WikiEN-l September 2003

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

70 participants
113 discussions

distributing 1.0 (was: Re: [WikiEN-l] copyright on old paintings)
by Daniel Mayer 22 Oct '03

22 Oct '03

Richard Grevers wrote: >And in some countries High-speed internet is charged >for by data volume transferred. There is no way I'd be >downloading any ISO images on an account with 1GB/month >"free" and the rest at $0.2 ber MB. Eh gads! 1 GB/month? That is so draconian. I do that easily in a week and periodically in a single day when I'm updating my system. And that is just /my/ computer; my partner and our roomate use even more bandwidth with online games and downloading media files (and they are both Windows users so they also have to update /way/ more often). We are only limited by speed; at any one moment we are only able to share a single 1.5 MB/s DSL connection. America is grand! But the beauty of even having such a restricted pipeline as you do, is that only one person in your community needs to download the ISO; then many, many copies can be made of that single file. Then the updates can trickle-in easily under your 1 GB limit. -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] [roy_q_royce@hotmail.com: --A Request RE a WIKIArticle--]
by Roy Royce 02 Oct '03

02 Oct '03

Thank you, Mr. Starling, for helping to lower my "stress quotient"! (And please note that I did not really call anyone a liar, but instead gave the choice between that and someone who really has not taken the time to check out the facts of the case.) (I also would like to point out the fact that Mr. Poor misquoted me by snipping my "buffer" phrase "I hate to say this, but".) (I would also like to note that it seems odd to me that whereas the main party [you] has actually apologized, I still got several strong reprimands from "parties of the second part.") (Finally, as far as this initial top-posting stuff goes, let me correct Mr. Axel Boldt's assumption that I have a theory or theories by stating that this is untrue. My whole point was simply that critical facts have been left out of the WIKI special relativity article, and I have proved my point.) >From: "Tim Starling" <ts4294967296(a)hotmail.com> >Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> >To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org >Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re: [roy_q_royce(a)hotmail.com: --A Request >REaWIKIArticle--] >Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 16:40:36 +1000 > [snip] > > > > The fact that E=mc^2 does not support SR is not merely "my fact." > >I never said anything about that one, remember? I snipped it. I didn't want >to get into a technical discussion on this mailing list, where most readers >are not familiar with relativity. Save it for the talk page of the article. > Your many references to cranks in the context of my first post made it necessary for me to try to defend myself, and it seemed to me that this could best be done by showing that E=mc^2 is not a part of SR. Regarding your "save it for the talk page" advice, you are actually at a disadvantage because you did not know that I had already tried that, and found that it did not work - so I tried taking my case to the "main dude" himself, James Wales; however, since he assumed that he could not handle the physics, he "tossed me to the 'wolves' of this list." (said with a smile, Mr. Poor!) I really wanted the chance to prove to Mr. Wales that there were indeed critical scientific facts omitted from "his" WIKI SR article. And I firmly believe that I can still do this, so I will post my new for-the-layman proof for Mr. Wales. > [snip] > > I challenge anyone here to find where I lost any argument to anyone > > in the Newsgroups. > >Who said anything about losing arguments? I've never known a crackpot to >lose an argument, by their own concession. > Actually, it is easy to tell who has won an argument in the Newsgroups if one cares to find out. The main two ways are [1] if no one replies to one's final posting (re the main subject), or [2] if there are only ad hominem or "you ain't right" or "you're just a troll and a crank" kinds of replies. (I certainly would not dream of asking you to simply take my word that I had won.) > > I hate to say this, but Mr. Tim Starling is either a liar or an > > easily-fooled person because I have never - by any stretch of anyone's > > imagination - except Starling's - suggested "a direct test of some > > aspect of relativity which is hugely expensive or perhaps even > > technically impossible." > >Two very important questions: > >1. What would be my motivation to lie? >2. Who am I being fooled by? > It would be of course the same motivation that led you to dismiss me instantly as some sort of crackpot. I wish I knew what it was! You could be fooled by various sources, one of which could be the WIKI SR article which falsely states that SR is supported by E=mc^2. You could also be fooled by those in the Newsgroups who have tried to label anything that they're not familiar with as "BS from a crank." > > And I have never ignored "the huge body of > > slightly less direct tests of the same theory," and I have not then > > "obliquely suggested some sort of conspiracy theory to explain why > > no-one is spending millions of dollars on his simple test." And it > > is complete balderdash to say of me that "Everywhere he goes, he > > feels persecuted by co-conspiring mainstream physicists, who are > > out to suppress the 'truth' he has discovered." > > > > Mr. Starling, I demand either an apology or some proof of the above > > serious accusations. > >I apologise. I was making generalisations. As a matter of curiosity, what >is >your estimate for the cost of this experiment? > Thanks, but it seemed to me to be a direct attack on my credibility, so I got pretty defensive (which I rarely do). As for "the cost of this experiment," I am not sure to which experiment you are referring, but I assume it is a two-clock measurement of light's one-way speed. Since we are actually talking about theoretical physics (note that my main topic is SR), the cost is practically zero because it is all done on paper. For some reason, everyone assumes that I am either presenting a theory of my own or calling for some exorbitant test of SR. Instead, I am simply trying to clarify the meaning of SR. [snip] > > >_______________________________________________ >WikiEN-l mailing list >WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l _________________________________________________________________ Get MSN 8 Dial-up Internet Service FREE for one month. Limited time offer-- sign up now! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup

