headers
Ronald Chmara | 1 Jun 2004 01:17
Favicon

Re: Klingon Wikipedia

On May 31, 2004, at 6:26 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> A proclamation
> ...3.  The rule should be external to Wikipedia, based on some other
> official standards.  The reason for this is that this is only our
> default, and the whole purpose of the rule is to give us one less
> thing to argue about.  Let some international body make the decision,
> and then we follow it unless we do something unusual.

Hm. I have no horse in this race, but isn't the sole determinant of a 
successful wikipedia the number of active contributors?

Regardless of any external language codes (we certainly don't have 
wikis for all the languages under any of the aforementioned schemes), 
it all comes down to an issue of who contributes. If a language had 
*no* official codes or recognition by linguists, but 500 contributors, 
it will probably be more successful than any officially recognized 
language that only has one or two contributors.

By using a "contributor" metric, we can prevent the small vanity (and 
usually dead end) projects, and foster viable projects, regardless of 
their "official" recognition by any given standards body. Of course, 
then we'd have to argue about the number of individuals required to 
start a project, but a contributor metric bypasses the whole "is it a 
real language" issue entirely.

-Bop
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Tim Starling | 1 Jun 2004 02:43
Picon
Favicon

Re: SIL Ethnologue vs. ISO codes for determination of language inclusion

Jay Bowks wrote:
> The SIL ethnologue list is quite flawed.
> In this respect the ISO codes are more
> dependable...
> 
> The Ethnologue lists
> http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=827
> Esperanto, Europanto, and Interlingua.
> It further mentions that Interlingua is
> a language of France...
> http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=INR
> It also claims that Esperanto is a language
> of France, and that it has "200 to 2,000 people who
> speak it as first language". If so it would be a
> natural and non-artificial language for them
> wouldn't it, those French native speakers of
> Esperanto.... Highly irregular!
> 
> The list is flawed, and the fact that they include
> "Europanto" is quite a joke, no kidding,
> Europanto was a joke language developed
> by translators within the EU and only for
> amusement. To exclude Volapük which
> had at one time hundreds of thousands
> of learners and users and still has a small
> community of active users is just wrong
> if one is going to include "Europanto"
> which no one really uses as a community
> except joking translators within the
> EU Brussels, European Union buildings...
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Angela | 1 Jun 2004 02:55
Picon
Favicon

Re: [Wikitech-l] Re: Klingon resurrected

 --- Timwi <timwi@...> wrote: 
> I was indeed assuming that the compromise of
> disallowing inter-wiki 
> links to it would also apply to Toki Pona.

I wasn't assuming the compromise applied to toki pona.
If there is going to be a policy to remove all
existing links to it, then you need to show there is
consensus to do that. Wikitech-l is not the place to
discuss such a policy so I'm moving this thread to
wikipedia-l. 

I don't feel the policy on Klingon should necessarily
apply to toki pona. I don't have any strong feeling on
whether that wikipedia should exist, but while it
does, please stop removing links to it on the
assumption that Klingon policies can be applied
retroactively to any other controversial languages. 

Angela.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Angela

	
	
		
____________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" 
your friends today! Download Messenger Now 
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/download/index.html
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Daniel Mayer | 1 Jun 2004 03:21
Picon
Favicon

Re: Klingon Wikipedia

--- Ronald Chmara <ron@...> wrote:
> Regardless of any external language codes (we certainly don't have 
> wikis for all the languages under any of the aforementioned schemes), 
> it all comes down to an issue of who contributes. If a language had 
> *no* official codes or recognition by linguists, but 500 contributors, 
> it will probably be more successful than any officially recognized 
> language that only has one or two contributors.

Although if a language *does* have an official language code and linguists that
that recognize it, then there should never be a question that we should start a
Wikipedia in that language soon after somebody volunteers to translate the
interface. Very few contributers or not. 

Minus that, then we should look at a more complicated mix of considerations
(and the number of contributors idea is a good thing to look at). 

