[Wikimediaindia-l] Fw: [Wikipedia-l] Free Credo Reference accounts for Wikipedians

[BalaSundaraRaman]

A great opportunity (in the forwarded email) for people who work on adding 
references to articles often. Please signup and enrich more of our wiki 
articles with supporting references.

- Sundar
 
"That language is an instrument of human reason, and not merely a medium for 
the expression of thought, is a truth generally admitted."
- George Boole, quoted in Iverson's Turing Award Lecture

- Forwarded Message -
>From: Sarah 
>To: wikipedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
>Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 9:54 AM
>Subject: Fw: [Wikipedia-l] Free Credo Reference accounts for Wikipedians
>
>Another 400 free Credo Reference accounts have been made available for
>Wikipedians, kindly donated by the company and arranged by Erik Möller
>of the Wikimedia Foundation. We've drawn up some eligibility criteria
>to direct the accounts to content contributors, and after that it's
>first come, first served. The list will open on Wednesday, March 23 at
>22:00 UTC, and will remain open for seven days. See
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CREDO
>
>Feel free to add your name even if you're lower on the list than the
>400th, in case people ahead of you aren't eligible.
>
>Good luck!
>
>Sarah
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SlimVirgin
>
>___
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>wikipedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
>https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
>___
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list
Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l

Re: [Wikimediaindia-l] Deletion (aka genocide) of articles

[mayur]

if we would not have deleted 20, 000 articles in last 3 months we might
cross 1 lakhs articles threshold, But we want to maintain Quality and
Quantity Both.We have banned only one word article through abuse filter
because 99.99% of them are vandalized articles.if  Any body go beyond one
word he will be able to write an article in hindi wikipedia.

Thank you and Regards
Mayur
Hindi Wikipedian
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 7:15 AM, Nikhil Sheth  wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I'm not fully sure where the community is going on this topic, but here's
> my two cents on deletion of articles in Indian /any language wikipedias:
>
> *It should not happen. Period.*
>
> At least not until we reach a qualitative number that is proportional to
> the population of people in the world that knows that language. Look at the
> charts. Where is any Indian language? Hindi is bloody 
> 39th!The Lithuanian 
> language has more articles than we do! Do you think there are
> more Lithuanian speaking people on this planet than there are Hindi speaking
> people?? How about we ask them if they went on a murdering spree when they
> were #39??
>
>
> Q: But 95% are vandalism/biased/useless!
> A: So put a "Vandalized article" template on it that says it in HUMONGOUSLY
> HUGE letters that even a chimpanzee can read and put it out there that we
> need someone to come and un-vandalize it, for the humanity's sake! If we
> treat articles on wikipedia as living documents, then what we are doing by
> deletion is genocide.
>
> Q: But they decrease the quality!
> A: Why are you expecting a 5 minute old baby to score well in a 12th grade
> exam? Do you mind giving it some time to mature on its own before failing it
> and then fussing about "oh, it's not good enough!" Who gave anybody the
> right to judge a baby's future potential?
>
> Q: But they are dangerous to the community and Humanity and blah and
> blooh...!
> A: First, take your ego and any pride you may have, and shove it. Then,
> prove your claims. One stub/vandalized article that is publicly declared to
> be a stub / vandalized article is going to end the world? Oh, really!!
> Is it going to show India in a bad light? Who the bloody hell gave
> wikipedians the authority to represent India? Who voted you into power??
> Does the English Wikipedia represent UK/USA ? Can we please de-link the
> nation from its languages? Last I checked, a lot of non-Indians speak Hindi
> the same way a lot of Indians speak German or Japanese.
>
> Q: What's the problem with deleting crappy articles?
> A: The exact same problem that comes from Indians aborting a girl child
> because in their present environment they feel she will be a crappy addition
> to the family. Right now, at this point in time and space, YOU may feel that
> the particular article isn't necessary. Your opinions are subjective to the
> environment you are in. Your opinion may change tomorrow, but that
> contributor you chased out will not come back just like all those girls we
> aborted will not come back, or like all those mothers who were forced to
> abort, will not forgive their husband or in-laws. I beg YOU to live and let
> live. Suspend your judgment; don't be so harsh in your pursuit for
> perfection. It might turn out that the article you allowed to exist today
> may become the BEST article in that wikipedia tomorrow, the same way that
> girl child we do not abort today may become a role model for all Indians
> tomorrow.
>
> *Suggestion: How about creating a "baby" template and so setting a proper
> path to maturity, making room for the extremities of puberty (aka, bias,
> vandalism etc etc) in between while preventing this genocidally judgmental
> behavior?
> *
> Q: What's the problem with deleting?
> A: Do you have a problem with NOT deleting? Are those few bytes occupied
> going to bring the servers down? Do you mind putting a template there and
> backing off? Do you mind thinking constructively for once?
>
> Q: If we encourage the vandals, they'll get more prolific and they'll...
> A: ...And we'll revert the instances of vandalism, identify and block the
> repeat offenders, or influence them to turn a page like we always do. Every
> vandal is a human being that isn't programmed the way your are accusing
> him/her to be. Nobody has any evil agenda against our wikipedias. There is
> no incentive for anyone to do what we are  fear-mongering about; rather the
> only incentive exists in the opposite direction. Stop living in a warped
> psychological state where we need an enemy to justify our own existence,
> stop destroying the future in the name of defense against an enemy that does
> not exist. If you're sure they do, please prove your claims. The problem we
> are discussing is about deletion of new articles. Don't hijack it with
> insecurities, negativity and fear-mongering.
>
>
> Even in English Wikipedia, there is a growing movement to stop speedy
> deletions that are being perceived by 

