http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.misc hourly 1 1901-01-01T00:00+00:00 http://gmane.org/img/gmane-25t.png http://gmane.org http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.misc/31334 Hoi, I had a look and Kaingang has been recognised as a language, its code is kgp. The place to make your request is on Meta. There are some requirements for new languages, among them is a need for the localisation of the most important messages for MediaWiki, the software that runs Wikipedia. You can start on the incubator, when there is a sufficiently big corpus and when there is continued cooperation on the new project, a new Wikipedia will be added in time. :) Thanks, GerardM 1 http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=kgp 2 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages 3 http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page 2008/12/3 Wilmar DAngelis <webindigena< at >gmail.com> Gerard Meijssen 2008-12-03T10:12:02 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.misc/31333 Dear friends, I am linguist, working in a major Brazilian university (UNICAMP), and I have worked with and researched the language of the indigenous people Kaingang more than 30 years. On behalf of a group of teachers, who are native speakers of Kaingang (one of the six indigenous languages of Brazil with the largest number of speakers) would like to request the creation of a Wikipedia in that language. The objectives are: (i) enlarge the democratic character of the web, which the Wikipedia is a model, (ii) give greater visibility to minority languages, and (iii) strengthen the Kaingang language, (iv) encourage the emergence of indigenous writers. I appreciate that you could help us in this endeavor to succeed. Next week we met (myself, with three volunteers students with about 20 Kaingang teachers, in the largest Indian reservation of them, called Guarita, to give way to questions related to this proposal). I await your comments. Regards. Wilmar da Rocha D'Angelis www.portalkaingang.org Wilmar DAngelis 2008-12-03T09:57:15 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.misc/31332 Dear friend, We are conducting a study on the motivation of the knowledge sharing on the Wikipedia community. The contributors’ experience to Linux is very important to the design and management of this knowledge platform. Would you please post the following on-line questionnaire message to the Wikipedia platform or forward the message to the members? After the survey is done, we will randomly select twenty persons and present them with USB 2GB Flash Drives. Besides, with each valid questionnaire, we will donate US $1 dollar to the Wikimedia Foundation. The result of this survey is analyzed in an anonymous way and is only regarded as the academic use. Please help us to complete the data collection. Thanks so much for your help. Cheers, Joanne [The Message content] Dear friends, We are conducting a study on the motivation of the knowledge sharing on Wikipedia. Your experience of the read from and write to Wikipedia is very important to the design and management of th Joanne (雅玲 2008-11-27T09:07:00 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.misc/31331 Dear friend, We are conducting a study on the motivation of the knowledge sharing on the Wikipedia community. The contributors’ experience to Linux is very important to the design and management of this knowledge platform. Would you please post the following on-line questionnaire message to the Wikipedia platform or forward the message to the members? After the survey is done, we will randomly select twenty persons and present them with USB 2GB Flash Drives. Besides, with each valid questionnaire, we will donate US $1 dollar to the Wikimedia Foundation. The result of this survey is analyzed in an anonymous way and is only regarded as the academic use. Please help us to complete the data collection. Thanks so much for your help. Cheers, Joanne [The Message content] Dear friends, We are conducting a study on the motivation of the knowledge sharing on Wikipedia. Your experience of the read from and write to Wikipedia is very important to the design and management of th Joanne (雅玲 2008-11-27T09:06:00 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.misc/31330 This comment is very interesting, and it points out that we most likely are using too dark shades of orange (this is customizable in php btw). We have 10 equally-spaced shades of orange, from the darkest (trust 0) to pure white (trust 9). According to the current coloring scheme, even text with trust 7, which has been revised etc, gets some visible (two steps down from pure white) shade of orange. It might be visually better to have 8,9 both as pure white, and lighten the shade of levels 6,7. In the new codebase, we have increased the speed at which text gains trust (we noticed also it was a bit too orange in that old demo). The vote button also helps text gain trust much more quickly, as people can just click there to validate the text, rather than having to do an edit. People can only raise the trust of text up to their own reputation level (which also goes from 0 to 9), so that spammers cannot enter an edit, then use sock-puppets to make the orange coloring disappear. Yes, we did compare the results w Luca de Alfaro 2008-11-25T19:26:08 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.misc/31329 Very good question. Author A would still get some reputation gain, due to the way we compute the edit distance. A would gain less reputation than if his contribution survived intact. Specifically, assume that there is a revision r0, A adds an n-words piece of text making it become r1, and B then rewrites A's contribution, obtaining r2. Due to the way we compute edit distances, we have: d(r0, r1) = n d(r1, r2) = n/2 d(r0,r2) = n So the