All IMO, of course. 

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Daniel Mayer | 1 Jun 2004 03:28
Picon
Favicon

Re: MBTI

--- Ray Saintonge <saintonge@...> wrote:
> Anthere wrote:
> 
> >http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_by_MBTI_type
> >
> >How do you explain the current majority of NTs ?
> >  
> >
> Wikipedians are not a representative sample of the general population. 8-)
> 
> Ec

NTs are to Wikipedia as flies are to fly paper (or moths to a flame). ;)

-- mav 

	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Anthere | 1 Jun 2004 06:54
Picon
Favicon

Re:MBTI


Daniel Mayer wrote:
> --- Ray Saintonge
<saintonge-EynCeXvFgoheoWH0uzbU5w@...>
wrote:
> 
>>Anthere wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_by_MBTI_type
>>>
>>>How do you explain the current majority of NTs ?
>>> 
>>>
>>
>>Wikipedians are not a representative sample of the
general population. 8-)
>>
>>Ec
> 
> 
> NTs are to Wikipedia as flies are to fly paper (or
moths to a flame). ;)
> 
> -- mav 

Hmmmmmm.
Well, I hope more people will add themselves so we
improve statistics.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Tim Starling | 1 Jun 2004 07:40
Picon
Favicon

Re: MBTI

Anthere wrote:
> http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_by_MBTI_type
> 
> How do you explain the current majority of NTs ?
> 

MBTI is pseudoscience. I don't know why people bother with it.

http://skepdic.com/myersb.html

-- Tim Starling
Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Stan Shebs | 1 Jun 2004 07:47
Picon
Favicon

Re: Re:MBTI

Anthere wrote:

>
>
>But after we noticed an apparent predominance of NT,
>who think of
>
>* why are those predominant ? What is the positive
>feedback given to them and not given to others ?
>
>* Are the other groups not attracted by WP ? Or are
>they quickly leaving because they can't meet their
>needs ? 
>
>
To put it simply, airline pilots are not encyclopedists. The
personality traits that make for a good pilot, for instance
split-second assessment and decision, are more likely to
generate conflicts in WP than to resolve them.

>* is it good for wikipedia community that mostly NT
>are here ? Would not we benefit of more types ? How to
>attract them and *keep* them ?
>
To take a different angle, you want people who are
introspective, because they're the ones who will want to
think about why they organizing information in a particular
way. You've already run into the non-introspectors; they
loudly declare that their way is the only way, and would
rather fight than figure out a compromise.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Arvind Narayanan | 1 Jun 2004 08:50
Picon

Re: Re: MBTI

On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 03:40:19PM +1000, Tim Starling wrote:
> Anthere wrote:
> > http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_by_MBTI_type
> > 
> > How do you explain the current majority of NTs ?
> > 
> 
> 
> MBTI is pseudoscience. I don't know why people bother with it.

The wikipedia article gives the answer: confirmation bias. 

"Some even demonstrate that profiles can apparently seem to fit any person by confirmation bias,
ambiguity of basic terms and the Byzantine complexity that allows any kind of behavior to fit any
personality type."

People have a natural craving to "belong"; they want to be accepted
into whatever social group they see themselves as part of. By
deliberately ambiguous wording, the test lets you answer questions
in such a way that you can deceive yourself into finding external
confirmation of your perception of yourself. That's the lure.

Arvind
> 
> http://skepdic.com/myersb.html
> 
--

-- 
Its all GNU to me
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Ray Saintonge | 1 Jun 2004 08:02

Re: Re:MBTI

Anthere wrote:

>Daniel Mayer wrote:
>  
>
>>--- Ray Saintonge
>>    
>>
><saintonge-EynCeXvFgoheoWH0uzbU5w@...>
>wrote:
>  
>
>>>Anthere wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_by_MBTI_type
>>>>
>>>>How do you explain the current majority of NTs ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Wikipedians are not a representative sample of the
>>>      
>>>
>general population. 8-)
>  
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane