04/10/2010 11:29: May you exclude headers from the cloud? Well, I did. Which additional (parts of) headers would you like to exclude? (Suggest them on talk page.) I left only timezones, years and months to give a clue on activity in different times; and text/plain vs. html given the frequent discussions there are on this topic. :-p It's probably easier to strip them entirely before pushing them into the generator, rather than using them as stopwords. -- Andrew Garrett http://werdn.us/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 4:33 AM, Peter Damian peter.dam...@btinternet.com wrote: - Original Message - From: David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 12:07 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Has Wikipedia changed since 2005? On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 5:26 AM, Peter Damian peter.dam...@btinternet.com wrote: We were talking about very aggressive editors who know absolutely nothing of the subject, and drive away specialist editors. I see an equal proportion of very aggressive editors among the expert as well as the non-expert editors. Expertise does not necessarily mean a devotion to expressing all significant views and presenting them fairly. I have been involved a little with some articles in Wikipedia written by fully-credentialed experts --in one case with an international reputation and distinguished academic awards-- devoted to expressing their own peculiarly one-sided view of the subject. And there was a group of articles with several experts of established high reputation each taking the position that the other ones were hopelessly wrong. The irony is that this does not happen in Wikipedia in my experience, with philosophy. I know all of the small group and they get on very well and support each other. The problem is the aggressively belligerent non-trained editors who drive the specialists away. I think the best way to convince you of this is to get testimonials. There is one here Your own history, Peter, proves that you are incorrect; you are, yourself, an example of an expert who has been, at times, aggressively belligerent. I know you don't want to bring up your own history in this thread, but it's a simple fact that professional experts are not always able to edit collaboratively and/or with an acceptably neutral point of view. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Thank you, your answers reveal quite clearly your vision. (I disagree, though, but that's not important). A few comments below... On 04/10/2010 15:58, Peter Damian wrote: How is the problem of making a difficult subject clear different in the case of editors than readers? That's an interesting one. Good teaching and communication is about getting the maximum number of interested people to get the intended idea across. This is very difficult. Even in the best case, I estimate only about 20% of people will understand in any way what you are saying. A simple proof of this is exam results. In any exam (an exam being a method of test which aims to assess how well some one has understood the teaching) there is a neat dispersion of results. There is always a bottom 10 percentile of those who sadly don't get it, and frankly probably ever aren't going to get it. I disagree about the never. I think it depends greatly about the methods and means to reach them. I'm a realist. Your realism seems strongly context-dependent, with a narrow set of contexts considered. Your conclusions are probably valid for it, but you're not talking about the world at large, in my point of view. IMHO you're talking, maybe without realizing the range of your ideas, about a specific occurrence of knowledge communication (university teaching between 1980 and 2010, say) and I don't think this is all there is to understand about it. If this discussion was about the contexts of teaching and communicating instead of the statistical results in already known environments, I wonder if you would still bear a fatalist (elitist?) point of view about mankind's intellectual capacity. Personnaly I think there is only a bottom 10 percentile of those who are born mentally limited, whatever the education and communication they receive, they're doomed. The difference with your stats shows what we CAN do something about. Now most of those bottom 10% realise this, and will go away to study something more congenial. Most of them. There is a tiny tiny fraction of those who don't get it, who believe they are fundamentally right, and that the teachers are wrong, and that they have been done some injustice, and the world owes them something. Now the problem: in the old days that bottom percentile fraction would self-publish some rant or other, or would just go away. But now there is this thing called Wikipedia which is practically inviting them to edit. It says anyone can edit. It seems that you think that Wikipedia is behaving as a magnet for obtuse people, for one hand. On the other hand, you seem to think that what the wiki system does about the heterogeneity of the editors is filtering out the quality. This may well be true in some cases. But I think that the opposite can also happen, and that changes everything. I have the belief that on the long term, open people and high quality have a higher potential on Wikipedia, if we aim to set the conditions for their thriving. Let's go back to your example: I estimate only about 20% of people will understand in any way what you are saying. Somewhere, sometime, there is certainly someone that can make 21% of people understand a specific topic. It's not necessarily an expert, though he should be able to understand them. So imagine we find him and make an article out of his teaching. Then we have gain 1% of audience and consensus of understanding (you may disagree but you understand and respect what is said). With this reductio ad minimum I just want to show that levelling up quality is possible: thus putting the failure on the idiots is not giving our best shot. I had an experience with such an editor in late 2006. He fundamentally wrecked the Philosophy article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophyoffset=20061228033655action=history, drove away a fine bunch of editors, and the article has never really recovered since (a group of us act as caretakers but on the principle of preventing any change, not improving it. I quote again from Mel Etitis (who himself was a casualty of this incident) Philosophy: I'm a philosopher; why don't I edit the article on my subject? Because it's hopeless. I've tried at various times, and each time have given up in depressed disgust. Philosophy seems to attract aggressive zealots who know a little (often a very little), who lack understanding of key concepts, terms, etc., and who attempt to take over the article (and its Talk page) with rambling, ground-shifting, often barely comprehensible rants against those who disagree with them. Life's too short. I just tell my students and anyone else I know not to read the Wikipedia article except for a laugh. It's one of those areas where the ochlocratic nature of Wikipedia really comes a cropper. I've read this text like 3 or 4 times in this discussion now. Why are you repeating this
