Re: [WikiEN-l] Bible websites
David Gerard wrote: 2009/7/6 Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com: You're right. To atone for my sins, here the auto-comparing toolserver tool I hacked since my first mail: http://toolserver.org/~magnus/biblebay.php?bookname=Johnrange=3%3A16-3%3A18 :-O That would be more or less precisely what I was thinking of. Well done! The Qur'an could be treated in a similar way. Ec ___ 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] Bible websites
David Gerard wrote: 2009/7/7 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: 2009/7/6 Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com: You're right. To atone for my sins, here the auto-comparing toolserver tool I hacked since my first mail: http://toolserver.org/~magnus/biblebay.php?bookname=Johnrange=3%3A16-3%3A18 :-O That would be more or less precisely what I was thinking of. Well done! Feature suggestion: original untranslated verse (Hebrew or Greek) at top. Also links to corresponding pages in other languages. Ec ___ 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] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 5:01 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: The reason BASIC was and still enjoys wide popularity is because it's easier to learn. The example does not make the substantial point because it veers so strongly to the opposite end of the spectrum as to be unrelated to the argument whatsoever. I never suggested that a language should *mimic* English (or a bizarre type of hyper-English). I welcome however, anyone who wants to actually conduct this argument, on Earth. The difference between this thread and the parallel one on wikitech-l: that thread quickly focussed on four genuine candidates: Lua, Python, JavaScript and PHP. People identified the basic requirements (security, speed...) and pointed out the pros and cons of each language, in terms of available interpreters, tried and tested experiments with sandboxing each, etc. Here, we're talking about bringing back BASIC because it's so much more readable. *yawn* Steve ___ 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] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
Steve Bennett wrote: On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 5:01 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: The reason BASIC was and still enjoys wide popularity is because it's easier to learn. The example does not make the substantial point because it veers so strongly to the opposite end of the spectrum as to be unrelated to the argument whatsoever. I never suggested that a language should *mimic* English (or a bizarre type of hyper-English). I welcome however, anyone who wants to actually conduct this argument, on Earth. The difference between this thread and the parallel one on wikitech-l: that thread quickly focussed on four genuine candidates: Lua, Python, JavaScript and PHP. People identified the basic requirements (security, speed...) and pointed out the pros and cons of each language, in terms of available interpreters, tried and tested experiments with sandboxing each, etc. Here, we're talking about bringing back BASIC because it's so much more readable. *yawn* Steve Can we take this discussion back to wikitech-l now, please, and focus on specific, concrete proposals for syntax reform and/or language replacement? -- Neil ___ 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] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
Um.. no we're not. Here, we're talking about bringing back BASIC because it's so much more readable. *yawn* -Original Message- From: Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Jul 8, 2009 12:13 am Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 5:01 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: The reason BASIC was and still enjoys wide popularity is because it's easier to learn. The example does not make the substantial point because it veers so strongly to the opposite end of the spectrum as to be unrelated to the argument whatsoever. ?I never suggested that a language should *mimic* English (or a bizarre type of hyper-English). I welcome however, anyone who wants to actually conduct this argument, on Earth. The difference between this thread and the parallel one on wikitech-l: that thread quickly focussed on four genuine candidates: Lua, Python, JavaScript and PHP. People identified the basic requirements (security, speed...) and pointed out the pros and cons of each language, in terms of available interpreters, tried and tested experiments with sandboxing each, etc. Here, we're talking about bringing back BASIC because it's so much more readable. *yawn* Steve ___ 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 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] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
wjhon...@aol.com wrote: Um.. no we're not. Here, we're talking about bringing back BASIC because it's so much more readable. *yawn* Do you have a concrete example of the alternative language, or alternative syntax for the existing language, that you are proposing as an alternative to the current state of affairs? If so, could you please post it to wikitech-l? -- Neil ___ 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] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
