Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Village pump archive 2004-09-26

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TakuyaMurata (talk | contribs) at 04:50, 23 October 2003 (wiki fast?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

[[da:Wikipedia:Landsbybr%F8nden]]

Post a question now if you don't want to wait for the whole page to be loaded. On the other hand, please consider skimming through this page to see if your question might have already been asked (and even answered) by other people already. Also, please do not push the "save page" button multiple times when posting this way! The server is overloaded, but it usually will respond eventually, dutifully adding your question to the page several times in a row.

Quick reference on server status

  • The database server / web server for the other wikis ("pliny") is online
    • Motherboard and CPUs have been replaced (2003-10-14), which hopefully will eliminate the frequent crashes we've had
  • The regular webserver for the English-language Wikipedia ("larousse") is online.
    • Back online 2003-10-14, running on older, slower processor temporarily
    • Faster processors and memory are being tested now (2003-10-17) and should be put back in soon if all is well
    • some visits to www.wikipedia.org redirected to en2.wikipedia.org on the faster pliny
  • The new database monster has been ordered.
    • fund raising resulted in enough money to buy a new bigger and faster database server
    • pliny and larousse will share the webserver load once the new box is online

Related pages: Mailing lists - IRC - IM a Wikipedian - Talk pages - Wikipedia talk:Software updates


File:Village pump yellow.png

Welcome, newcomers and baffled oldtimers! This is where Wikipedians raise and try to answer Wikipedia-related questions and concerns regarding technical issues, policies, and operation in our community. However:


  • To raise a bug report, or suggest a feature, see bug reports.
  • To request peer review of an article you've written, see Wikipedia:Peer review
  • For remarks and questions on the contents of an article, use the "Discuss this page" link at that article to arrive at the corresponding Talk page.
  • If you have other questions about anything else in the Universe or life, try Reference desk.


To facilitate ease of browsing and replying, please:

  1. Place your questions at the bottom of the list
  2. Title the question (by typing == title ==)
    • If you use the edit link above, just enter a subject
  3. Sign your name and date (by typing --~~~~)

See also: Wikipedia:FAQ, Wikipedia:Help, Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers

Moved discussion

Questions and answers, after a period of time of inactivity, will be moved to other relevant sections of the wikipedia (such as the FAQ pages), placed in the Wikipedia:Village pump archive (if it is of general interest), or deleted (if it has no long-term value).


See the archive for older moved discussion links. For the most recent moved discussion, see Wikipedia:Village pump archive#October 2003 moved discussion.

When you click an ISBN link, it takes you to a page offering links to buy that book at all major book sellers. Why isn't the link set up so that Wikipedia gets 10% or whatever. In my experience, Amazon will willingly do this. This could prove very profitable.


This was suggested a while ago on list. We may in fact make revenue from this now. I dont know. There are some potential conflicts (like creating an captialist incentive for click-adding). I dunno. Sign your name, next time, BTW.戴&#30505sv 03:51, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I didn't follow the previous discussion (is it archived somewhere?) but it seems to me that it could work very well now that Wikimedia is up and running. Is there any reason we shouldn't leave it to the booksellers to decide what they will pay, and just report in a low-key way what they each decide? That could get a nice auction going! Perhaps the lower-margin booksellers can't afford to pay as much as others, so we leave it to the public to decide where in the spectra of price, service and Wikipedia support their priorities lie. Yes, it's capitalism, in fact I think it might even be monetarism as well. Andrewa 06:50, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)


Timeline for New Server/Status

The entries at the top of this page regarding what is happening on the new server are very useful, but would have more meaning if a date was added to each entry. The phrase "real soon" means nothing without a reference date. --Fernkes 12:46, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)


Section Edit

Something's wrong with this function? When I used section edit and saved, only the section part left( whole article became only the section i edited), i've experienced that twice, i am wondering what's wrong? --ILovEJPPitoC 11:08, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)


Did you get an edit conflict on these occasions? Angela 17:29, Oct 17, 2003 (UTC)
I don't think so. But it seems to work on Opera. --FallingInLoveWithPitoc 02:31, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)