Re: [Foundation-l] Foundation-l word cloud
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 2:49 AM, Andrew Garrett agarr...@wikimedia.org wrote: On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.comwrote: Milos Rancic, 04/10/2010 11:29: May you exclude headers from the cloud? Well, I did. Which additional (parts of) headers would you like to exclude? (Suggest them on talk page.) I left only timezones, years and months to give a clue on activity in different times; and text/plain vs. html given the frequent discussions there are on this topic. :-p It's probably easier to strip them entirely before pushing them into the generator, rather than using them as stopwords. This is fun! thanks for doing it. It would be interesting to see a version with all of the headers stripped out (dates email terms: mailman/mimedel, etc.) so the content words would really show up. I like that community is huge and individual is tiny :) Phoebe ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
To sum up a little bit: Perhaps because of some popular caricatures of the subject of philosophy, even those who choose to edit philosophy articles may not appreciate the actual expertise involved in being a trained philosopher. Philosophers, and philosophy in general, are treated with less respect than other academic subjects and experts. At the same time some topics that in academic philosophy are very complex and the subject of a large volume of scholarly inquiry also appear approachable to lay people. Many are issues that interest or confront lay people at an early age, and the resulting sense of familiarity leads non-experts to assume they understand more than they do. These two factors combined frustrate actual experts, and cause them to abandon the project in despair. That leads to the current state of affairs, where the philosophy related articles are generally of low quality. As for solutions -- we've discarded identifying credentialed experts or privileging expert contributions over others in some systematic manner. Peter has proposed involving Jimmy in a sort of publicity campaign, but even if this succeeds in attracting more experts to Wikipedia it doesn't solve the underlying problems driving experts away. These same issues, by the way, afflict the more popularly known subjects in medicine. The approach of the Medicine Project and its participants has been to keep at it over the course of years, develop a specific reliable source guideline for their field, work together as experts to improve and protect quality content, etc. Perhaps the philosophy experts can learn something from projects with similar problems that have managed them with some success? Of course we reliably burn out physicians and researchers editing in the medicine subject area, so that isn't really a long-term solution either. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Please delete mo. wikipedia
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:53 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 4 October 2010 14:36, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Since this regularly comes up on this list, and the request is outstanding since 2006, maybe at the bottom of the to-do pile isn't the right place. Wouldn't the smartest temporary solution be to redirect mo.wp to ro.wp and move mo.wp to ro-cyrl.wp? That doesn't seem like a terribly difficult change to implement. We don't need a perfect final solution in order to make a reasonable interim change that will likely satisfy most if not all parties. What would satisfy the one regular spammer who shows any care is its complete removal in every regard, and nothing less. It is unclear how your proposal addresses this. - d. Because it eliminates the suggestion that the Wikimedia Foundation equates Moldovan with Romanian in Cyrillic? That seems to be the crux of the issue... ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
- Original Message - From: Nathan nawr...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 4:05 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Has Wikipedia changed since 2005? Your own history, Peter, proves that you are incorrect; you are, yourself, an example of an expert who has been, at times, aggressively belligerent. I know you don't want to bring up your own history in this thread, but it's a simple fact that professional experts are not always able to edit collaboratively and/or with an acceptably neutral point of view. Nathan As you say I would prefer you didn't bring it up. For the record, I have always tried to edit neutrally. If you ask any of the specialist editors who were on the philosophy project they will vouch for this. Here is one of them blogging about it http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/dave/2008/09/wikipedia_dont_offend_the_mast.php I will confess to feeling slightly disappointed with Wikipedia today. We have one very good editor, who has done massive and detailed work over the years on various philosophy and history pages. Recently he has also been tackling pseudo-science pages such as that on NLP. He is also passionate about removing free propaganda for pederasts. He is a volatile, passionate and highly intelligent character, just the sort of person WIkipedia needs. However he has managed to offend a member of Arbcom (the masters of the universe in Wikipedia). Now the nature of the offense is minor compared with the sort of thing that editors dish out daily without punishment. However if you hit the inner circle (I almost said cabal then), you are treated differently. I also took History of Logic to FA, working very well with people like Sandy Georgia and Tony, only to be blocked towards the end of the process. My quarrel has always been with the administration and with the governance of Wikipedia. Once I was blocked simply for nominating an article for deletion (a successful deletion, may I add). But this is irrelevant to the present issue. My quarrel with the adminstration of Wikipedia is a separate matter and not to do with this. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