My entire point Neil was simply that, short-time-to-learn should also be a consideration.? To me, a language that borrows heavily from an *already known* source like English or even BASIC is easier to learn, than one which requires that every command be learned again without any prior foundation.? I am not a subscriber to tech.? I don't think I want to be. Do you have a concrete example of the alternative language, or alternative syntax for the existing language, that you are proposing as an alternative to the current state of affairs? -Original Message- From: Neil Harris use...@tonal.clara.co.uk To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wed, Jul 8, 2009 2:51 am Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language wjhon...@aol.com wrote: Um.. no we're not. Here, we're talking about bringing back BASIC because it's so much more readable. *yawn* Do you have a concrete example of the alternative language, or alternative syntax for the existing language, that you are proposing as an alternative to the current state of affairs? If so, could you please post it to wikitech-l? -- Neil ___ 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 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] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Neil Harrisuse...@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote: snip Wikitech-l is undoubtedly the right forum for this discussion, so we really should continue this discussion there. It would be nice is discussion of the non-technical aspects continued here and some of it fed back to wiki-tech-l, such as the pleas for a manual and help pages that are well-written and people can understand. I find it rather difficult to understand exactly what you want here. Could you please give an example, even a rough one, of the sort of syntax you are proposing? snip I think he wants to reduce the number of curly brackets. 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] Policy inquiry - slack for blocked users venting on their talk page
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 3:34 AM, Fred Bauderfredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: I had thought we'd formally policyized the please leave blocked users alone on their talk page and don't block them if they vent about the block (short of making threats against people, etc), but I can't find anything on-wiki that has it in writing. I know I've had discussions with people about it before and there was a general admins consensus that it was a good thing - but it does not appear to be written down in policy, guideline, or an Arbcom decision I can find. Am I missing something, or did we really never write it down? If we did not, we probably should rectify that, and I'll SOFIXIT - but I wanted to ping out to other experienced people first to see if anyone could remember where it might be written that I just haven't found yet. Thanks! It is written: Allow this user to edit own talk page while blocked. (Disable only for users known to abuse own talk page.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Block/ and at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Setting_block_options Allow this user to edit own talk page while blocked if unchecked will prevent the blocked user from editing their own talk page, including requesting unblock. This option should not be unchecked by default; editing of the user's talk page should only be disabled in the case of continued abuse of the talk page. That covers protecting user talk pages (either directly or preventing the editor themselves from editing it), but what about people ranting on talk pages *after* their block has expired. That would be reblocks due to venting about just-expired block. That might be more tricky. 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] Bible websites
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 6:08 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/7/6 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com: Hm. Of course, Tim is right - if its public/open domain then wikisource should host it and we will then link to it. The issue with the hebtools site/script is that most of its links go to BibleGateway. Obviously the current script's sources need to be changed to include both other gateways like bible.cc and of course wikisource. A choice of gateways would be preferable. The current hosted translations/versions on wikisource are: * Bible (Wycliffe) (1380s) * Bible (Tyndale) (1526) * Douay-Rheims Bible (1610) * King James translation, or “Authorized Version” (1611) * King James translation, Oxford Standard (1769) * American Standard translation (1901) * Bible (Jewish Publication Society 1917) * World English translation (in progress since 1997) * Wikisource translation (in progress since 2006) Is there anything that will show the same verse in several translations at once? That would be ideal - highly educational. That would require something less like wiki pages and more like a database at the other end. Or someone laboriously compiling wiki pages of the form en.wiki---.org/wiki/John/3/16 . Wikisource does this whenever someone can be bothered adding the necessary glue. e.g. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible/Jude/1/1 see here for more: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex/Bible/ -- John Vandenberg ___ 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] Policy inquiry - slack for blocked users venting on their talk page
This has come up a number of times (as GWH says). We aim to avoid a block - uncivil - extend block - more uncivil cycle. As best I recall, the point is that users who rant against the blocking admin for blocking them, or against Wikipedia generally, or about the unfairness of the block, or even mild threats ... if a good answer is simply Sorry, but you'll have to sit out the block and that's likely to resolve it, then that's what should be done. If the attacks or language get to a point that it's untenable to allow that, then one might lock the page to prevent them doing so with a message sorry but this kind of language isn't ok while blocked, your page has been locked until the block ends. This protection will be removed if you confirm by email you will refrain from such language in future, or you can appeal the block by email to Such an approach may be better than extending the block, since it prevents them acting up while blocked. If they really do act up in a bad way then yes, an extension of block may well be justified. For example, if the response to a block is outing, threats, socking/disruption, serious defamation (user X is a pedophile and user Y supports murdering babies!) or they'd done the same a lot in the past, then I'd have no hesitation extending the block. Then again