Highlighted map

Could anyone make a highlighted map for every country like that in article US? I think that would be helpful since I don't know the position of every country. --FallingInLoveWithPitoc 02:31, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think that would be a very good idea. There is a slight problem in that some countries would be fairly small on a map that size, but I think it would probably still be useful. I don't know where the map originally came from, and so I don't know how easily it can be edited for other countries, but I imagine something could probably be created that looks the same. (Or is someone already doing this? There doesn't seem to be any mention of it in the WikiProject Countries thing, but...). I'll experiment and see if I can get something looking okay.
Well, here's my first attempt. [1]. Does that look like the sort of thing that could be used? If so, I'd be willing to make more of them for other countries. - Vardion 00:15, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Having mentioned it on the country Project page, I've now started to implement some of them: Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, Brazil, and Armenia, just to start with. Comments welcome. If there's no opposition, I'll gradually work my way through the remaining countries. - Vardion 06:09, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)


West Tiki

test.wikipedia.org seems to be the same as (en.)wikipedia.org at the moment... I'm even still logged in... Just curious what happened to it... Κσυπ Cyp 18:37, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Pronounciation guides

Why are people putting in those pronounciation guides? They are unworkable in the content of wikipedia. Such guides work where there is (i) recognition of what they mean, (ii) a broad experience of usage of them, (iii) relevant context. Most people writing international english for a non-academic audience run a mile from these things because they are not widely used in much of the world and so in many cultures completely incomprehensible, and because they pre-suppose a clear shared standard of english, which in Wikipedia's case cannot be guaranteed because while for some users it is a first language, for many it is a second or other language that they are not wholly fluent in. The sensible approach in a cultural context where there isn't the culture, comprehension or experience of these guides is to avoid unduly complex pronounciation formulae and explain the pronounciation in basic english of the sort all readers everywhere can follow.

On Taoiseach we are told the word is pronounced /"ty: S'Vx/. Even with a link attached, to many people worldwide it might as well be written in aramaic for all the use it is to them. Previously, to recognise that many people don't have the practical experience of understanding complex pronounciation guides, they were simply told the office was pronounced tee-shoch (the och and is loch). That version could be followed easily by many people. /"ty: S'Vx/ to many would appear to be complete gobbledigook. FearÉIREANN 19:40, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I think that it would be easier still if a pronunciation file was attached. Then it would be even more universal (except for the deaf). I don't know how many times I've wanted to know the correct (or accepted pronunciation of a program or project, especially in the UNIX/Linux/GNU world). Dori 19:59, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)
Many months ago, when I wrote the article for Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz, I searched Wikipedia high and low for pronunciation guide standards. I was disappointed not to find any. Instead, I used the pronunciation guide from an American dictionary.
I don't know enough about lingiustics to proposal which pronunciation guide standards to utilize for wikipedia standards. But I feel such standards should exist, and should be listed.


Pronunciation files can help, but they should not replace the written word. Such files without written symbols breaks the continuity of reading, and cannot be used by many users.
A metapage called Wikipedia:Pronunciations (or something like that) should be created by people who know what their doing in the subject. I'd imagine it would look like http://www.m-w.com/aschart.htm in form, but not necessarily in content. Kingturtle 21:50, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
The written pronunciation should stay. Perhaps I didn't make it clear, but I meant we should add sound bytes/clips for words, phrases, etc. to accompany such written guides. Maybe this could be a whole new site accompanying Wictionary and Wikiquote or it could just bee sound files uploaded to the pedias themselves. Dori 22:02, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)
For example, have a look at Albanian_language#Pronunciation guide and Common phrases in different languages#Albanian (Albanian) that I just added. Dori 23:34, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)

NUMBEROFARTICLES

Does the variable NUMBEROFARTICLES (used on the main page) include image description pages? I think it might, and it probably shouldn't. I don't know if this has been discussed elsewhere, so pardon the ignorace if that is the case. Dori 21:17, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)

Also, what about redirect pages? Pardon my possible ignorance as well :) Adam Bishop 21:23, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Multilingual statistics, the latest counting method (for en: anyway) is that an article = a page with at least one Wikification. But all redirects and some image description pages also have Wikifications too; they're probably excluded. --Menchi 21:33, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The count (should) count only pages in article namespace that are not redirects and contain the character sequence "[[", indicating a wiki link. Image description pages are not in article namespace, and are not counted. --Brion 22:15, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)


