Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 11:27 PM, Carl Beckhorn wrote: > Regardless of the history, Sanger does have a viewpoint that would be > worth reading even if the author were anonymous. Only, he does not feel this way about the viewpoints of others who are anonymous. On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Carcharoth wrote: > So maybe I should have read that draft instead. It would be nice to > know which versions were approved by the three editors above, and at > what stage. Ah, be patient, Carch. Since enwiki rejects FlaggedRevs as antithetical to open editing, I predict Larry will pick up on it as it affords Sangerpedia a cheap, trivial way to be Radically Different from Jimbopedia. Actually using the tool, to tighten up the status quo which he considers Still Too Open (to dissent, for example), will just be a pleasant side effect. The same can be said about knowing who approved which edits, this helps those studying the editorial forensics of a failing project but it is still secondary to creating a deep philosophical contrast. On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > I'm just going by the statistics, I'm not making any judgements based > on anything else. At the moment, we seem to be following a logistic > curve which levels out at around 3.5 million articles in around > 2013-14. "The end is near!" "Which end?" In breadth of coverage Wikipedia is still in its early adolescence. Myself I learned a lesson about guessing numbers—don't bother, sweet chariot, you'll always swing too low. On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > I think a lot of people that like writing new articles don't like the fine > tuning > that is required to get from Good to Featured I don't know about all that. When I write a new article I don't like the pedantic ref-bombing that is needed to prevent it from being deleted 16.9 seconds later... but I still do it... to hell with the other stuff. —C.W. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] Wiki-to-print running in Simple English ..
.. among other languages: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/02/20/wiki-to-print-feature-activated-in-six-more-wikipedia-languages/ Now is a good time to start playing with it; en.wp is coming soon. :-) Erik -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen schreef: > Would there be any workable way to create a big (huge?) "Missing > Articles" project by somehow mass generating a list of the > various non-English language articles still not translated > to the English language wikipedia? I did something like this, four years ago. Made a list of all German articles with some interwiki links but no link to enwiki. I posted it at the WikiProject Missing Articles, and there were several people who were interested in working on it. See [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/de]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/fr]]. It may be worth doing this again. (But I lack the resources of doing it at the moment, as the database dumps have grown too much for me to handle them.) Eugene ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] BBC radio 5 Interview with Jimmy Wales
There's an excerpt at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7894719.stm And the full interview lasts half an hour and starts about 1:07:30: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00hlnfv/Richard_Bacon_16_02_2009/ -- -Ian Woollard We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. Life in a perfectly imperfect world would be *much* better. Life in an imperfectly perfect world would be pretty ghastly though. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
>Does anyone know the answer to the opposite question? How many > articles on the English Wikipedia lack interwiki links? It is possible > (but less likely) that the articles exist in both places, but haven't > been linked with an interwiki yet. I find examples of that fairly > regularly, but am not sure how common it is. > > Carcharoth > > I was just doing a sample of 50 pages on enWP anyway to estimate the mean number of interwiki links - it's around three, but clearly skewed by hitting very common topics. Anyway, it doesn't seem stupid to divide total articles in Wikipedias by 3 to get total unique topics: enWP probably has more unique topics than other languages. So, guess what, consistent with "one million to translate" as ballpark figure. On the question posed by Carcharoth, it looks like around half of enWP's articles have no interwiki. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Charles Matthews wrote: > Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: >> Personally I think this is a very interesting point. You will >> forgive if I have asked this before, and not gotten a reply. >> (I honestly forget if I have broached this subject before, I >> know I have often thought I should ask the question.) >> >> Does anyone know how many unique (that is not reproduced >> around other languages) articles there are in toto in the >> non-English language wikipedias, which do not have a >> corresponding English language wikipedia article? Can >> even a rough estimate be made? >> > > On the basis of clicking "Zufälliger Artikel" 50 times, it looks to me > like around 50% of deWP articles do not have interwiki to enWP. Only a > small proportion of those without such interwiki look like they should > have a corresponding article in enWP. The proportion with interwiki but > no English interwiki is not huge - say 25%? This is not a very > sophisticated technique from a statistical point of view, but it could > be refined to get a better view by sampling of the overlapping of the > Wikipedias. It all suggests the answer to the question is "around one > million" - not 50 (too low), not two million (maybe too high?). Does anyone know the answer to the opposite question? How many articles on the English Wikipedia lack interwiki links? It is possible (but less likely) that the articles exist in both places, but haven't been linked with an interwiki yet. I find examples of that fairly regularly, but am not sure how common it is. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > Personally I think this is a very interesting point. You will > forgive if I have asked this before, and not gotten a reply. > (I honestly forget if I have broached this subject before, I > know I have often thought I should ask the question.) > > Does anyone know how many unique (that is not reproduced > around other languages) articles there are in toto in the > non-English language wikipedias, which do not have a > corresponding English language wikipedia article? Can > even a rough estimate be made? > On the basis of clicking "Zufälliger Artikel" 50 times, it looks to me like around 50% of deWP articles do not have interwiki to enWP. Only a small proportion of those without such interwiki look like they should have a corresponding article in enWP. The proportion with interwiki but no English interwiki is not huge - say 25%? This is not a very sophisticated technique from a statistical point of view, but it could be refined to get a better view by sampling of the overlapping of the Wikipedias. It all suggests the answer to the question is "around one million" - not 50 (too low), not two million (maybe too high?). Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Is "Copyrighted Freeware" CCbySA?
"Todd Allen" wrote in message news:2a34d5a90902162103lfd8202fmcbe76978816f2...@mail.gmail.com... > On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Jay Litwyn wrote: >> "Todd Allen" wrote in message >> news:2a34d5a90902152157k5534f173g83c5c67ad6f83...@mail.gmail.com... >> regarding http://www.fractint.org/ >> (...) >>> If the intent of the license is "We could force someone to pay for >>> distribution rights at some point and deny them those rights if they >>> don't pay up", it is not a free license. Free licenses include freedom >>> to use commercially. >> (...) >> >> Some of the authors of the software provide full contact addresses >> (e-mail >> and snail), so I think CC-BY-SA tag applies; if you change it, use it, or >> want work done on it, then remuneration by donation is *somewhat* >> optional, >> and you cannot market the changes, because the people who provided the >> code >> did not intend it for sale. If some major distributor picked it up, or >> someone did a major overhaul to make it run under Windows proper, and >> then >> sold it (I suspect that UltraFractal is along those lines, because it >> contains a bug in the outside=atan view that was in a version of Fractint >> before ver. 2003), then royalties would come due, and it would be >> impractical to figure out who is owed how much. So, I am still thinking >> CC-BY-SA, and at cost or less. >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> WikiEN-l mailing list >> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >> > > CC-BY-SA doesn't have or allow mandatory payments. It requires only > that you must attribute the original author(s) when redistributing, > and may not change the license. You may be thinking of something more > like CC-BY-SA-NC, which is not a free license. CC-BY-SA allows > commercial use and/or sale without payment, provided that attribution > is done and the license is not changed. I think that might be the usual use of NC -- to reserve commercial use or get yourself in on it. From Winfract's about box, "WinFract is copyrighted freeware, and may not be distributed for commercial purposes without written permission from the Stone Soup Group. Distribution of Winfract by BBS, network, and software distributors, etc. is encouraged." CC-BY-SA-NC I am not sure about SA, and I suspect that it is the case. The ND would have to be spelt out, researched, or guessed in a lot of cases. I said that I consider default parameters (and documented parameters) to be copyrighted, and that is idle speculation -- might not be the case. Some parameter sets are copyrighted. Some could do with a better colouring job. Formulas are all over the place, including tight holdings. ___ http://edmc.net/~brewhaha/Fractal_Gallery.HTM ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
