Hi all,
After my previous e-mail about Wikiforum [1] I got many feedbacks from
users, but only few from developers. I made all requested fix, then,
…nothing. I can't personally force developers to look closely at this
extension likewise I can't force them to install it even if there is no
problem. Hoping a strong mobilization of the French community can do
that, we organized a pool few days ago [2]. The result is limpid: 55
French users are now requesting this extension (0 against and 5 that
prefer "real" forum or Usenet). 55 users for a pool in 2 days is very a
lot for the French community (ie. vote to decide arbitrators' rules have
actually 30 votes in 9 days) and I hope you will respect it by:
- Install this extension "as it" on French Wikipedia.
or:
- Look at the source [3] and give me a list of needed
security/performance fix.
You can still test this extension on Amgine's server [4].
Thanks,
Aoineko
[1] Description:
-- French: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Wikiforum
-- English (few information): http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiforum
[2] Pool to implement Wikiforum on French Wikipedia:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Prise_de_d%C3%A9cision/Mise_en_…
[3] Sources are on the CVS repository at "/extensions/wikiforum" (please
don't change the pagination while I'm developing)
[4] Test server: http://test-wikipedia.saewyc.net/index.php/Special:Forum
NSK said:
> Have you ever wondered why I rarely edit at
Wikipedia?
> it's because I know that nobody will know that an
article or paragraph
> was written by me.
That explains a lot. This person that continuously
makes
outrageous proposals, or just tries to plug his
marginal
project, isn't even a collaborator of Wikipedia.I know
this is an open list, but this lack of
self restrain is almost spam. I'm sure many of the
subscribers to the list are getting at least a bit
annoyed with him, but are too polite to say it.
Well, I am not polite enough. Stirling, if you don't
like our project and policies, please feel free not
to adopt them in yours, but leave us alone, and
stop making noise on the list.
Sorry to the rest of the list by this completely
unproductive message.
AstroNomer
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com
wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org schrieb am 14.02.05 19:39:26:
>
> On Feb 14, 2005, at 1:29 PM, Delirium wrote:
> >
> > (We do seem to have blown everyone away in mathematics though, thanks
> > in large part to a handful of very good and very prolific Wikipedian
> > mathematicians.)
http://planetmath.org is far from being "blown away" by Wikipedia (IMVHO)
nevertheless I very much agree that the Wikipedia is
very good concerning mathematical topics.
> That and the meltdown of another similar math project.
which is?
best regards,
Marco
______________________________________________________________
Verschicken Sie romantische, coole und witzige Bilder per SMS!
Jetzt bei WEB.DE FreeMail: http://f.web.de/?mc=021193
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 20:04:05 -0500, Stirling Newberry
<stirling.newberry(a)xigenics.net> wrote:
> More people not tied to the original dispute does two things. First, it
> takes personality conflicts off the table, which are a regrettable part
> of most edit wars. Second, it reduces the ability of groups to harden
> into place by getting closer to a statistical sampling of opinion. 2
> people self selected to edit an article probably have views which are
> unusual, that's why they chose to edit the article. Ten or more is much
> more likely to reflect the broad range.
Sounds to me like a base for even more conflict. Everyone comes in
with his or her own opinion, and instead of finding a compromise
between 2 opinions, we suddenly have to find a compromise between 10.
> Importantly, this would help to
> reduce the incentive for each side to bring in friends and continue the
> revert war.
I don't see how. If there are more people discussing, it becomes only
more important to have more people speaking for your POV.
> If a larger group of wikipedians can't come to a consensus, then it
> clearly is time for a more formal RFC to be written. But again, the
> more people not party to the original dispute, the more likely that RFC
> is to focus on the actual issues.
And then? What does an RFC do? I don't see how this helps. There will
be yet more people coming in. If you're lucky they all agree with you.
More likely, some will agree with you, some with the other, some with
neither. And then? We still have the same conflict, but we have gone
from 2 to 10 to 20 people involved. I don't see how this resolves
anything.
Andre Engels
Hi, I have a question to put forth.
I do not wish to have a disagreement with the members of a just
recently active Wikipedia for fear of scaring them away, so it's
better to discuss it here.
Recently, I removed the spam/advertisement-ish text from the mainpage
of the Wolof Wikipedia.
It was reverted, twice, by the currently active Wolof-speaking user,
Yannick Duchesne.
I feel however that it violates policy.
A rough translation: «ANAFA (National Association for Literacy and
Adult Education), an organisation in Dakar, Senegal is now working on
the translation of open-source software like SPIP
(http://www.spip.net) (a speedy Internet publisher to manage
magazine-sites).
Cooperating with the Canadian organization "Alternatives
(http://www.alternatives.ca)", we plan very soon to edit the Wolof
(http://wo.wikipedia.com), Pulaar (http://ff.wikipedia.com) and
Mandinke Wikipedias and work with every NGO in Africa to promote
African languages on the net.
This is within the category of a rebellion against linguistic
discrimination and inequality (particularly bad online) and for the
equality, solidarity, and diversity of cultures.
ANAFA and Alternatives ask academians - especially Africans - to
upload here their original copyleft documentation in Wolof and any
other African language.
More equality and freedom will come from it!»
I have emphasised that the mainpage is supposed to be an introduction
to Wikipedia. I even tried removing the POV parts and moving it to a
separate article at [[ANAFA]], but apparently this was not enough.
I'm not sure exactly what's going on here, or what is appropriate - is
it OK to have such text on the mainpage at all?
Also, Yannick claims to have read Wikipedia documentation extensively
and so there is supposedly no issue with his understanding of NPOV.
