Meta:Babel/Archives/2010-09

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Meta:Policies and guidelines

On the page, we have NPOV and Global Rollback listed under "Some Wikimedia projects" - Can anyone think of why they shouldn't be listed under the "All Wikimedia proejcts" instead? Kylu 17:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it depends on how one interprets "neutrality" in the various Wikimedia projects' contexts.. Wikispecies for one, I don't see how it's possible to not be 'neutral' when compiling a directory of species, unless someone is biased against a particular species?? I suppose it's possible.. Same can be said of Wikisource.. a collection of source documents doesn't really have to be neutral.. neutral towards what? Not sure how it is over at Wikiquote though, perhaps that project requires that when listing someone's sayings both positive and negative quotations must be included.. but then even that is subjective and depends on the lister's point of view anyway. I'm not familiar with Wikibooks enough to know how it works there, but another explanation may be that these other projects just haven't drafted specific NPOV policies yet.
I do think you're right about global rollback though.. it even states it on the page, that it applies to "... all Wikimedia wikis." -- OlEnglish (Talk) 10:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Global rollback global usergroup is activated for all WMF projects so I think global rollback should be listed under "All Wikimedia projects". --dferg ☎ talk 21:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Moved the GR section to All Projects, NPOV perhaps needs more discussion. Perhaps someone more active on Wikispecies can give us the opinion of those users? Kylu 17:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I'm of the opinion that, when applied to a number of special cases, NPOV on wikispecies must be a "qualified" NPOV, not the militant form found in WP: because by the very way the project is structured, the "waffling" typical of Wikipedia is not readily available to us as a solution. Circeus 14:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
There were also some objections on the adjective "strict": Talk:Neutral point of view#Strict?. --Nemo 10:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Patrolling features

Currently meta has a system of full diff patrolling, which causes that every change made by non-admin/bot/steward/staff/global rollbacker etc. users has to be checked. The current situation is that actually I feel nobody does that, but the backlog of unpatrolled diffs is still increasing. See for example this request I have made some time ago. I hereby propose to:

  1. Cease to use the full-diff patrolling system; which I find somewhat useless, or
  2. Create an "autopatrolled usergroup with the 'autopatrol' rights attached to it so that administrators can assign it to trusted users whose edits are presumed not to be vandalism/spam/etc as happens on Commons & some other projects for example.

The third option is to leave things as they are now however I think we need to solve this.

Thanks for your comments. --dferg ☎ talk 21:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd support #2, but what about giving the "patrol" right to more users? Lots of wikis have patrol for all autoconfirmed users (btw, do I remember uncorrectly or some time ago you were not allowed to patrol your own edits at all unless you were an admin?). The annoying thing is that if you don't have "patrol" you can't even know that patrolled edits is enabled and whether some edit has already been checked or not... --Nemo 01:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes #2 works for me. I'd almost go for auto confirmed=autopatrolled - it is usually only the very new users and IPs that really require any attention. --Herby talk thyme 15:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
autoconfirmed=autopatrolled is IMHO excessive: even in MediaWiki 1.6-8 it was only a preference (before the implementation of autopatrol right). --Nemo 08:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
It's also possible to have other autoassigned rights (similar to auto confirmed). Why not consider different levels of activity before assigning the patrol right? Kylu 16:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Kylu: I was thinking too in something like that, where the system based in some data automatically promotes the user in question to certain group. I saw that in the English Wikibooks here and here. If we are going to use $wgAutopromote we should discuss the conditions that the system will use to do the promotions. --dferg ☎ talk 20:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Retract my last striked words because of misinformation. What Wikibooks uses seems to be part of the flagged revisions extension. --dferg ☎ talk 20:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Support #2 -- -OlEnglish (Talk) 04:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────┘
 Eleven days have passed and consensus seems in favour of leaving the full-diff-patrolling feature and to create an usergroup "Autopatrolled" with "autopatrol" permissions attached to it; which will be granted and revocked by sysops. If no opposing arguments are heard in ~24 hours I'll open a bugzilla ticket requesting it's creation. --dferg ☎ talk 14:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Bug 25160 has been filled. --dferg ☎ talk 08:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Done - Resolved by JeLuF today. Should we discuss requisites for granting it or common sense may be enough? Thanks, --dferg ☎ talk 18:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Common sense seems to be the best solution. I think noone is going to grant this right to trolls. -Barras 19:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

A "WikiVocab" project

Imagine a website where you view standardized word lists for every language on the planet. For free.

I'd like to start a "WikiVocab" project' if possible. Right now, Wiktionary currently has lists for around 200 languages, many of them in language-family rather than individual lists — see http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Swadesh_lists. I have personally created and finished around 20 different Swadesh lists, with more coming on their way.

My dream is for there to be a 'big database' on the Internet where anyone can access the basic vocabulary words (in standardized topical lists) of all the world's languages. Wikipedia has information on the grammar and demographics of languages, but does not often include vocabulary, which is the core and essence of language. The closest things we have to a massive comparative database on world languages are the Austronesian Basic Vocabulary Database, Intercontinental Dictionary Series, and of course, Wiktionary's Swadesh lists. As a side note, even though this is basically the Rosetta Project's goal, the website is still quite unwieldy for ordinary users, has a very low Alexa site ranking, and does not allow wiki-style contributions. The Rosetta Project has also pulled off Swadesh lists that used to be on there, and does not have any searchable vocabulary databases as of now. And why do this? To help in language preservation, comparative linguistic studies, language learning, and more.

These days, when you search online for words in various indigenous languages, you find nothing. When you want to buy a book, it's out-of-print or overpriced. When you want to learn it, you just can't find it. Wikipedia already has the grammar and demographics, but not the lexicon. This is a major factor in driving languages to extinction. Let's solve this problem and do something about it.

This "WikiVocab" website will be similar in style to WikiSpecies. If we do create a big, unified, and searchable database for all the world's languages — all in one place — I believe it will be one of the greatest human achievements in modern times. Linguists, teachers, and native speakers from all over the world would be able to add words in different languages, helping to save languages from total oblivion. This will be one of the greatest gems that our future generations can ever inherit.

Thanks for your considerations! — Stevey7788 11:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Related external sites
There is still no website that has word lists of (almost) ALL the world's languages in one place!

World languages

Regional languages

Hmong Wikipedia proposal page

Hey guys!

I started a thread about the Hmong Wikipedia proposal at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/hmongstudies/message/424

But a person replied saying that Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Hmong is locked.

Would it be alright if it is unlocked? If not, where should the discussion continue?

Thanks, WhisperToMe 06:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

User:GerardM wants all contributors to register for accounts first before contributing. WhisperToMe 12:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Who wants to support the creation of a "White Hmong" Wikipedia? (White Hmong seems to be the most common dialect in the United States)? - The proposal originally suggested the creation of a "Hmong" Wikipedia, but there is no standard Hmong, so we have to choose a dialect. WhisperToMe 07:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Public or non-public personal information

The above request for comment has been closed as successfully resolved. Challenges to the closing are welcome. Please use the discussion page or open a new request. Sincerely, Virgilio A. P. Machado. Vapmachado 22:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Babel/Archives/2010-09&oldid=17954452"