in some cases I'd just warn, then wait to see if they continue. usual admin judgement applies and not all admins will draw their lines in the same places. Hope that helps. it's not a fixed view, but its some indication how I would see it. FT2 On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote: On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 3:34 AM, Fred Bauderfredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: I had thought we'd formally policyized the please leave blocked users alone on their talk page and don't block them if they vent about the block (short of making threats against people, etc), but I can't find anything on-wiki that has it in writing. I know I've had discussions with people about it before and there was a general admins consensus that it was a good thing - but it does not appear to be written down in policy, guideline, or an Arbcom decision I can find. Am I missing something, or did we really never write it down? If we did not, we probably should rectify that, and I'll SOFIXIT - but I wanted to ping out to other experienced people first to see if anyone could remember where it might be written that I just haven't found yet. Thanks! It is written: Allow this user to edit own talk page while blocked. (Disable only for users known to abuse own talk page.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Block/ and at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Setting_block_options Allow this user to edit own talk page while blocked if unchecked will prevent the blocked user from editing their own talk page, including requesting unblock. This option should not be unchecked by default; editing of the user's talk page should only be disabled in the case of continued abuse of the talk page. That covers protecting user talk pages (either directly or preventing the editor themselves from editing it), but what about people ranting on talk pages *after* their block has expired. That would be reblocks due to venting about just-expired block. That might be more tricky. 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 ___ 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] Policy inquiry - slack for blocked users venting on their talk page
Such an approach may be better than extending the block, since it prevents them acting up while blocked... Better: *Such an approach may be better than extending the block, since it prevents them acting up and creating a spiral of increased problems for themselves while they are blocked. * In simple terms, the aim is that users who would talk themselves out of a mild heated point into a major division and hardened stance, should not be pushed in the latter direction by punishing their ignorable anger at the block. At the same time the preventative/deterrent purpose of the original block (intended to say you can't act that way here) should equally be respected, and if their response is not so ignorable that should be respected too. ___ 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] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Sheldon Ramptonshel...@prwatch.org wrote: (1) No WYSIWYG editing system. Browsers by limitation are not real WYSIWIG editing systems, and because WP is a website, its nearly entirely dependent on the browser. New functionality, regardless of its development, is mostly either proprietary or useless unless the W3C deals with it. One improvement that comes to mind is text edit fields that are readable and formattable, so the distinction between presentation and editing text is blurred - maybe quick shifting between edit and view modes. If you look at Wikipedia pages and really compare them to what has now... Much of what is called web 2.0, aside from Wikipedia itself, is just video - some of it useful - all but all of it running on the proprietary Adobe Flash plugin for the forseeable future. The rest is organizational and layers that hide lower level functions. Wiki of course came out of the widespread love people have for hand-coding HTML. And Tweets could have shown up nine years ago, but they didn't. Its the concepts that are changing, not the technology so much. So why aren't those features already in place? Keep in mind also that most necessary improvements are subtle, while overt improvements are often borking. -Steven ___ 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] The terrorists have won
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 8:10 PM, genigeni...@gmail.com wrote: There is also the same issue for those involved on the on wikipedia censorship. How much of this did they know? What was the wording of the request Jimbo received? The main issue now for all involved is saving face. This is an important concept for those of us who have a public face and don't want egg on it. The best part of all this is, aside from Rohde and company managing to extend their stays on Earth, is that we are all basically off the hook as far as journalistic ethics go anyway - we're an encyclopedia. -Stevertigo ___ 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] The terrorists have won
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 11:35 AM, George Herbertgeorge.herb...@gmail.com wrote: Some things are not easily describable and modelable in the in-wiki mental model and process. Things that are not describable and modelable in the in-wiki but are so in the private news org model? Hm. Pay, danger, and reputation first come to mind. We are not currently prepared to be entirely community-wide consensusly responsible and ethical and consistent about some news stories which are actively evolving. We're not supposed to be doing that anyways. We're an encyclopedia (WP, at least), not a news source. Applying our build an encyclopedia logic, ethics, structure, consensus to other types of information may work particularly badly. Well news orgs, aside from a few things, are doing it mostly right. Wikinews didn't set out to be a news org at first, and it still isn't, for the simple reason that adding a little Hawaiian word (with very non-English phonosemantics) to the front of whatever English word/concept does not mean something real will come out of it. We do other things badly. And we are good at those. Stevertigo You are a light.. the calm in the day ___ 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] Policy inquiry - slack for blocked users venting on their talk page
Actually, a current poll is running 38-18 in favor of treating talk page incivility the same as incivility anywhere else. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility/Poll#Should_a_user.27s_own_talk_page_be_considered_differently.3F -Durova On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 5:58 AM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: Such an approach may be better than extending the block, since it prevents them acting up while blocked... Better: *Such an approach may be better than extending the block, since it prevents them acting up and creating a spiral of increased problems for themselves while they are blocked. * In simple terms, the aim is that users who would talk themselves out of a mild heated point into a major division and hardened stance, should not be pushed in the latter direction by punishing their ignorable anger at the block. At the same time the preventative/deterrent purpose of the original block (intended to say you can't act that way here) should equally be respected, and if their response is not so ignorable that should be respected too. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ 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] Policy inquiry - slack for blocked users venting on their talk page
The question being discussed there is: Should a user's own talk page be considered differently? There has been discussion in past as to whether a post on a user's talk page, often in reply to a hostile poster, should be treated more leniently than posting elsewhere on other discussion or WP pages where dialogue occurs. Please indicate views below. That is different from the question here (which is a subset of that one), which is how to treat blocked, or recently blocked, users who are venting on their talk page at the injustice of being blocked. I would add that in this context, the hostile poster is sometimes the blocking admin making inflammatory remarks, or other users arriving to comment where they should stay away (I've been guilty of the latter, sometimes). There may be no hostile intent, but the blocked user can sometimes see the posts to their user pages as hostile, especially if they have just been blocked and are angry about it. Carcharoth On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 7:13 PM, Durovanadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote: Actually, a current poll is running 38-18 in favor of treating talk page incivility the same as incivility anywhere else. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility/Poll#Should_a_user.27s_own_talk_page_be_considered_differently.3F -Durova On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 5:58 AM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: Such an approach may be better than extending the block, since it prevents them acting up while blocked... Better: *Such an approach may be better than extending the block, since it prevents them acting up and creating a spiral of increased problems for themselves while they are blocked. * In simple terms, the aim is that users who would talk themselves out of a mild heated point into a major division and hardened stance, should not be pushed in the latter direction by punishing their ignorable anger at the block. At the same time the preventative/deterrent purpose of the original block (intended to say you can't act that way here) should equally be respected, and if their response is not so ignorable that should be respected too. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ 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 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] The terrorists have won
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, stevertigo wrote: It's not just the Times' fault for not having the journalistic integrity to describe the situation accurately, it's ours for trusting them. We *shouldn't* trust someone with a conflict of interest. The fact that we did so shows that we don't have a good enough grasp on what it means to have a conflict of interest. Well to be fair, the concept of saving the human life is compelling - no less so if its someone known personally. And eagerly assisting in that life-saving should also be understood as a compelling concept. The claim that we shouldn't have trusted wasn't this helps save a human life, but the tradeoff is good. The case for *that* was much less compelling, and much more likely to be affected by a conflict of interest. ___ 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] The terrorists have won
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Ian Woollard wrote: But if they do make demands about silence, it is our ethical duty to... censor ourselves? Yeah, why not? Just because your enemy want something to happen, doesn't mean you don't want it as well. But it has some negative effects that they don't care about and we do. For instance, modifying our articles when a hostage is threatened encourages other terrorists to take hostages. How long until some terrorist demands that we alter our Jenin article to say that Israel committed a massacre, or else they start executing hostages, now that we've demonstrated that we can be coerced in that way? ___ 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] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
In a message dated 7/8/2009 3:23:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
use...@tonal.clara.co.uk writes:
For example, how would you write something like, say, this artificial
example:
{{#switch:
{{#iferror: {{#expr: {{{1}}} + {{{2}}} }} | error | correct }}
| error = that's an error
| correct = {{{1}}} + {{{2}}} = {{#expr: {{{1}}} + {{{2}}}
in your new notation?
