Re: [WikiEN-l] [Slashdot] The Role of Experts In Wikipedia

2009-02-19 Thread Charlotte Webb
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 ..

2009-02-19 Thread Erik Moeller
.. 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

2009-02-19 Thread Eugene van der Pijll
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

2009-02-19 Thread Ian Woollard
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

2009-02-19 Thread Charles Matthews

 >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

2009-02-19 Thread Carcharoth
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

2009-02-19 Thread Charles Matthews
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?

2009-02-19 Thread Jay Litwyn

"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