5 4

Wikilists and GDFL
by Dante Alighieri 01 Oct '03

01 Oct '03

I know that everything that is submitted to the Wikipedia proper (English or otherwise) is released under the GDFL... what about everything we write on this (or any other Wikimedia) mailing list? Since the mailing list is archived on the 'pedia does that mean that by writing this email I'm releasing its contents under the GDFL? Either way, the status of this list should probably be more explicit both during list sign-up and in the monthly password reminder. ----- Dante Alighieri dalighieri(a)digitalgrapefruit.com "The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321

11 18

Cooperation with EUobserver
by erik_moeller＠gmx.de 01 Oct '03

01 Oct '03

I am happy to report that I have reached a cooperation agreement with EUObserver.com. This is one of the few websites that does original reporting on the European Union, in news style and reasonably neutral. The terms of the agreement are as follows: 1) EUObserver.com agrees to put the text of the first paragraph of each story (the part which is shown on the frontpage) in the public domain. That paragraph usually provides a good summary of the story. 2) We agree to cite EUOBserver.com as a source for each of these copied summaries (as we already do with all stories reported on "Current events"). We can of course choose which stories to put on Wikipedia -- we will not want to run commentaries or human interest stories, for example. The agreement enters a trial phase now and we will review our cooperation after a month. Text put in the public domain of course remains there. And as usual, we can re-edit the summaries as we wish. Details and discussion on [[Wikipedia:EUobserver cooperation]] and its talk page. While I am not a fan of the idea of a Wikinews spinoff project (primarily because I think that news and encyclopedia are very closely linked), I do believe that this could be the beginning of an expansion into the news area, and similar agreements might be reached with other publications. It's a fair deal: They give part of their content to the public, we provide them with a steady stream of traffic to their site -- without advertising it, simply by citing it as a source. I'm sure some other independent news websites might be interested in such a deal. Regards, Erik

13 21

Image of the W
by Christopher Mahan 30 Sep '03

30 Sep '03

Instead of voting on logos, layout, and centipedes; I propose we all dig a little deeper, send some dough to the Wikimedia foundation, and have Jimbo hire a marketing company to give the W a facelift. Let's write/edit/refactor articles. ===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan(a)yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/ __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com

1 0

Mascot (re)vote
by Daniel Ehrenberg 30 Sep '03

30 Sep '03

I propose that we have a mascot vote similar to the logo vote, possibly (but not necessarily) starting over. The current mascot frontrunner (the centepede) was voted over the course of six months, but not many people have voted for any of the mascots the mascots (at least compared to the logo vote). Many people voted before the Miwiki project was started and didn't see how well it would turn out. We don't need to start all over for the mascots, we just need to publicize it more to get more entries and, more importantly, more votes. When voting on variants for the elected logo, it seems that Mav vetoed all miwiki variants because the centepede is winning by 3 votes (or was it for some other reason?). I don't think that's enough of a margin. I think that the mascot should be on the logo some way or another. I think to get more people to vote on the mascot, all we need to do is publicize it on the main page and set a deadline. If you don't want a mascot, that's fine, but then we need to say that we don't want a mascot and not have this ongoing vote. LDan __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] [roy_q_royce@hotmail.com: --A Request RE aWIKIArticle--]
by Roy Royce 30 Sep '03

30 Sep '03

>From: Daniel Ehrenberg <littledanehren(a)yahoo.com> >Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> >To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [roy_q_royce(a)hotmail.com: --A Request RE >aWIKIArticle--] >Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 12:25:50 -0700 (PDT) > > > Dear Mr. Wales, > > > > You've sold us both short! :-) (<--please note > > smiley, Mr. Poor!) You have assumed that you could > not have anything >helpful to say about the physics > of this situation, so you have also >assumed that > > it cannot be simply explained if one tries hard > > enough! > > [large snip] > > -----RR----- > >Forgive me if I'm being naive, but I thought there >were no absolute time frames, and if any time frames >existed, then they must be relative for the reasons of >special relativity. This would mean that, while if one >person is comparing his atomic clock to another >person's clock that's on a space ship they would get >different results, internally, the clocks have a >constant rate. >LDan > >PS. This sounds like a typical crackpot theory steming >from a fundimental misunderstanding of a science. I >think we should drop this because, even if it is >correct (which it isn't), it is still not for >Wikipedia until he gets through the Establisment and >writes a scientific paper on it. Regarding your PS, I was not presenting any sort of theory. (And the fact that you thought I was does not do wonders for your credibility.) Regarding your opening paragraph, you seem to be merely repeating what I said. (Except that I said nothing about any "absolute time frames.") -----RR----- _________________________________________________________________ Instant message with integrated webcam using MSN Messenger 6.0. Try it now FREE! http://msnmessenger-download.com

3 2

[roy_q_royce@hotmail.com: --A Request RE a WIKI Article--]
by Jimmy Wales 30 Sep '03