Wikipedian statistics

Do we have quick available stats on wikipedia contributors? I know most sign on with user-nics but it would be useful if we knew (1) where wikipedia users are from? (eg, are most in the US? What proportion are from Europe, Canada, Asia, Australia & New Zealand, Africa?) (2) given that there is a high turnover of wikipedians as people are dragged away with other commitments, what is the average length of stay of a wikipedian? It might be an idea if someone could create a program whereby new users (and existing users to wikipedia who had not yet done so) were asked to fill out a confidential questionnaire, not asking names or such but things like gender, ethnic background, educational qualification, physical ___location, etc. The results of each individual questionnaire would not be kept or anything, just the data included in an overall wikipedia profile of itself, giving wiki a knowledge of who it appeals to and why, who uses it, etc? It could appear when someone sets up a user-name, explaining why the questionnaire is there and stressing how the information data, once clicked by the user would simply update the overall numbers database and would not exist as an individual record. FearÉIREANN 00:00, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I suppose some of it could be gleaned from Wikipedia:Wikipedians, although there must be many more people who haven't put their names there. Adam Bishop 00:08, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I wouldn't personally be prepared to quote statistics that were gathered in the way you describe. They'd be too unverifiable. (Hmmm, is that like being "too pregnant"? Well, I think you get the idea). Misleading figures can be worse than none. Andrewa 03:49, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Adding photos to articles

I need help adding a photo to an article. I've already uploaded it. I've read the related help sections, but cannot find a usable code to do the format I wish. What I want to do is add the picture to the top right corner of the page, with the article text flowing down and around it. Can someone help, please? Paul Klenk 03:26, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I don't really know, but there is a page called Wikipedia:Image markup that may help you. Dori 03:31, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)
I added the Ricky Jay picture you uploaded to the article. I learned how to do by example! Samw 03:34, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, Easter Bunny, <buck buck!> Paul Klenk 03:39, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Standard formatting for languages

(Firstly, thanks Dysprosia for directing me to this page, and for your welcome...) Being new here, it's quite possible that I've overlooked a simple answer to this question, but I haven't been able to find it. (Also, I perhaps shouldn't be thinking about this sort of thing until I learn my way around.) But I note that there seem to be standardized formats for pages on countries (eg Germany), some or all animals (eg the ostrich), and so forth. I was wondering if there was something similar planned for languages, showing things such as estimated number of speakers, language family, and so forth. I haven't noticed any, but I wouldn't know where to look. Is there somewhere where lists of such "standardized formats" can be found? Thanks. - Vardion 03:59, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Welcome, Vardion! Currently available "standardized formats" can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject list. And we apparently don't have one yet, but there is a possibility at Xhosa language. --Menchi 04:05, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Thanks, that's most helpful. I'll look into those links. Now for my next question... am I supposed to delete this question now that it's been answered, or do I leave it alone? - Vardion 23:34, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
It's normally best to leave it here. The question might be helpful to others, in which case it will be moved to the archive or to an appropriate talk page. Sections are regularly archived, so this one will reach the top of the page in a few days time, which is when you or someone else can decide whether to delete or archive it. Angela 23:38, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)


Pages on Votes for Deletion should not be changed?

-->Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion

Searching and page counters

When is the internal searching feature going to be switched on again. Also are the individual page counters ever going to be re-introduced.G-Man 18:32, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

We can talk about this as soon as the new big ass database server is installed and set up. Before that, I'm happy if the site keeps together as it is. Page counters are unlikely to be re-enabled anytime soon, though.—Eloquence 00:43, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)

When will the new server be turned on: for that matter how long will it be before the new server becomes overloaded and another even bigger one is needed G-Man 19:06, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Standards

m:Talk:English Wikipedia Quality Survey

Straw Poll: Should there be another logo vote?

There has been quite a bit of controversy over the new logo. See: m:Final logo variants, m:Logo feedback and logo history (reasonably NPOV). If you wish to read the arguments for both sides see the above pages. The question I want to ask here is: Should there be a new widely announced formal vote for the Wikipedia Logo similar to the m:International logo vote? (The straw poll that is happening right below is over a limited sample, unless it is a landslide (say 80%) the results should not be considered conclusive.) Jrincayc 14:37, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