quality of A's contribution is q = (d(r0,r2) - d(r1,r2)) / d(r0,r1) = (n - n/2) / n = 1/2 > 0 and A gets half of the reputation gain it would have gotten, had hes text not been rewritten. The reason d(r1, r2) = n/2 is that our algorithm distinguishes, when giving credit, replacements from insertions / removals. Note that people who insert pure spam have their contribution removed, not rewritten, so even with the above lenient treatment of replacements, spammers do not end up gaining reputation. When developing the reputation algorithms, we (Bo and I) went over hundreds of Luca de Alfaro 2008-11-25T19:03:46 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.misc/31328 ----- Original Message ----- From: <wikipedia-l-request-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r< at >public.gmane.org> To: <wikipedia-l-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r< at >public.gmane.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 7:59 AM Subject: Wikipedia-l Digest, Vol 64, Issue 4 Jocla 2008-11-25T12:19:30 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.misc/31327 susceibe ----- Original Message ----- From: <wikipedia-l-request-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r< at >public.gmane.org> To: <wikipedia-l-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r< at >public.gmane.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 1:35 AM Subject: Wikipedia-l Digest, Vol 64, Issue 3 Jocla 2008-11-25T07:59:19 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.misc/31326 [snip] For example: I can't figure out why the text in the image caption is colored here http://wiki-trust.cse.ucsc.edu/index.php/Digital_room_correction I couldn't initially figure out why *anything* above the external link section was colored… though the inability to diff contributed to that. On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 8:22 PM, Luca de Alfaro <luca< at >dealfaro.org> wrote: [snip] These performance metrics are better than I would have guessed from browsing through the output. How does the color mapping reflect the trust values? Basically when I use it I see a *lot* of colored things which are perfectly fine. At least for me, the difference between shades is far less cognitively significant than colored vs non-colored, so that may be the source of my confusion. Have you compared your system to a simple toy trust metric? I'd propose "revisions by users in their first week and before their first 7 (?) edits are untrusted". This reflects the existing automatic trust system on the site (auto-confirmation), an Gregory Maxwell 2008-11-25T04:14:57 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.misc/31325 How would the system handle a paragraph full of high quality, well-referenced and well-organised content contributed by an editor A, that is thoroughly copyedited by an editor B? Would editor A be deemed less trustworthy when his prose is thoroughly copyedited? 2008/11/25, Luca de Alfaro <luca-T5nRpvfXhTlg9hUCZPvPmw< at >public.gmane.org>: J.L.W.S. The Special One 2008-11-25T03:59:54 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.misc/31324 Maury, perhaps I can help explain the behavior you saw in the UCSC system (I am one of the developers). New text is always somewhat orange, to signal to visitors that it has not yet been fully reviewed. The higher the reputation, the lighter the shade of orange, but orange it still is (I have no idea of how high was your computed reputation when you started writing that article). Text background becomes white when other people revise it without drastically changing it: this indicates consensus. In our more recent code version, we also have a "vote" button; using this, text can more speedily gain trust without need for many revisions to occur. In a live experiment, where people can click on the vote button, I presume the trust of the text would raise more rapidly. Note that the code prevents double voting, or creating sock-puppet accounts to vote, etc etc. So I don't think based on what you say that the system is tripping over diffs. It is simply considering new text less trusted, and more revised text m Luca de Alfaro 2008-11-25T01:35:13 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.misc/31323 I agree with Gregory that it is very useful to quantify the usefulness of trust information on text -- otherwise, all comparison are very subjective. In our WikiSym 08 paper, we measure various parameters of the "trust" coloring we compute, including: - Recall of deletions. Only 3.4% of text is in the lower half of trust values, yet this is 66% of the text that is deleted in the very next revision. - Precision of deletions. Text is the bottom half of trust values has probability 33% of being deleted in the next revision, agaist a probability of 1.9% for general text. The deletion probability raises to 62% for text in the bottom 20% of trust values. - We study the correlation between the trust of a word, sampled at random in all revisions, and the future lifespan of a word (correcting for the finite horizon effect due to the finite number of revisions in each article), showing positive correlation. Some aspects are not captured by the above measures: - We ensured that Luca de Alfaro 2008-11-25T01:22:23 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.misc/31322 On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Maury Markowitz <maury.markowitz< at >gmail.com> wrote: The UMN system intentionally included only a small number (70?) articles. This is why you needed to use the random page function to browse among them. This doesn't reflect any short coming of the system, but it most likely just reflects the limits of computational resources they were working under. [snip] Yes, I had exactly the same experience with the USCS system: Different coloring for text I'd added in same edit