- Original Message - From: Noein prono...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 4:06 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005? Philosophy: I'm a philosopher; why don't I edit the article on my subject? Because it's hopeless. I've tried at various times, and each time have given up in depressed disgust. Philosophy seems to attract aggressive zealots who know a little (often a very little), who lack understanding of key concepts, terms, etc., and who attempt to take over the article (and its Talk page) with rambling, ground-shifting, often barely comprehensible rants against those who disagree with them. Life's too short. I just tell my students and anyone else I know not to read the Wikipedia article except for a laugh. It's one of those areas where the ochlocratic nature of Wikipedia really comes a cropper. I've read this text like 3 or 4 times in this discussion now. Why are you repeating this argument? Do you wish specific comments about it? When someone understands the importance of it, or shows they have taken the point on board, then I don't need to repeat it. Enough said. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 09:34, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps because of some popular caricatures of the subject of philosophy, even those who choose to edit philosophy articles may not appreciate the actual expertise involved in being a trained philosopher. Philosophers, and philosophy in general, are treated with less respect than other academic subjects and experts. I don't think that happens in the Humanities, but scientists do seem to ignore that philosophers deal with many of the issues they claim for themselves. As for solutions -- we've discarded identifying credentialed experts or privileging expert contributions over others in some systematic manner. Peter has proposed involving Jimmy in a sort of publicity campaign, but even if this succeeds in attracting more experts to Wikipedia it doesn't solve the underlying problems driving experts away. A related issue, Nathan, is that Wikipedians sometimes don't realize they're editing a philosophy article. I don't want to give examples, because I don't want to personalize things. But I've had the experience of trying to use academic philosophy sources in philosophy articles, or in sections of articles that touch on philosophical issues, and they've been removed as inappropriate or UNDUE, with questions on talk about why I think this is a topic in philosophy -- that philosophy is just one POV among many, and not in any sense authoritative in that area. I tend to give up in the face of this, rather than argue, because it feels pointless. Sarah ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
- Original Message - From: Noein prono...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 4:06 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005? I am sincerely asking you, without insinuation: how do you know you're not one of them? What's the difference between the one who knows he knows and the one who doesn't know he doesn't know if it's only about self-perception (or social perception)? Where is the universality of knowledge in this conception if it boils down to intimate convictions ? There are well-established mechanisms for determining this. I have had many papers published, I am currently working collaboratively with another academic on a book on medieval philosophy. I have no problem working with people who understand the rules, I am told the quality of my work is good. There are objective mechanisms for determining whether someone is a crank. I admit to having a seriously short fuse, and that was my main problem in working in Wikipedia. But that is different from the issue you are talking about. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
on 10/4/10 11:06 AM, Noein at prono...@gmail.com wrote: Wouldn't self criticizing, openness of mind, intersubjective references, shared arguments, and the empathic capacity to understand what the other see a better approach to star a discussion? Yes! With this you describe the very essence of collaboration. The facts of something can have very different appearances depending on the angle of sight - what's most important is the dialogue those different angles produce. It's also wise to know that there are things you are never going to know. Marc Riddell ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
Peter wrote: 2. An initiative to highlight 5 top importance articles and get them to GA or FA. There are very few FA status articles, compared to the rest of the project. 3. Another initiative to re-classify the top 50 articles in terms of importance and quality (I looked at this and some are wildly out of line). endquote These are obviously good ideas and the sort of effort that most wikiprojects engage in. There's no question that an active philosophy wikiproject could pursue this type of initiative and have an impact, but I thought the premise to this discussion was that the participants of this particular wikiproject had been driven off and left the 'pedia without the resources to attempt this sort of thing. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
- Original Message - From: Nathan nawr...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 5:05 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005? Peter wrote: 2. An initiative to highlight 5 top importance articles and get them to GA or FA. There are very few FA status articles, compared to the rest of the project. 3. Another initiative to re-classify the top 50 articles in terms of importance and quality (I looked at this and some are wildly out of line). endquote These are obviously good ideas and the sort of effort that most wikiprojects engage in. There's no question that an active philosophy wikiproject could pursue this type of initiative and have an impact, but I thought the premise to this discussion was that the participants of this particular wikiproject had been driven off and left the 'pedia without the resources to attempt this sort of thing. There is a chance that if there were a high-profile effort to acknowledge the damage that has been done. One thing that has changed since 2006 is that there is a lot more emphasis on citation, and a lot more editors understand the distinction between primary and secondary sources and so on. The FA process is still being run by good people generally the 'infrastructure' of Wikipedia is better than it was then. I can't speak for the other editors though. It is rather disappointing when Sarah (who is herself an example of a qualified editor who understands Wikipedia thoroughly and is a great asset in every way) says I tend to give up in the face of this, rather than argue, because it feels pointless. That sort of makes me want to give up too. The problem she is talking about is real, and I don't have the sense that many people on this forum acknowledge it. Peter ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 04/10/2010 17:54, Peter Damian wrote: - Original Message - From: Noein prono...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 4:06 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005? I am sincerely asking you, without insinuation: how do you know you're not one of them? What's the difference between the one who knows he knows and the one who doesn't know he doesn't know if it's only about self-perception (or social perception)? Where is the universality of knowledge in this conception if it boils down to intimate convictions ? There are well-established mechanisms for determining this. I have had many papers published, I am currently working collaboratively with another academic on a book on medieval philosophy. I have no problem working with people who understand the rules, I am told the quality of my work is good. This social acceptance (or credentials if you prefer) has a weak epistemological value.[1] It's only convincing for the people of your own circle - whether they're right or wrong is of no relevance -. For people outside your circle, with whom you can't discuss or don't want to, the arguments for your views are reduced to the authority: authority of the number of believers, prestige and ranks of the apostles, influence and mediatisation of the message, power and fearsomeness of the church you belong to, if you allow me to use an analogy. This unilateral way of handling down knowledge to the rest of mankind is a fertile ground for domination about the rights to talk, the ways to think, about the decisions that are to be taken. I'm not saying it's currently happening in your circle. I'm saying that it's an obsolete model for the sharing, free, collaborative, massive project that is wikipedia, and that you won't be able to force it on most individuals. Many editors, I believe, claim some sort of independence of thought, though many don't have the required knowledge to back it up, and I think this is the correct model from which a universal knowledge can be build, despite its current limits (giving the same powers to the ignorant than to the savant). Teach a mind to be critical and it can learn everything. Teach a mind what you believe and you just shaped a sheep. If it's about choosing between expert knowledge and independence of mind, I personally prefer the latter, because it will slowly but ultimately lead to the first, while the reciprocal is not guaranteed. Dealing with humans is much more annoying than with flocks, but that's the only way forward I can envision. That's why I believe that Wikipedia is right demanding sources and objective (not social ones) arguments. Although there is still some indecision if an article should be about what people said (a historical and literal approach), what they thought (a more comprehensive and philosophical one) or what the denoted reality is (a more scientific and objective one). Note, Peter, that I am not rejecting the value of your knowledge, your critics about quality of articles or your proposals. I only disagree about your model of communication of knowledge for wikipedia. [1]: following popperian criteria. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMqgUsAAoJEHCAuDvx9Z6LE/MH/RzfF5fEk9+voftj3fAISAk6 UDzrzPfz/GjTvzbIAc4Vq3XesUsZ2T5ioJ+lcQB3oe31No1RYv3Q8u0heQet9IDo DMFrk0PlWvo8xK6H/7c+h6hXmYCi7Ub1rWu+jtQ+J0LlCwZQASSPFDul2Ahy2B0o P+FIvabE6Msfx+6FLNTlM5NArjfF2St43BobgsTLU5+aVbmGdDLAJI38rruPsG++ 8qxU79dOv9/OhweSfDQGcjZwxU5lu3Wtb7WjcYmHSrp1W1GGhGAsZmDLqM7RMUDc QunkAZxu6FsvZdVbNP6Ufn8X0EW5nDZOepUcZ1kECjARMw3UAnfOHFH4oLwyaqA= =Btvi -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Foundation-l word cloud
Mi piace molto, grazie :) It's fun some particular timezones are highly visible than others, but can you please generate another version which strips all headers like Date:? More content oriented version would be also interested. A presto, On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: You may be interested in the word cloud I created with the full archive of foundation-l: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Foundation-l_word_cloud_small.png You can find it at a bigger resolution and with the source code (if you want to improve it) here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Foundation-l_word_cloud.png Nemo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- KIZU Naoko / 木津尚子 member of Wikimedians in Kansai / 関西ウィキメディアユーザ会 http://kansai.wikimedia.jp ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 10:47, Noein prono...@gmail.com wrote: Teach a mind to be critical and it can learn everything. Teach a mind what you believe and you just shaped a sheep. Exactly. Hence the importance of philosophy. When I argue in favour of philosophy, I'm not arguing in favour of expertise directly, but of critical thinking, which is not something that all experts are necessarily good at. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
- Original Message - From: Noein prono...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, October 04, 2010 5:47 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005? Note, Peter, that I am not rejecting the value of your knowledge, your critics about quality of articles or your proposals. I only disagree about your model of communication of knowledge for wikipedia. I don't care about models of communication, unless they produce results. If the current process were producing articles that belonged to a comprehensive and reliable reference work, I don't mind. I was fascinated with the Wikipedia model when it first came out (I have been regularly editing since early 2003) and I often defend it to the unbelievers. It's a model that works fantastically well for certain things. But for other things, it does not produce results.Under any criterion, some of the articles in the philosophy section are truly awful. Also I'm not sure whether you are suggesting that the academic criterion for quality is somehow flawed, and that if only people like me would learn to put on the right spectacles, we would see that they are in fact good? Or not? Well in any case, Wikipedia's own grading system suggests there is a problem. This is the 3rd time I have posted this. http://toolserver.org/~enwp10/bin/list2.fcgi?run=yesprojecta=Philosophynamespace=0pagename=quality=importance=score=limit=100offset=1sorta=Importancesortb=Quality I would quarrel with the number of 'top' importance articles. I think the number should be more like 100, in line with other disciplines where Wikipedia is 'good'. But I generally agree with the quality assessment. The depressing fact is that articles like 'ancient philosophy' or 'pre-socratic philosophy' are start-class, the article about the subject itself is 'C' as is the article about one of the greatest philosophers of the tradition (Plato). This social acceptance (or credentials if you prefer) has a weak epistemological value.[1] It's only convincing for the people of your own circle - whether they're right or wrong is of no relevance Citation please. All my experience suggests that specialists write better articles than non-specialists. Or to qualify: the typical writer of a 'good' article on Wikipedia is someone who has formal training in the subject but somehow missed getting an academic post. Or who is a postgraduate student looking to sharpen up their writing skills. The few 'good' philosophy articles were written by User:Lacatosias, who falls exactly into that category. Also it's not credentials I look for. I despise credentials. I look for a clear writing style, elegance and economy of expression, logical and evidenced support of views. This is not a credentialled or elitist thing. Anyone can develop these skills. But typically the process of natural selection means that formally-trained editors are more likely to have these skills than not. In summary, the objective of the project is to produce a reliable and comprehensive reference source. Everything else should be subordinate to that goal. Wikipedia is not some gigantic social engineering project. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
On 03.10.2010 17:03, geni wrote: So I can run a 30 second search on the british library catalogue than go back to doing what I was going to do all along. Great use of my time. Wikipedia is about people with knowledge collaborating to add their part to the project. This way Wikipedia is trying to become a repository of the sum of all knowledge. So only those who have verifiable knowledge about a subject should become authors and write about that subject. Those who do not have knowledge should restrict themselves to editorial tasks such as copy editing, the category tree, vandal fighting or whatever. Our usual terms are not really helpful for understanding the difference. Maybe we should stop calling authors editors and distinguish between those edits that add content and those that process preexisting content. The point is verifiable knowledge. Unless you have respectable sources, do not become an author. We don't care if you use google books, your local library, a large research library, your own bookshelf, respectable websites, scientific or government databases, the online edition of respected newspapers, whatever. But those who don't have verifiable knowledge, should not write for Wikipedia. Their contribution is at best useless, at worse they use up time and energy of those who could make better use of their time and energy by writing content. The encyclopedia that anyone can edit - Everyone may, but not everyone can. BTW: The German language Wikipedia has this banner on top of the main page: Willkommen bei Wikipedia Wikipedia ist ein Projekt zum Aufbau einer Enzyklopädie aus freien Inhalten in allen Sprachen der Welt. Jeder kann mit seinem Wissen beitragen. Seit Mai 2001 sind so 1.130.326 Artikel in deutscher Sprache entstanden. Gute Autorinnen und Autoren sind stets willkommen. Welcome to Wikipedia Wikipedia is a project to create an encyclopedia of free content in all the languages of the world. Everyone can contribute with his knowledge. Since Mai 2001 1.130.326 articles in German language were created this way. Good authors are always welcome. Ciao Henning ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
On 4 October 2010 19:31, Henning Schlottmann h.schlottm...@gmx.net wrote: On 03.10.2010 17:03, geni wrote: So I can run a 30 second search on the british library catalogue than go back to doing what I was going to do all along. Great use of my time. Wikipedia is about people with knowledge collaborating to add their part to the project. This way Wikipedia is trying to become a repository of the sum of all knowledge. So only those who have verifiable knowledge about a subject should become authors and write about that subject. Those who do not have knowledge should restrict themselves to editorial tasks such as copy editing, the category tree, vandal fighting or whatever. Our usual terms are not really helpful for understanding the difference. Maybe we should stop calling authors editors and distinguish between those edits that add content and those that process preexisting content. The point is verifiable knowledge. Unless you have respectable sources, do not become an author. We don't care if you use google books, your local library, a large research library, your own bookshelf, respectable websites, scientific or government databases, the online edition of respected newspapers, whatever. But those who don't have verifiable knowledge, should not write for Wikipedia. Their contribution is at best useless, at worse they use up time and energy of those who could make better use of their time and energy by writing content. Can I suggest you stick to trying this argument on new users? The Wikipedia that went from nothing to top ten site was never built on verifiable knowledge. It was built on what people happened to have in their heads. The whole citation thing outside the more controversial areas came later. Don't believe me? This was a featured article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder_of_James_Bulgeroldid=3191413 -- geni ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
On 4 October 2010 19:43, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
The Wikipedia that went from nothing to top ten site was never built
on verifiable knowledge. It was built on what people happened to have
in their heads. The whole citation thing outside the more
controversial areas came later. Don't believe me? This was a featured
article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder_of_James_Bulgeroldid=3191413
This is true - it took until 2005 even to get people to accept the
{[unreferenced}} tag as being a good idea.