  • Yes (4)
    1. Yes, there should be a new vote. Jrincayc
    2. Yes, we should never have "final" votes; although, I intend to vote to keep the logo -- Democracy must be allowed. Lirath Q. Pynnor
    3. Yes, see below. Andrewa
    4. for a brand new logo. The vote notification should be widely publicised, perhaps at the top of every page (like the donation statement) and enough time should be given for nominations and voting. Voting should be at wikipedia, not at Meta (the prospect of creating a new user account and password could turn many away). Lets ensure that the voting is in thousands, not in 100s. Jay 07:16, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • No, there is no need for a new vote. (7)
    1. Fuzheado (Quit while we're ahead)
    2. —Eloquence (this matter has been settled in a reasonably open process)
    3. Angela (bored of voting for now)
    4. Axlrosen (gone on too long already)
    5. Arwel (good grief, no -- I didn't like the original puzzle globe, but I like the present version)
    6. Heck, no! Cimon Avaro on a pogostick
    7. The logo is wonderful, leave it alone. Paul Klenk 19:44, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

When is the deadline for voting in this poll about whether there should be another vote? Κσυπ Cyp 23:25, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think the current logo is OK. But of the three images used recently on the English Wikipedia (the one by Cuncator used before we voted, the one by Paullusmagnus that was up when the ratification was conducted, and the one by Nohat that's up now) it's quite clearly the one I like the least, and it feels a bit strange to be told I voted (twice) for it! There have been a couple of comments to this effect from others too, in various places. My suggestion now would be to have another ratification process. In hindsight, maybe the ratification should have only happened after the tweaking. But hey, I'm here to help with articles, the three logos are all OK. Andrewa 02:43, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Is this vote about reverting to the earlier logo, choosing from the winning logo variants or coming up with a brand new logo altogether ? Pls clarify. Also what does Jrincayc mean by "As this is a poll over a limited sample ...". Jay 05:16, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
This vote would at least include both the nohat logo and the pallusmangus logo (see m:Logo history for what these logos are). Basically there was the m:International logo vote and m:International logo vote/Ratification that displayed and had people vote on the pallusmangus logo and then there was the m:Final logo variants discussion that was to create a logo that everyone could agree on. The Final logo variants discussion produced the nohat logo that wikipedia switched to on Oct 12. I think that the Nohat logo is sufficiently different from the pallusmangus logo that it in some way should be reratified or revoted on to prove that the Final logo variants discussion truely did produce the consensus that the process was designed to produce. Jrincayc 13:29, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
The comment "As this is a poll over a limited sample ..." was refering to this straw poll. I have reworded it to be more clear. Basically from this straw poll I see three outcomes: 1. Less then 20% of the people in this poll think there should be a vote on the nohat logo. In this case the plan can be dropped. 2. More then 80% of the people in this poll think there should be a new logo contest. In this case I or somebody else will go forward with a vote on the logo. 3. Otherwise, there is at least not a consensus on the decision so I will create a sample ballot page to show what would be voted on and request more feedback and possibly go forward with a vote. Jrincayc 13:29, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Idea for new feature: "Who's watching this page?"

Should watchlists be private?
m:Talk:Watchlist privacy

Banners and buttons

Someone who is good at purty things should probably have a whack at new versions of banners as they look a bit aged. Just thought I would bring to attention, because I can't do much with the Gimp et al. Dori 21:13, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)

Alexa

According to [2]; wikipedia is now within the 800 most popular websites. The wiki's userbase has increased 119% (since July); and, the average user views 22% more pages. Lirath Q. Pynnor

The traffic seems to be decreasing in October. The culplit should be the server outage. -- Taku 03:25, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)

National Park Service

Question. National Park Service was recently moved to United States Park Service. Since National Park Service is the official name and United States Park service is not really a name at all, shouldn't National Park Service be the name in the article title? I'm of the opinion that if it needs to be disambiged then it should be "National Park Service (United States)". Am I off base here? Thanks. Ark30inf 05:42, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It should indeed be National Park Service, it's the official name. Even a Google search on "United States Park Service" brings back www.nps.gov first. Fuzheado 05:47, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I don't see why it was moved in the first place. I am not aware of any other countries that use the name 'National Park Service' for their equivalent government department, so there is no need for a disambiguation page. I think it should be moved back to National Park Service. -- Popsracer 06:39, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Probably correct. A Google search shows only the US usage of it. (Search on: national park service -site:.gov -site:.edu -site:.com -site:.org -site:.net -site:.us) still brings up only links to US National Park Service. Fuzheado 07:04, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Problem with photos

My photo of a Porsche 912 -took by myself- on the Porsche article was replaced by another wich is obviously not a Porsche 912. The new picture is IMO studio works and probably copyrighted. It seems impossible to recover the old photo. Why ? Even if the new image is uncopyrighted and better than mine, mine could be useful elsewhere (on a Porsche 912 article) for instance. Ericd 15:24, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think this may have been discussed already but I can’t find where so I’ll check here .......
If I can’t find any source of a still picture to illustrate an article is it OK to photograph a part of a film off TV and use that (with a clean up in an image processor to get rid of the TV scan lines)? In other words, is a single frame from a film copyright?
A good example is Diana, Princess of Wales where I’ve searched the internet for hours for a public ___domain image but all images are either copyright or nothing is said on the subject. To show the “quality” achievable, here’s an example I photographed today (off English TV).
image:princess.diana.offTV.350pix.jpg
Adrian Pingstone 21:30, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It is still copyrighted (your picture is an infringing derivative work). You could probably include it in an article using fair-use provisions. --seav 22:14, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)
I think there is a loophole you can take advantage of. If an image is displayed for news purposes, it cannot be copyrighted. For example, if you record a news program, you can legally play it back in front of a stadium of people with no copyvio. I am not sure the reason for this loophole, and IANAL, but you might want to investigate that route. If you can't copyright a news broadcast, it stands to reason you can't copyright a single frame of that newscast. —Frecklefoot 16:34, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)


Ancient pages hooray!

For the record, the Ancient pages page has reached a landmark, in that it is no longer full of pages whose last edit was by the "Conversion script". I believe this means that every single article has been edited (or created) since the last time the software was rewritten (or something to that effect... in any case, there is nothing that has not been edited by a human since February 25, 2002, which seems pretty good). Also, all the CIA-imported articles have been edited, even Demographics of Vatican City. Hooray for Wikipedia! Tuf-Kat 07:21, Oct 22, 2003 (UTC)

Using pics from Wikipedia

I am working on a book and would like to use some pics from various Wikipedia articles as illustrations. The book is commercial, for-profit. Am I right in believing that the GNU/GDSL license policy applies to usage of pictures in addition to text? As in, if I put in that boilerplate notice, I'm cool? The various links didn't explicitly mention pictures and were rather confusing, not to mention that there doesn't seem to be any specific person/thing to email my question to.

Please help!

Image copyrights have lead to some polemics in Wipedia. Some pics are explicitely GFDL but not all. Some are under fair use, some are PD, some are copyright expired, some are free for non-commercial use. You'd better contact the user that uploaded the pic before using it.
Ericd 18:33, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Broken page

Chip's Challenge is broken (it gives a database error). Er... never mind... someone else just edited it, but it's not working for me. I dunno. ehh. sorry. Evil saltine 12:49, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Fixed now. (Note for the future: please please report the actual error message, not just the fact that there was one.) --Brion 12:58, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)


Question: It looked like some kind of "escaping the apostrophe" problem. Was this caused by something the initial submitter of the page inadvertently did (and thus something the rest of us should avoid) or was it a software/DB snafu? -- Finlay McWalter 13:09, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Software issue. I changed parts of the watchlist handling code and accidentally removed a string escape function. (blush) It would have done the same on any page with an apostrophe in the title when viewed by someone logged in. --Brion 13:15, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll report the entire error in the future. Btw, it didn't work when I was logged out either. Evil saltine 13:40, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Mother Teresa