Mark
Hi,
if i set up the wiki i receive the following error. Can one tell me how to
solve the Problem?
MediaWiki 1.3.10 installation
Please include all of the lines below when reporting installation problems.
Checking environment...
PHP 4.3.10: ok
PHP server API is apache2handler; ok, using pretty URLs (index.php/Page_Title)
Have XML / Latin1-UTF-8 conversion support.
PHP is configured with no memory_limit.
No zlib support.
Couldn't find GD library or ImageMagick; image thumbnailing disabled.
Installation directory: /wwwapp/wiki/wiki
Script URI path: /wiki
Notice: Constant NS_MEDIA already defined in /wwwapp/wiki/wiki/includes/Namespace.php on line 8
Notice: Constant NS_SPECIAL already defined in /wwwapp/wiki/wiki/includes/Namespace.php on line 9
Notice: Constant NS_MAIN already defined in /wwwapp/wiki/wiki/includes/Namespace.php on line 12
Notice: Constant NS_TALK already defined in /wwwapp/wiki/wiki/includes/Namespace.php on line 13
Notice: Constant NS_USER already defined in /wwwapp/wiki/wiki/includes/Namespace.php on line 14
Notice: Constant NS_USER_TALK already defined in /wwwapp/wiki/wiki/includes/Namespace.php on line 15
Notice: Constant NS_WP already defined in /wwwapp/wiki/wiki/includes/Namespace.php on line 16
Notice: Constant NS_WIKIPEDIA already defined in /wwwapp/wiki/wiki/includes/Namespace.php on line 17
Notice: Constant NS_WP_TALK already defined in /wwwapp/wiki/wiki/includes/Namespace.php on line 18
Notice: Constant NS_WIKIPEDIA_TALK already defined in /wwwapp/wiki/wiki/includes/Namespace.php on line 19
Notice: Constant NS_IMAGE already defined in /wwwapp/wiki/wiki/includes/Namespace.php on line 20
Notice: Constant NS_IMAGE_TALK already defined in /wwwapp/wiki/wiki/includes/Namespace.php on line 21
Notice: Constant NS_MEDIAWIKI already defined in /wwwapp/wiki/wiki/includes/Namespace.php on line 22
Notice: Constant NS_MEDIAWIKI_TALK already defined in /wwwapp/wiki/wiki/includes/Namespace.php on line 23
Notice: Constant NS_TEMPLATE already defined in /wwwapp/wiki/wiki/includes/Namespace.php on line 24
Notice: Constant NS_TEMPLATE_TALK already defined in /wwwapp/wiki/wiki/includes/Namespace.php on line 25
Notice: Constant NS_HELP already defined in /wwwapp/wiki/wiki/includes/Namespace.php on line 26
Notice: Constant NS_HELP_TALK already defined in /wwwapp/wiki/wiki/includes/Namespace.php on line 27
Notice: Constant NS_CATEGORY already defined in /wwwapp/wiki/wiki/includes/Namespace.php on line 28
Notice: Constant NS_CATEGORY_TALK already defined in /wwwapp/wiki/wiki/includes/Namespace.php on line 29
Fatal error: Cannot redeclare class namespace in /wwwapp/wiki/wiki/includes/Namespace.php on line 57
Thanks,
Best Regards
Ralf Bodamer
Hoi,
I have posted http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IFAP it is an outline for a
proposal for a $45.000,- grant. We need to apply before the 20th of this
month. Please, do understand that if we apply for this grant, we have to
spend money the way we describe. It does not help if you think we should
not spend the money. We either do or we do not apply and, that way we do
not benefit and neither do the people who benefit most who are
incidentally not the people who get paid.
This proposal aims to achieve three things:
* cooperation with the Open Office org by creating a dictionary
integrated into wiktionary for languages they work on. This is a win win
situation
*a dictionary and translations dictionary that helps translators and
students of languages; wiktionary is a many to many dictionary
*better functionality for wiktionary that will prevent a lot of double
work and removes the need for running bots to share our work.
I hope we agree that this is a feasible project and that we can move
forward with this proposal.
Thanks.
GerardM
I have a journalist... looking for a wikipedian (or not) who might
report on his use of wikipedia in his working environment.
But he wants someone working in private firm rather, not a student, not
a teacher, not a researcher...
He would need an interview as soon as possible, in english is possible.
This interview is meant for a french paper (monthly publication I think)
on management (so read by a lot of managers of private business firms).
The interview would probably require citing the person name (real name)
and likely a picture as well.
Right now, we could not succeed to find such a person.
If you are in such a situation, please contact him at serge.courrier
(AT) pobox.com.
Thanks a lot for your help for a desesperate journalist who will not
close his article as long as he has not found such a person
Anthere
David Gerard wrote:
>I'm really
>not convinced that signing articles is an in-demand idea, let alone a good one.
>
>
Don't worry, if anybody tries to push it you can always threaten to lift
the ban on Gzornenplatz (uh, I mean Wik), who spent some time following
[[User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )]] around removing all of his
signatures that he put in non-displaying comments.
I agree that there's not much call for signing articles on a
collaborative project when a detailed history function is available.
Wikipedia is not a vanity press. The only thing that could justify it is
when it's a way of taking responsibility for the content (as opposed to
credit). For example, that's why I've adopted a practice of having
signed articles on The Wikipedia Signpost, since it's effectively
original reporting. But for encyclopedia articles, having an author take
responsibility would be a pathetic stand-in for what we really need,
which is more and better references so that information can properly be
traced to its source. Plus we have a well-warranted policy against
allowing original research in the encyclopedia.
--Michael Snow