which created the article. Quite inscrutable. [snip] For the articles it covered I found the UMN system to be more usable: It's output was more explicable, and the signal to noise ratio was just better. This may be partially due to bugs in the USCS history analysis, and different a different choice in coloring thresholds (USCS seemed to color almost everything, removing the usefulness of color as something to draw my attention). Even so, I'm distrustful of "reputation" as an automated metric. Reputation is Gregory Maxwell 2008-11-23T14:44:40 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.misc/31321 Given the older snapshots, I selected older articles that I had started, NuBUS and ARCNET. The "time based" system from UMN did not work at all, every search resulted in a page not found. The USCS system did work, but gave me odd results. Apparently I have a very bad reputation, because when I look in the History at the first versions, which I wrote in entirety, it colored it all yellow! Newer versions of the same articles had much more white, even though huge portions of the text were still from the origial. This may be due to diff problems -- I consider diff to be largely random in effectiveness, sometimes it works, but othertimes a single whitespace change, especially vertical, will make it think the entire article was edited. My guess is that the system is tripping over diffs like this, and thus considering the article to have been re-written by another editor. Since this has happened, MY reputation goes down, or so I understand it. I don´t think this system could possibly work if based on wiki's Maury Markowitz 2008-11-23T14:03:25 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.misc/31320 This might bias other respondants, but I thought it was an intersting idea so I wanted to share it. I concluded with the following which is no doubt affected by my being a WikiGnome: [[ If I see an error, I fix it without much regard to time or author reputation. I do pay attention to and investigate author reputation on substantive issues on the discussion pages and it would be interesting to see a discussion thread colored according to reputation. ]] Joseph Reagle 2008-11-19T22:40:23 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.misc/31319 2008/11/19 <avani-k0Ej6N9cQa43uPMLIKxrzw< at >public.gmane.org> Quite interesting - the "age of words" color coding might be useful in detecting obtuse type vandalism. m michael west 2008-11-19T20:01:27 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.misc/31318 Dear All, My name is Avanidhar Chandrasekaran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Avanidhar). I work with GroupLens Research at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. As part of my research, I am involved in analyzing the usefulness and Necessity of author reputation in Wikipedia. In lieu of this, I have simulated an Interface to color words in an article based on their Age. Being experienced contributors to Wikipedia, I invite you to participate in this study, which involves the following. 1. Please visit the following Instances of wikipedia and evaluate the interface components which have been incorporated into each of them. Each of these use their own algorithm to color text. a) The Wikitrust project http://wiki-trust.cse.ucsc.edu/index.php/Main_Page b) The Wiki-reputation project at Grouplens research http://wiki-reputation.cs.umn.edu/index.php/Main_Page 2) Once you have evaluated the two interfaces, kindly complete this survey on Wikipedia quality http://www.surveymonk avani-k0Ej6N9cQa43uPMLIKxrzw< at >public.gmane.org 2008-11-19T19:23:53 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.misc/31317 thanks for your e-mail, i would like to suscribe. Jocla 2008-11-19T18:22:03 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.misc/31316 Dear All, I am a Graduate Student working on interfaces which help editors do their job better on Wikipedia. I have been working on a project which includes a Survey that is to be completed by experienced editors on Wikipedia. My question: Is it fine to post on this list and Invite editors to participate in my study? Or is there a more formal method to go about it? Looking forward to your views and responses. Avanidhar Chandrasekaran GroupLens Research, university of Minnesota avani-k0Ej6N9cQa43uPMLIKxrzw< at >public.gmane.org 2008-11-19T18:02:37 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.misc/31315 That sounds reasonable Michael P. Deslippe DCMA Customer Liaison - DFAS DCMA-AQCF ( (614) 693-5757 ( DSN: 869-5757 Fax: (216) 367-3357 * Michael.Deslippe-uUphd233k9g< at >public.gmane.org DCMA Customers, please comment on my support or services at: https://pubapp.dcma.mil/CustSat/main.jsp DCMA Employees comment on my support or services at: http://webapps.dcma.mil/dcmasurvey/ "The greatest part of our happiness depends on our dispositions, not our circumstances." DESLIPPE, MICHAEL CIV DCMA CIV DFAS 2008-11-17T18:40:25 http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.misc/31314 2008/11/17 DESLIPPE, MICHAEL CIV DCMA CIV DFAS <MICHAEL.DESLIPPE-uUphd233k9g< at >public.gmane.org>: It should be a disambiguation page, the term "Kingdom of Heaven" has multiple meanings, one of those is "Kingdom of God". If there is another meaning in Baptist theology, then create an article, "Kingdom of Heaven (Baptist)" and link to it from the disambig page. You could then change the "Kingdom of Heaven" page to the disambig page, rather than the redirect to "Kingdom of God" that it is now (slap a speedy delete template on the redirect and once it's deleted, move the disambig to that name) - I doubt anyone would object. Thomas Dalton 2008-11-17T14:22:08 Search the mailing list at Gmane query http://search.gmane.org/?group=$group=gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.misc