I believe we were #20 on Alexa by the end of 2005.
Not that there's anything wrong with references. But yes, claiming
that Wikipedia was built on referenced information is simply a
factually inaccurate claim, and you should not make it.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
On 04.10.2010 20:43, geni wrote: On 4 October 2010 19:31, Henning Schlottmann h.schlottm...@gmx.net wrote: But those who don't have verifiable knowledge, should not write for Wikipedia. Their contribution is at best useless, at worse they use up time and energy of those who could make better use of their time and energy by writing content. The Wikipedia that went from nothing to top ten site was never built on verifiable knowledge. It was built on what people happened to have in their heads. The whole citation thing outside the more controversial areas came later. Don't believe me? This was a featured article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder_of_James_Bulgeroldid=3191413 This time has been over long ago. The turning point was the Seigenthaler affair. It took some time after that until is disseminated into the heart of the project. But now every author, new or old has to know that only verifiable content is welcome and everything else is worthless or even counter productive because it binds time and energy by others. People without access to verifiable knowledge are not welcome as authors. And haven't been for years now. Ciao Henning ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Foundation-l word cloud
phoebe ayers, 04/10/2010 17:29: This is fun! thanks for doing it. It would be interesting to see a version with all of the headers stripped out (dates email terms: mailman/mimedel, etc.) so the content words would really show up. If someone tells me how to do what Werdna suggested (I'm not a progammer)... In the meanwhile, just add stopwords to the talk as phoebe did: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Foundation-l_word_cloud.png I like that community is huge and individual is tiny :) With 1000 words there are lots of funny things to discover. :-D Nemo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
On 04.10.2010 20:43, geni wrote: The Wikipedia that went from nothing to top ten site was never built on verifiable knowledge. It was built on what people happened to have in their heads. The whole citation thing outside the more controversial areas came later. Don't believe me? This was a featured article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder_of_James_Bulgeroldid=3191413 People were regularly insisting on references when I started editing in November 2004. Here's Raul's FA criteria in April 2004 that shows sources were required. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteriaoldid=4077849 The difference was that we didn't have inline citations, so people would add a list of refs at the end of the article, and it was hard to see what supported which point. Sarah ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
Imho the problem is much deeper than citing sources or lack of them. The wikipedian may cite newspaper X, or even researchpaper Y, but because he has limited inderstanding and/or knowledge about the field, he may misinterpret the source or judge its weight in much more absolute terms than the real expert does. Errors may be very subtle. I have seen an edit war between a wikipedian and an expert, where the admin protected the incorrect version of the wikipedian against the changes made by the expert. Motive of the admin: the changes mthis guy makes are not in wikipedia style. And if he thinks there are any errors he should point them out. The expert was fed up with the situation. Sad but true. Having some basic knowledge of the subject, I was able to spot two of the five errors introduced by rewriting the text so that it is easier to read, the other three are probably still there. teun spaans On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 9:14 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 9/20/2010 12:02:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time, peter.dam...@btinternet.com writes: In my experience the problem of humanities in Wikipedia is that the methods and training of the 'experts' is so fundamentally different from that of 'Wikipedians' (who by and large have no training at all) that disputes nearly always turn ugly. You are again stating the problem as expert vs pedestrian (untrained at least). However I again submit that in Wikipedia, you are not an expert because you have a credential, you are an expert because you behave like an expert. When challenged to provide a source, you cite your source and other readers find, that it does actually state what you claim it states. However it seems to me that you'd perhaps like experts to be able to make unchallengeable claims without sources. If I'm wrong in that last sentence, then tell me why being an expert is any different than being any editor at all. What is the actual procedure by which, when an expert edits, we see something different than when anyone edits. I can read a book on the History of the Fourth Crusade, and adds quotes to our articles on the persons and events, just as well as an expert in that specific field. The problem comes, imho, when experts add claims that are unsourced, and when challenged on them, get uppity about it. The issue is not uncited claims, or challenged claims. All of our articles have uncited claims and many have challenged and yet-unfulfilled claims. The issue is how you are proposing these should be treated differently if the claim comes from an expert versus a non-expert, isn't it? So address that. Will Johnson ___ 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] Please delete mo. wikipedia
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:02 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Possibly putting it at the bottom of the *long* list of other problems in need of resolution (e.g. all the volunteer work that's backed up a year or more, as Simetrical noted on wikitech-l) would be an idea. It already is, just like all of the other wiki renames. See this bug about moving mowp: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23217, and the tracking bug for wiki renames: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19986. Renaming wikis is tough and we've got a nice stack of them... so now we're just waiting on a sysadmin to sit down and do them all. -- Casey Brown Cbrown1023 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] subtitles for Wikimedia videos