I'm sure everybody is as sick of the tiresome and juvenile edit war at Mother Teresa as I am. So I have witten a (largely) new text, which can be seen at Alternative Mother Teresa Text. Comments are welcome. Adam 14:39, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I don't know abt the edit war, but when I looked at the page yesterday it appeared more as a research paper than an encyclopedia article. Are there any guidelines on what not to include in a Wikipedia article ? I searched the wikipedia namespace but couldn't find any. I found pages on "how to write a perfect article", and "what wikipedia is not" but no page that specifies "what a wikipedia article should not contain". Jay 16:18, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I'm neither a Catholic nor a Mother Teresa detractor, but neither is NPOV. It's so far off the mark, it's a shooting range accident. I'm sick and tired of Wikipedia articles that are negative hit pieces. It may be standard for Wikipedia articles to drag people or institutions through the mud, especially if an editor disagree with their views or hates them, but attributing endless streams of crap to "critics" or "detractors" has got to stop at some point. And while it's perhaps a step down from the current article, that's no excuse for not getting someone neutral to fix the article. Just because the critics aren't getting to add all 45 pages of criticism and it's just half the article, does not make it okay. Only here on Wikipedia can Mother Teresa get more criticism than Saddam Hussein, Joseph Stalin, Idi Amin, or Moammar Al Qadhafi. Check those articles. Daniel Quinlan 20:31, Oct 22, 2003 (UTC)
That's because in cases like Hussein and Stalin, what they did is far less controversial. Purges, executions, torture and so far are well documented, so we can just state them as fact. In the case of Mother Teresa, there is a large gulf of perception between her critics and her supporters -- it is therefore a sign that NPOV works that these criticisms are not stated as fact as they are in the Hussein or Stalin articles, but are attributed to critics (who are not anonymous, by the way).
It is not difficult to find someone who is on the "other side" of any issue.
That is true, and if that someone has substance to back up his opinion, it may well be included in an article. Did Hitler really reduce unemployment in Germany and was responsible for the "Autobahn"? Did Saddam secularize Iraq and promote public education? These questions should be examined carefully from all sides, not ignored.—Eloquence 22:23, Oct 22, 2003 (UTC)
What you perceive as unfair to MT is in fact an attempt to maintain balance in the cases of controversial opinions. Or would you prefer it if we would just state: "Mother Teresa hurt the poor more than she helped them through her medieval 'homes of the dying' and her reactionary opposition to abortion even in cases of rape and incest, which she carried to the political level whenever she got the opportunity to do so. Building her up as a media figure allowed conservatives to sneak questionable values into society by using Mother Teresa as their crown witness." Or how about: "Mother's monumental work with the poorest of the poor in Calcutta has inspired thousands, if not millions, to follow her example. In a society with an oppressive caste system, she maintained modesty while impressioning upon the natives the true tenets of Catholic charity. Through decades of courageous work, Mother Teresa and her sisters did 'something beautiful for God'."
I somehow suspect that Encyclopedia Britannica or Encarta will manage to cover both sides far more neutrally (by having a disinterested person write the article) than we have (by trying to balance out critics with supporters).
My own suspicion is that you would be more likely to agree with Britannica or Encarta in this particular case, but that does not say anything about whether their article is more factual or neutral.—Eloquence
NPOV allows us to include information from all sides, without taking a stand on an issue. Abandoning this principle could lead to either of the above results, depending on which side has the longest breath and is willing to engage in the most aggressive tactics to get its way. Be careful what you wish for.—Eloquence 20:48, Oct 22, 2003 (UTC)
Having a policy or goal of NPOV does not guarantee neutrality. People have to work for NPOV. The problem with allowing factual criticism to get out of hand is that there's always someone out there who will link two unrelated facts together to spin it into something worse and while it can be refuted, if you pile up enough negativity in an article, it can easily give the appearance of illegality or at least impropriety. Basically, if the negative side has enough breath, they can make anyone look bad. Daniel Quinlan 22:03, Oct 22, 2003 (UTC)
I fail to see how the exact same argument cannot be made in reverse. It is possible to link two unrelated facts together to spin it into something positive (Hitler was in power in Germany, Autobahns were built in Germany while he was in power). As for "making anyone look bad" (as well as "making anyone look good"), aside from the question whether good or bad are useful attributes, one must also consider the possibility that this impression is correct. Did a person make more negative than positive contributions or vice versa? A comprehensive article should answer that question by listing both, attributed in proper form. As an open-minded reader, one should be willing to change one's mind about an issue.
On the other hand, Wikipedia is not a good place to go if you hold a strongly polarized worldview one way or the other and want to see that view confirmed. Because articles are written by a multitude of persons, all perspectives are likely to sneak in. Encarta or Britannica do not include an article about MKULTRA, yet that program undeniably has existed. The Britannica article about circumcision is ridiculously biased in favor of circumcision, repeating even the more bizarre myths about it (and a fraction as comprehensive as ours, which still takes a lot of work to be completely NPOV). Britannica & Co. enjoy a very good reputation, but that reputation is to a large degree undeserved. There is a certain myth of the "disinterested neutral writer". The moment a writer informs himself about a subject to write about it, he is no longer disinterested. He forms perspectives, conclusions and opinions which are likely to color his work. It is only through the mutual correction by each other that we can avoid a one-sided presentation. And the best way to go about it is to add facts, not to remove them.—Eloquence 22:23, Oct 22, 2003 (UTC)
I personally think Mother Theresa's reputation is overblown, but the article as currently written is entirely unacceptable. It reads as an anti-Mother Theresa piece, and is clearly written by someone with an agenda. It's not even remotely close to NPOV, and nobody not already favoring that POV would find the article acceptable as a neutral source of information (it's clear to any disinterested party that it's attempting to convince the reader of why MT is bad, presenting evidence in a lawyer-like fashion and so on). A stub would be much better than what we currently have. --Delirium 22:31, Oct 22, 2003 (UTC)
Considering that people from all sides of the issue have worked on the article, I fail to see who you are referring to when you are saying "written by someone with an agenda". Also, please cite specific passages which you believe are not NPOV, preferably on Talk:Mother Teresa. Please compare the article as written to my example alternatives in my response to Daniel above.—Eloquence 22:45, Oct 22, 2003 (UTC)