I don't have any new notation Neil. I don't have a new language.
In fact we shouldn't be trying to create a *new* language.
If we have four proposed languages from which to choose, then one of the
criteria should be easy to understand, intuitive to the novice.
That is my point. That's been my point.
Will
**
Looking for love this summer? Find it now on AOL Personals.
(http://personals.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntuslove0003)
___
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] The terrorists have won
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Ian Woollard wrote: But if they do make demands about silence, it is our ethical duty to... censor ourselves? Yeah, why not? Just because your enemy want something to happen, doesn't mean you don't want it as well. But it has some negative effects that they don't care about and we do. For instance, modifying our articles when a hostage is threatened encourages other terrorists to take hostages. How long until some terrorist demands that we alter our Jenin article to say that Israel committed a massacre, or else they start executing hostages, now that we've demonstrated that we can be coerced in that way? I have a hard time believing you honestly see that as even a remote possibility. In the extraordinarily unlikely case that a psychotic terrorist takes someone hostage to effect a short term change in a *Wikipedia article*, I doubt our prior response to such pressure will figure significantly in his/her decision process. ___ 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] Bible websites
Despite being at least semi off topic, I must comment on this: The Bible is a well-known ancient work with great cultural significance. Its status as fiction or fact is almost beside the point. It is accurate about what it itself says, which can be cited as appropriate to inform articles where what it said was/is relevant. But there is a widespread abuse of citing the bible and it will not get better by providing technical means to better cite the bible. What I mean is giving bible citations as reference for theological statements. There are two thousand years of struggling factions of christianity and libraries full of interpretations of bible verses. You cannot ignore this and propose that the bible verse can speak for itself. Peter -- Neu: GMX Doppel-FLAT mit Internet-Flatrate + Telefon-Flatrate für nur 19,99 Euro/mtl.!* http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl02 ___ 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] Policy inquiry - slack for blocked users venting on their talk page
The question being discussed there is: Should a user's own talk page be considered differently? There has been discussion in past as to whether a post on a user's talk page, often in reply to a hostile poster, should be treated more leniently than posting elsewhere on other discussion or WP pages where dialogue occurs. Please indicate views below. That is different from the question here (which is a subset of that one), which is how to treat blocked, or recently blocked, users who are venting on their talk page at the injustice of being blocked. I would add that in this context, the hostile poster is sometimes the blocking admin making inflammatory remarks, or other users arriving to comment where they should stay away (I've been guilty of the latter, sometimes). There may be no hostile intent, but the blocked user can sometimes see the posts to their user pages as hostile, especially if they have just been blocked and are angry about it. Carcharoth Even so great a personage as Larry Sanger got hostile if you posted anything too critical or argumentative on his talk page. Some people are just that way. Better not to fight human nature. (Also better to never give them the mop) Fred On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 7:13 PM, Durovanadezhda.dur...@gmail.com wrote: Actually, a current poll is running 38-18 in favor of treating talk page incivility the same as incivility anywhere else. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility/Poll#Should_a_user.27s_own_talk_page_be_considered_differently.3F -Durova On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 5:58 AM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: Such an approach may be better than extending the block, since it prevents them acting up while blocked... Better: *Such an approach may be better than extending the block, since it prevents them acting up and creating a spiral of increased problems for themselves while they are blocked. * In simple terms, the aim is that users who would talk themselves out of a mild heated point into a major division and hardened stance, should not be pushed in the latter direction by punishing their ignorable anger at the block. At the same time the preventative/deterrent purpose of the original block (intended to say you can't act that way here) should equally be respected, and if their response is not so ignorable that should be respected too. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ 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 mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ 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] Bible websites
In a message dated 7/8/2009 11:51:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time, peter_jac...@gmx.net writes: There are two thousand years of struggling factions of christianity and libraries full of interpretations of bible verses. You cannot ignore this and propose that the bible verse can speak for itself. --- The only thing that is being proposed is that in those articles where we have a bible verse citation, that we alter the way it's treated. Will ** Looking for love this summer? Find it now on AOL Personals. (http://personals.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntuslove0003) ___ 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] The terrorists have won