2010/10/3 Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org: I saw it unfolded now. Thanks! One small issue: 'nds' is not Dutch. It's Low Saxon. And I have no subtitle selection menu (just an on/off switch that gives me random language subtitles) with HTML5, but I guess that's a problem of either my browser or YouTube and cannot be fixed on Wikimedia's side. Thanks for the report. I've made a renewed call for translations here: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/translators-l/2010-October/001184.html Please continue to report any issues. We'll import any new translations and fixes after the translation deadline, October 15. If anyone wants to volunteer with some process clean-up, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Timed_Text could use some love (and the actual TimedText UI should ideally have some JavaScript goodness to add translations). -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://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] Foundation-l word cloud
In looking at the contents of the gzip'ed archives, stripping out the headers does not look trivial, but it appears that it could be done in most cases. A whole other problem is quoted text. Any preference on whether or not that should be included as well? If it is included, the word are not entirely accurate. Peter On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.comwrote: phoebe ayers, 04/10/2010 17:29: This is fun! thanks for doing it. It would be interesting to see a version with all of the headers stripped out (dates email terms: mailman/mimedel, etc.) so the content words would really show up. If someone tells me how to do what Werdna suggested (I'm not a progammer)... In the meanwhile, just add stopwords to the talk as phoebe did: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Foundation-l_word_cloud.png I like that community is huge and individual is tiny :) With 1000 words there are lots of funny things to discover. :-D Nemo ___ 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] Please delete mo. wikipedia
That is a questionable assumption. Mo.wp's sitenotice explains that if you'd prefer to view Moldovan content in Latin, the official alphabet of the Republic of Moldova, you may find it at ro.wp. I am willing to bet that most of the people who have signed these petitions will be upset if any Cyrillic Moldovan content exists in any form on our website, which to me is not solvable without compromising someone's linguistic rights. -m. 2010/10/4 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com: On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:53 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 4 October 2010 14:36, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Since this regularly comes up on this list, and the request is outstanding since 2006, maybe at the bottom of the to-do pile isn't the right place. Wouldn't the smartest temporary solution be to redirect mo.wp to ro.wp and move mo.wp to ro-cyrl.wp? That doesn't seem like a terribly difficult change to implement. We don't need a perfect final solution in order to make a reasonable interim change that will likely satisfy most if not all parties. What would satisfy the one regular spammer who shows any care is its complete removal in every regard, and nothing less. It is unclear how your proposal addresses this. - d. Because it eliminates the suggestion that the Wikimedia Foundation equates Moldovan with Romanian in Cyrillic? That seems to be the crux of the issue... ___ 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] Please delete mo. wikipedia
2010/10/4 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com: alternate script of Romanian (i.e. mo.wp vs. ro-cyrl.wp). As for linguistic rights... Not really relevant, is it? But I guess the How is it not relevant? To me, that is at the very heart of this case: the right of a language community to exist and for us to provide reasonable accommodations for them (or not), regardless of the opinions of others. We don't generally and should not allow one community to vote to exclude a language or language variety, regardless of geopolitical issues. -m. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Please delete mo. wikipedia
Also, note that it is not the Moldovans who are being ignored. There is one persistent spammer. Yes, it is clear people support him judging by the petitions he's shown us, but I gave them a glance and found many of the signatures are not from Moldovans. Here is one example of a signature on that petition: The usa,the russians and so on must stop supporting the dictatorship in Moldova and let the people free with in a country that they own,Romania ! The communist dictator in the Moldova Republic must be stopped,and get him out of there. That dictator Vladimir Voronin is not only supported by usa government ,Russia government but also by the Russia red army to destroy the Rmanian people-Romanian culture-Romanian language on Romania soil ! R- Moldovke never existed,this is a creation of a criminal regim inposed on people that are under the ocupation ,the people in the province of Romania BASARABIA speak mainly Romanian,not Arabic,Chinese,Lebanese the russian was inposed on them by force . So then, much like the original vote for closing mo.wp, this turns out to be another proxy war between Romanians and Russians. -m. 2010/10/4 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com: On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 5:03 PM, M. Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: That is a questionable assumption. Mo.wp's sitenotice explains that if you'd prefer to view Moldovan content in Latin, the official alphabet of the Republic of Moldova, you may find it at ro.wp. I am willing to bet that most of the people who have signed these petitions will be upset if any Cyrillic Moldovan content exists in any form on our website, which to me is not solvable without compromising someone's linguistic rights. -m. It seems to me that identifying *the* Moldovan Wikipedia as a Cyrillic project is substantially different than hosting a project for an alternate script of Romanian (i.e. mo.wp vs. ro-cyrl.wp). As for linguistic rights... Not really relevant, is it? But I guess the problem remains getting a developer to actually do the work. The Foundation has been hiring a huge number of people lately, but I haven't seen too many tech hiring announcements - in fact, they even brought Brion back part-time (without announcing it here, as far as I could tell). I can see why the Moldovans would be frustrated by having been ignored for years, even as dozens of staff announcements are made, offices are opened in India, the projects are reskinned, etc. ___ 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] Foundation-l word cloud
