Richard Grevers
>> How many do we need ?
>>
>At least 11,000 across all languages other than en.
>(en had 161,000 yesterday)
Actually it is /much/ closer than that when you also include the UseMod wikis:
En.Wikipedia: 161,813
All others: 158,895
TOTAL: 320,708
Numbers based on October 1st count here:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Multilingual_statistics
(please check my math somebody!)
But even if the non-English count passed the English one in the last few days,
it would be very schizophrenic and confusing to say in the press release;
1) we have reached 300,000 articles (MediaWiki count)
2) there are now more articles in other languages than in English (MediaWiki +
UseMod count)
3) there are 162,000 articles in English
That just does not add up!
Better, IMO, to wait for the MediaWiki + UseMod 1/3 of a million milestone.
That count includes all Wikipedias and it would then not be confusing to say
that there are more articles in other languages than in English.
The 300,000 figure is getting a bit stale anyway with all the
hardware/performance delays. IMO, the issue will be moot by Wednesday the 7th
anyway, since that marks a week since we hit the 300,000 "milestone" - stale
(and not really correct) news by that point.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
From: Richard Grevers <lists(a)dramatic.co.nz>
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Sometimes, there is every
reason to be
>> Could english people please *stop* creating new
>> articles for a couple of days ?
>If wikipedia continues to be completely uncontactable
>as it is for me
>this
>morning, you will have your wish :-) But If it is
>unreachable then I
>guess
>fr can't make new articles either.
Seems we are in the same bath
>> What about 2/3 days when all of you make an effort,
>> and head to your second favorite language
wikipedia,
>> and create a few ones for the press release to be
>> correct ?
>Although I got ridiculously high marks in my school
>French exams, you
>really wouldn't want my attempts at writing it :-)
We have a contributor who is mostly contributing in
english, so...
>> How many do we need ?
>
>At least 11,000 across all languages other than en.
>(en had 161,000
>yesterday)
Well, except for a bot, we have no chance then.
It seems everything is heading for a big crash again :-(
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
I don't want to dig up the dreaded RK issue again, but as I was knocked off
the wikilist and so have come on with a new email account, I haven't had a
chance to comment.
1. Abe made a very useful and thought-provoking point about the useful of
having RK on wiki, if only because his virtual waging of war on anyone who
disagreed with him tended to lead people to be restrained in what they wrote
on the Israel-Palestinian issue. Unfortunately RK went way to far. Far from
being a useful restraining force he became a destructive individual who
scared people away from wiki.
2. For me the last straw was seing Robert's mucking up of the [[Mel Gibson]]
article. Robert had done it before; taken articles that were on individuals
and overloaded them with the issue of anti-semitism. But in the case of
Gibson, it hit farcical proportions. Gibson is an actor. He is known as an
actor. People would come to the page to read about the actor. But Robert, as
usual, turned the entire article into a polemic rant about Gibson's views on
jews. Yes, Gibson has what I personally regard as anti-semitic views. And
homophobic views. His views make my skin crawl. But that is no justification
whatsoever for turning the article into one big expose of Gibson's opinions
on jews, much less turning much of it into a rant about his father's views
as a Holocaust denier. As a gay man I would love to give Gibson right
rollicking over his homophobia but if I was to turn the article around so
70% was about his views on gays I would be actively disgracefully. Gibson's
personal views on any issue, no matter how repulsive, warrant no more than a
paragraph in an article primarily focused on the broad view of who Gibson
is, what his career is, what his film career is like etc. But then Robert
did this in article after article after article. And true to form, given his
hypersensitivity being such that he would read anti-semitism into the wrong
location of a comma, Robert accused everyone who tried to turn the Gibson
back into a proper balanced encyclopædia article, of being anti-semitic and
trying to cover up the truth.
Eloquence's actions in banning Robert were 100% correct. I thought a
temporary ban was right, but having read Robert's ''nazipedia'' rant that
followed, I cannot see any reason why wiki should take Robert back. He has
caused too much offence, too much chaos, made too many outrageous personal
attacks. I don't know of a single other user whose behaviour was so
continually outrageous, who treated people so badly and yet was allowed to
go on, unbanned for so long. Wikipedia needs to ensure that no-one is ever
allowed to behave that way again. And that no-one is shown so much
tolerance. The tolerance he was shown amounted to a slap in the face of
everyone else who was bullied by him, who had to clean up his polemics, and
deal with the regular wars he triggered. He should have been dealt with
months ago. His behaviour caused more damage to wiki, and drove away more
good people, than any troll. That scale of blank cheque tolerance to one
user, and by implication toleration of his disgraceful treatment of everyone
else, must never be shown again.
JT
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
From: Daniel Mayer <maveric149(a)yahoo.com>
>Pour la premi�re
>fois depuis le commencement du projet en janvier
2001,
>Wikip�dia comporte plus d'articles dans les langues
non
>anglophones qu'en anglais.
Huh, that's not right yet; there still are more
English articles than all other languages combined.
It's close though. Please fix your press release.
-- mav
%=$�^"@&#
Could english people please *stop* creating new
articles for a couple of days ?
What about 2/3 days when all of you make an effort,
and head to your second favorite language wikipedia,
and create a few ones for the press release to be
correct ?
How many do we need ?
We could also quickly sweep through votes for deletion
to help ?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
Wiki is getting increasingly frustrating to use. I have gone through three
browsers and each in turn has had to be abandoned because wiki is so slow
any attempt at contact times out. Since the new logo was introduced the
situation has become impossible. Is it a co-incidence already existing
problems have become even worse since our new large logo was introduced? If
it is the problem, then please bin the damn thing. There is no point having
a snazzy new logo if it so slows up the process of downloading as to make
wiki on occasions uncontactable.
I am thoroughly fed up with the mess at this stage.
JT
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
From: Gutza <gutza(a)moongate.ro>
>http://webgeneraction.levillage.org/breve.php3?id_breve=110
>
>Notice, I have no idea who sent it (not me), but I am
>quite surprised by the date, 29th of august !
>
>Yeah, well, they're French, of course they'll gloat
over the "English defeat" as soon as they get word of
that! :)
Certainly :-)
>Gutza
Btw, many romanian people speak french, don't they ?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
>> Google knows more than a million pages containing 'wikipedia'.
>> (Oct 4: 1,010,000)
> Strange; oct 4, 10:37 UTC
> Google finds "1,610,000 pages containing 'wikipedia'
> And whit google.be i have sometimes 1,730,000 hits
Oops, I forgot my preferences: show only pages in English and Dutch.
Sorry
Erik Zachte
Yet another milestone reached:
Google knows more than a million pages containing 'wikipedia'.
(Oct 4: 1,010,000)
Wikimedia returns a modest 1,110 pages and Google asks helfully
"did you mean: wikipedia" :)
Erik Zachte
>Pour la première
>fois depuis le commencement du projet en janvier 2001,
>Wikipédia comporte plus d'articles dans les langues non
>anglophones qu'en anglais.
Huh, that's not right yet; there still are more English articles than all
other languages combined. It's close though. Please fix your press release.
-- mav
I was looking for which sites were already using as a
ressource (eh, that is definitly beginning), but
typind random "double words" on google, such as
"biosph�re wikip�dia "(yup, we are useful)
"�cologie wikip�dia" (yup as well)
"�cologie politique wikip�dia" (yup again)
And as I typed "canicule wikipedia", I found a link,
followed it...
And found this
http://webgeneraction.levillage.org/breve.php3?id_breve=110
Notice, I have no idea who sent it (not me), but I am
quite surprised by the date, 29th of august !
Err
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com