Personally myself on the third tentacle... Think the single most salient feature of this whole debate is that no-one is disputing the "allegations" or provided any controverting evidence, denials by any source, or any point which would point towards a view that the organization led by Mother Teresa not only acted as alleged, but was open about acting as alleged, and in some instances even proud of acting as alleged. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 22:39, Oct 22, 2003 (UTC)

Why don't you all read the the proposed alternative Mother Teresa text instead of repeating all the criticisms of the old one, which have already been aired many times? Adam 00:28, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I think this is a difficult one.
I don't think I have an axe to grind either way, but my personal impression of the current article is that it is POV and anti Mother Teresa. I think, for example, that including a photo of her alongside a person later convicted of fraud is more appropriate to a sensationalist magazine than to an encyclopedia. Does it really add significant information to the article?
This and one other photograph appear both on this page and the Criticisms of Mother Theresa page. I think they do belong there, but there only.
The rewrite does this and is an improvement, but I still had the same reaction. I'd like more of the critical material moved to the page devoted to it, or where it's already duplicated there, it can be simply removed. There is plenty of material to justify a separate page, so I think the main page should just summarise the allegations and link to the Criticisms page.
I'd also like the photo of the Home for the Dying retained.
I imagine that this article will get lots of hits, so while every article is important, this one will affect Wikipedia's reputation more than many others. Andrewa 01:02, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
The photos of her posing with convicted criminals, or with dictators, are of course important documents of fact, just like the photos of her posing with starving children, and I see no reason to remove them -- if you want photos at all in an encyclopedia, then you will want photos that document important people and events, and these are such photos. To have a separate page about her criticisms is not in the spirit of NPOV, and whether that page should exist at all is still disputed. Why not the other way around -- a long page with just criticisms and then a separate Praise of Mother Teresa? Whenever the same logic can be applied in two different ways and you are only willing to go one of them, you are walking on dangerous ground. If the article gets too long, we can split it up in various ways, but neutrality is always of paramount importance. Reputation is a double-edged sword. I for one wouldn't think too highly of Wikipedia if it employed a double standard.—Eloquence 04:45, Oct 23, 2003 (UTC)

List of X topics

I have a question about these "List of X topics" articles. I think they are pretty handy, and I even created a Byzantine Empire one myself (and I'm considering creating a Crusades one), but is there any specific format for them? Some seem to be a bunch of unorganized links, some are organized alphabetically, some are organized by theme...is there any standard for these types of lists? If not, should there be? (I also imagine there must be people who really despise them...) Adam Bishop 23:48, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a format, but what I would do is list them alphabetically if it's a list of articles and by theme if it's a list of topics. I find them rather useful, but they do tend to get neglected rather easily if there aren't too many people that care about them. Dori
Yes they do tend to get neglected. The reason is that they are hard to find. I was using the 'opedia for months before I found out about them. The solution is to make them visible. Include them in articles. The easier they are to find, the better navigation tools they will become, the more people will use them, and the more people will maintain them. mydogategodshat 04:28, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Cyrillic script

Ah, where's that Mediator. Have a look at the article Millosh Gjergj Nikolla. Igor thinks there should be a Serbian spelling in both the Latin and Cyrillic, I think that one is enough and the cyrillic one should not be used because it scares English readers away. Seeing as this is an English Wikipedia article and a Serbian Wikipedia exists to make use of the cyrillic form, I think I am right. I want to avoid having to revert his changes over and over so I am asking what the consensus is here. One should notice that I brought the issue up with him before (see this and) he seemed to agree, but now apparently he has changed his mind. thank you Dori 03:10, Oct 23, 2003 (UTC)

Wiki fast?

Is that only my case but the wikipedia seems extremely fast today. Something happened? Is that only due to my Internet connection? -- Taku

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_archive_2004-09-26&oldid=1610045"