30 Sep '03

I know too little about physics to have anything helpful to say here. Reading between the lines here, I'm guessing that Mr. Royce's views are not mainstream? Is there any helpful accomodation that could be made here? ----- Forwarded message from Roy Royce <roy_q_royce(a)hotmail.com> ----- From: "Roy Royce" <roy_q_royce(a)hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 13:58:58 -0600 To: jwales(a)joey.bomis.com Subject: --A Request RE a WIKI Article-- Dear Mr. Wales, Your primary policy "You can edit this page right now" hopefully applies to the addition of facts to an article, especially important facts. However, it seems to be impossible to (permanently) add just three simple - but critical - facts to the Wiki special relativity article. I cordially invite you to check out the validity of the following statements for yourself (these are the three facts of which I spoke above): [1] No one has yet used two clocks to measure the speed of light (one way). [2] Since we have long had the necessary technology, the reason for the lack of a one-way light speed measurement must be the physical impossibility of making such a measurement. (In other words, there cannot be a one-way version of the Michelson-Morley experiment, and scientific minds should wonder why not - because the implications are grave for special relativity!) [3] The famous equation E=mc^2 does not support special relativity. (This is stated explicitly by the imminent physicist John Wheeler on page 148 of his famous book _Spacetime Physics_ {1963}, wherein he noted the fact that Einstein presented an SR-free derivation of E=mc^2 in order not to have this famous and important fact associated with a mere theory.) The above three critical facts are currently not mentioned in the Wiki ; indeed, fact [3] is denied. My request is that someone please add these facts to the Wiki special relativity article because pertinent facts are important to any encyclopedia. Thank you very much for listening! Sincerely, Roy Royce _________________________________________________________________ Get MSN 8 Dial-up Internet Service FREE for one month. Limited time offer-- sign up now! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup ----- End forwarded message -----

8 8

Re: [WikiEN-l] Mr. Royce and SR
by Roy Royce 30 Sep '03

30 Sep '03

Yes, I know that Mr. Wales ruled that I should not reply (to the list) in this case, but he should at least allow a brief reply since my proof had already been posted here. Here is a quick top-post definition of an "intrinsic property": A physical property that is not observer-dependent (or does not vary with an observer's point of view). For example, a clock's intrinsic rhythm is given by its internal atomic vibrations. ----RR----(end of reply) >From: Dante Alighieri <dalighieri(a)digitalgrapefruit.com> >Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> >To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> >Subject: [WikiEN-l] Mr. Royce and SR >Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 12:17:38 -0700 > >At 12:01 PM 9/29/2003, you wrote: >>At this point, although we have not answered our original question >>about what was physically happening in these three cases, we have >>answered the question about what was _not_ happening in these cases, >>which means that we have answered the important question Does SR >>pertain to physically real (or intrinsic) characteristics? And we >>have found that the answer to this question is No. This tells us all >>we need to know in order to prove our main point that SR does not >>pertain to the equivalence of real mass with real energy (which is >>of course stated explicitly by the equation E=mc^2). >> >>-----RR----- > >Mr. Royce, could you please define what you mean by "real" in the sense >that you've used it in your "proof"? You say "real clock rhythm", "real >mass", and "real energy", but don't fully define those terms. Perhaps the >root of the misunderstanding here is a difference in word usage? Maybe >people on the list are missing your fundamental point because they aren't >using the same words to mean the same things... > > >----- >Dante Alighieri >dalighieri(a)digitalgrapefruit.com > >"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their >neutrality in times of great moral crisis." > -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321 > >_______________________________________________ >WikiEN-l mailing list >WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l _________________________________________________________________ Instant message with integrated webcam using MSN Messenger 6.0. Try it now FREE! http://msnmessenger-download.com

1 0

Re: [WikiEN-l] Mr. Royce and SR
by Roy Royce 30 Sep '03

30 Sep '03

>From: Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)joey.bomis.com> >Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> >To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org> >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Mr. Royce and SR >Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 12:19:05 -0700 > >Dante Alighieri wrote: > > Mr. Royce, could you please define what you mean by "real" in the sense > > that you've used it in your "proof"? You say "real clock rhythm", "real > > mass", and "real energy", but don't fully define those terms. Perhaps > > the root of the misunderstanding here is a difference in word usage? > > Maybe people on the list are missing your fundamental point because > > they aren't using the same words to mean the same things... > >Yes, but please do it elsewhere. We don't need a discussion of >physics here. > >It doesn't matter a bit whether what Mr. Royce is saying is true or >not. The only real question we need to ask is: can we find it in a >textbook or similar? > To repeat, it is written in the well-regarded-by-all-physicists book _Spacetime Physics_ which was written by the esteemed physicist John A. Wheeler. (I even gave the exact page number as well as the words themselves.) >We don't _do_ physics on wikipedia, we merely report encyclopedically >on the state of the subject. > >--Jimbo >_______________________________________________ >WikiEN-l mailing list >WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org >http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l _________________________________________________________________ Instant message in style with MSN Messenger 6.0. Download it now FREE! http://msnmessenger-download.com

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l September 2003