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Nathannawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Ian Woollard wrote: But if they do make demands about silence, it is our ethical duty to... censor ourselves? Yeah, why not? Just because your enemy want something to happen, doesn't mean you don't want it as well. But it has some negative effects that they don't care about and we do. For instance, modifying our articles when a hostage is threatened encourages other terrorists to take hostages. How long until some terrorist demands that we alter our Jenin article to say that Israel committed a massacre, or else they start executing hostages, now that we've demonstrated that we can be coerced in that way? I have a hard time believing you honestly see that as even a remote possibility. In the extraordinarily unlikely case that a psychotic terrorist takes someone hostage to effect a short term change in a *Wikipedia article*, I doubt our prior response to such pressure will figure significantly in his/her decision process. I see where Ken is coming from on this, but there's not a bright line. One does not immediately do exactly the opposite of what a terrorist demands be done, in order to frustrate the value of them issuing demands completely. One example might be, for instance, extrajudicially executing prisoners that terrorists demand to be released. Doing what terrorists demand, in total, encourages them. Same with criminals. But when lives are at stake there is usually a large grey area of various levels of partial cooperation that increases the odds of successful survival of the victims. In that large grey area are usually large swaths of cooperation that nobody really feels are unethical (i.e., holding discussions / negotiations with the terrorist or criminal), large swaths which are commonly done but sometimes some people object to (news blackouts, etc), some which are commonly done but feel like giving in (paying ransom). A news blackout, to me, seems much less ambiguous and much less giving in than paying ransom. We do not impose legal or social penalties against families or companies that pay ransoms. Objecting strongly to news blackouts, without objecting strongly to ransoms, seems somewhat contradictory. Even though ransoms encourage more kidnappings, they're seen as necessary to save human life. Even though they directly enrich the criminal or terrorist. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ 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] MediaWiki is getting a new programming language
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 11:57 AM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote: Browsers by limitation are not real WYSIWIG editing systems They aren't? How about contenteditable? New functionality, regardless of its development, is mostly either proprietary or useless unless the W3C deals with it. Well, contenteditable is standardized in HTML 5. There may be other ways; a lot of other projects seem to manage to do good WYSIWYG somehow, at least in major browsers. AFAICT, the only reason we don't have it is because our wikitext is a complete mess to parse client-side. If we used HTML or some close analog as a storage format, we could have WYSIWYG almost for free. ___ 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] The terrorists have won
2009/7/8 George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com: I see where Ken is coming from on this, but there's not a bright line. One does not immediately do exactly the opposite of what a terrorist demands be done, in order to frustrate the value of them issuing demands completely. One example might be, for instance, extrajudicially executing prisoners that terrorists demand to be released. I feel we could also mention the notorious situation of a terrorist faction endorsing one political candidate over another, as I believe happened quite prominently recently! Doing what terrorists demand, in total, encourages them. Same with criminals. But when lives are at stake there is usually a large grey area of various levels of partial cooperation that increases the odds of successful survival of the victims. In that large grey area are usually large swaths of cooperation that nobody really feels are unethical (i.e., holding discussions / negotiations with the terrorist or criminal), large swaths which are commonly done but sometimes some people object to (news blackouts, etc), some which are commonly done but feel like giving in (paying ransom). Mmm. If someone takes a hostage and demands that you not report they've taken the hostage, you may well do that because it's not the *point* of their demands - we figure they're going to ask for a million dollars and a plane to somewhere unpleasant eventually - and it gets treated by everyone involved as an integral part of the hostage-taking to some degree. (In cases like this, the ethical issue then becomes to what extent people should be trying to ensure that others comply with that process, and how they should represent it to them...) If they take a hostage and demands you not report something entirely unrelated to the hostage-taking, it escalates into a demand in its own right, something to be treated as such, and responded to appropriately. But it's really not the same as something which is part and parcel of the process. There's an important distinction here - I'm afraid I might not be getting it across very well, but I think it holds. The information suppressed here pertained only to itself, and I find it hard to consider a situation where that wouldn't be the case *and* we wouldn't treat it as something to be rejected. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ 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] The terrorists have won
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, George Herbert wrote: A news blackout, to me, seems much less ambiguous and much less giving in than paying ransom. We do not impose legal or social penalties against families or companies that pay ransoms. Well, some are trying: http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaNews/idAFL451214120090704 ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