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 12:10 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 4 October 2010 10:51, K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au wrote: Although I don't have a issue with it, but you may wish to double check the licensing you have attached to those uploads, since from understanding is that copyright and ownership does apply to emails. Not even within Commons level of copyright paranoia is a word count chart encumbered. Like! Delphine -- ~notafish NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost. Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Foundation-l word cloud
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 7:48 AM, Peter Gehres in2that...@gmail.com wrote: In looking at the contents of the gzip'ed archives, stripping out the headers does not look trivial, but it appears that it could be done in most cases. A whole other problem is quoted text. Any preference on whether or not that should be included as well? If it is included, the word are not entirely accurate. If it is including quoted passages, a simple way to address this is to remove any line starting with '' and all attachments. btw, very interesting Nemo! -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Foundation-l word cloud
If it is including quoted passages, a simple way to address this is to remove any line starting with '' and all attachments. That is what I was planning to do. I was referring to it as a problem in reference to incidence. I am currently working on a python implementation that strips headers and quoted passages. One problem I have discovered is that the gzip'd archives often contain multiple copies of the same message (matching message-ids in the header). I am removing duplicates and the count after this operation matched the count when viewed online in the archives. -Peter ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] The Signpost – Volume 6 Issue 4 0 – 4 October 2010
News and notes: German chapter remodeled to meet Foundation requirements, and more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-10-04/News_and_notes In the news: Spanish police pursues BLP vandals, Jimbo interviewed, advice for experts and spammers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-10-04/In_the_news Book review: Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia, by Joseph Reagle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-10-04/Book_review WikiProject report: Hot topics with WikiProject Volcanoes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-10-04/WikiProject_report Features and admins: Milestone: 2,500th featured picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-10-04/Features_and_admins Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-10-04/Arbitration_report Technology report: Code reviewers, October Engineering update, brief news http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-10-04/Technology_report Single page view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single PDF version http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-10-04 http://identi.ca/wikisignpost / https://twitter.com/wikisignpost -- Wikipedia Signpost Staff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
On 04/10/2010 19:43, geni wrote: The Wikipedia that went from nothing to top ten site was never built on verifiable knowledge. It was built on what people happened to have in their heads. The whole citation thing outside the more controversial areas came later. Don't believe me? This was a featured article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder_of_James_Bulgeroldid=3191413 Have you looked at the current version of that page? Every sentence has at least one ref, it looks like a spider has fallen into an ink well and then run backwards and forwards across the page. Typographically the result is a mess and almost unreadable with great gaps between one word and the next. I'd be amazed if there weren't less than a dozen sources that cover the entire sorry affair and each paragraph covered by 1 reference. 100 different references smacks of OCD. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 11:17 AM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: On 04/10/2010 19:43, geni wrote: The Wikipedia that went from nothing to top ten site was never built on verifiable knowledge. It was built on what people happened to have in their heads. The whole citation thing outside the more controversial areas came later. Don't believe me? This was a featured article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder_of_James_Bulgeroldid=3191413 Have you looked at the current version of that page? Every sentence has at least one ref, it looks like a spider has fallen into an ink well and then run backwards and forwards across the page. Typographically the result is a mess and almost unreadable with great gaps between one word and the next. I'd be amazed if there weren't less than a dozen sources that cover the entire sorry affair and each paragraph covered by 1 reference. 100 different references smacks of OCD. Inline references can be very distracting when reading. Here is a quick fix http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John_Vandenberg/vector.css The IE workaround filter: alpha(opacity=50); isn't working for me. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Foundation-l word cloud
I uploaded my version of the cloud [1] to the same location. I removed all duplicate emails from the archives and omitted all subjects and quoted text. phoebe ayers, 04/10/2010 17:29: This is fun! thanks for doing it. It would be interesting to see a version with all of the headers stripped out (dates email terms: mailman/mimedel, etc.) so the content words would really show up. Are there any other tweaks you want? -Peter Gehres [1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Foundation-l_word_cloud.png ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Foundation-l word cloud
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Peter Gehres in2that...@gmail.com wrote: I uploaded my version of the cloud [1] to the same location. I removed all duplicate emails from the archives and omitted all subjects and quoted text. Very nice. Not surprisingly, .. Wikipedia - huge Commons - medium (blue, beneath 'foundation-l') Wikinews - small (brown, near 'see') Wiktionary - tiny (blue, in the t of 'foundation-l') Can anyone see wikisource? (weep) -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