[Wikimediaindia-l] Deletion (aka genocide) of articles

[Nikhil Sheth]

Hi All,

I'm not fully sure where the community is going on this topic, but here's my
two cents on deletion of articles in Indian /any language wikipedias:

*It should not happen. Period.*

At least not until we reach a qualitative number that is proportional to the
population of people in the world that knows that language. Look at the
charts. Where is any Indian language? Hindi is bloody
39th!The Lithuanian
language has more articles than we do! Do you think there are
more Lithuanian speaking people on this planet than there are Hindi speaking
people?? How about we ask them if they went on a murdering spree when they
were #39??


Q: But 95% are vandalism/biased/useless!
A: So put a "Vandalized article" template on it that says it in HUMONGOUSLY
HUGE letters that even a chimpanzee can read and put it out there that we
need someone to come and un-vandalize it, for the humanity's sake! If we
treat articles on wikipedia as living documents, then what we are doing by
deletion is genocide.

Q: But they decrease the quality!
A: Why are you expecting a 5 minute old baby to score well in a 12th grade
exam? Do you mind giving it some time to mature on its own before failing it
and then fussing about "oh, it's not good enough!" Who gave anybody the
right to judge a baby's future potential?

Q: But they are dangerous to the community and Humanity and blah and
blooh...!
A: First, take your ego and any pride you may have, and shove it. Then,
prove your claims. One stub/vandalized article that is publicly declared to
be a stub / vandalized article is going to end the world? Oh, really!!
Is it going to show India in a bad light? Who the bloody hell gave
wikipedians the authority to represent India? Who voted you into power??
Does the English Wikipedia represent UK/USA ? Can we please de-link the
nation from its languages? Last I checked, a lot of non-Indians speak Hindi
the same way a lot of Indians speak German or Japanese.

Q: What's the problem with deleting crappy articles?
A: The exact same problem that comes from Indians aborting a girl child
because in their present environment they feel she will be a crappy addition
to the family. Right now, at this point in time and space, YOU may feel that
the particular article isn't necessary. Your opinions are subjective to the
environment you are in. Your opinion may change tomorrow, but that
contributor you chased out will not come back just like all those girls we
aborted will not come back, or like all those mothers who were forced to
abort, will not forgive their husband or in-laws. I beg YOU to live and let
live. Suspend your judgment; don't be so harsh in your pursuit for
perfection. It might turn out that the article you allowed to exist today
may become the BEST article in that wikipedia tomorrow, the same way that
girl child we do not abort today may become a role model for all Indians
tomorrow.

*Suggestion: How about creating a "baby" template and so setting a proper
path to maturity, making room for the extremities of puberty (aka, bias,
vandalism etc etc) in between while preventing this genocidally judgmental
behavior?
*
Q: What's the problem with deleting?
A: Do you have a problem with NOT deleting? Are those few bytes occupied
going to bring the servers down? Do you mind putting a template there and
backing off? Do you mind thinking constructively for once?

Q: If we encourage the vandals, they'll get more prolific and they'll...
A: ...And we'll revert the instances of vandalism, identify and block the
repeat offenders, or influence them to turn a page like we always do. Every
vandal is a human being that isn't programmed the way your are accusing
him/her to be. Nobody has any evil agenda against our wikipedias. There is
no incentive for anyone to do what we are  fear-mongering about; rather the
only incentive exists in the opposite direction. Stop living in a warped
psychological state where we need an enemy to justify our own existence,
stop destroying the future in the name of defense against an enemy that does
not exist. If you're sure they do, please prove your claims. The problem we
are discussing is about deletion of new articles. Don't hijack it with
insecurities, negativity and fear-mongering.


Even in English Wikipedia, there is a growing movement to stop speedy
deletions that are being perceived by many to have gone out of control and
to be doing more harm than good, for they are giving disproportionate power
to the incumbents. Over the next few years, expect a rot and stagnation
there if these destructive attitudes continue. Just because some one else is
possibly jumping off a cliff, why should we?

*Some wikipedians look at articles the way they are and wonder "Why"? and
then go around deleting them like it's their God-given duty to throw the
baby out with the bath water.
I dream of articles that never were, wonder "Why Not?" and believe in
allowing those 95% new crazy articles to EXIST, b

Re: [Wikimediaindia-l] [Press]: The Hindu : "India is No.6 in donating to Wikipedia"

[Arun Ramarathnam]

Gerard,

IMHO, someone feeling the need to see the WIkipedia main page or read
content everyday and feels something is amiss if they don't, also has a
sense of ownership. To have a sense of ownership one doesn't necessary need
to contribute content or contribute financially.

I have met many people who have a warm fuzzy feeling for Wikipedia, read
content every day in their tea break, who have never considered contributing
content or money. They are quite happy with their daily experience of
reading.

Surely contribution of content or money is a demonstration of ownership but
probably not the only ones.

Regards
Arun

On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:

> Hoi,
> If the Dutch example is something to go by, being able to pay through
> electronic banking made a big difference in the Netherlands..
>
> However, do you agree with me that being able to contribute to Wikipedia
> (financially or as an editor) is what it takes to give a sense of ownership?
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
>
> On 20 March 2011 04:06, Arun Ramarathnam  wrote:
>
>> Ravi,
>>
>> I concur. That has been my view as well.
>>
>> Enabling payments through net banking will really see a lot more
>> contributions. If the contribution level is where it is with just credit
>> cards, things will only get better next year.
>>
>> We should explore ways of enabling net banking transfers for next years
>> fund raiser.
>>
>> Regards
>> Arun
>>
>>
>>
>> On 19-Mar-2011, at 6:02 PM, Ravishankar  wrote:
>>
>> If the Indian chapter / Foundation will allow donations by Net banking,
>> may be more people can donate.
>>
>> Not all have credit card / Paypal.
>>
>> Ravi
>>
>>
>> On 19 March 2011 04:34, CherianTinu Abraham < 
>>> tinucher...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
 *The Hindu : "India is No.6 in donating to Wikipedia"*
  
 http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article1551986.ece
 (National story)


>> ___
>> Wikimediaindia-l mailing list
>> Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimediaindia-l mailing list
>> Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Wikimediaindia-l mailing list
> Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
>
>
___
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list
Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l

Re: [Wikimediaindia-l] [Press]: The Hindu : "India is No.6 in donating to Wikipedia"

[CherianTinu Abraham]

I agree with Bishakha.

People generally contribute money for causes they believe in but
not necessarily part of.

Another interesting thing that I came across, while I was doing my
background work for this story and talking to prolific editors and
Wikipedians, I found out that less than 5 % of them actually donated money
to Wikipedia ever. Of course they contribute their valuable time and
knowledge to this beautiful project. For different people, it is different
way of contributing.

Those who are donating money to Wikipedia are mostly readers, who possibly
believe this project is useful for them and mankind. They also donate their
money to this project because it is "owned by the public" and not by a
company. How many of you would want to donate money to Google search however
good it is and indispensable in every day life ?

Regards
Tinu Cherian

On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Bishakha Datta wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> However, do you agree with me that being able to contribute to Wikipedia
>> (financially or as an editor) is what it takes to give a sense of ownership?
>> Thanks,
>>   GerardM
>>
>>
> I'm not sure that making a financial contribution necessarily gives a sense
> of ownership.
>
> Several people regularly contribute to charities, for instance. Indians, in
> particular, contribute to religious charities (eg temple trusts, wakf etc)
> both in small amounts during visits and in larger sums.
>
> Does that necessarily mean they feel a sense of ownership vis a vis the
> charity they contribute to? I'm not sure. I think people feel good about
> giving, but not sure that is a proxy for ownership. Some may, others may
> not; it may also vary with amount etc.
>
> Best
> Bishakha
>
>
___
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list
Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l

Re: [Wikimediaindia-l] [Press]: The Hindu : "India is No.6 in donating to Wikipedia"

[Bishakha Datta]

On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:

>
> However, do you agree with me that being able to contribute to Wikipedia
> (financially or as an editor) is what it takes to give a sense of ownership?
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
>
I'm not sure that making a financial contribution necessarily gives a sense
of ownership.

Several people regularly contribute to charities, for instance. Indians, in
particular, contribute to religious charities (eg temple trusts, wakf etc)
both in small amounts during visits and in larger sums.

Does that necessarily mean they feel a sense of ownership vis a vis the
charity they contribute to? I'm not sure. I think people feel good about
giving, but not sure that is a proxy for ownership. Some may, others may
not; it may also vary with amount etc.

Best
Bishakha
___
Wikimediaindia-l mailing list
Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l