Difference between revisions of "Anarchopedia:eng:Syndicate"

Revision as of 20:32, 5 July 2005

Technic

mysqldump

Could you kindly do regularly updated MySQL dumps so what happened at Recyclopedia doesn't happen again.

mysqldump --opt -uusername -ppassword databasename cur old > anarchopedia.sql  
tar cvzf anarchopedia.tar.gz anarchopedia.sql  

and then just move it into a downloadable location and update the MySQL dump article. Thanks.

I'll do that now, but may you explain to me what was the problem? --Millosh 20:20, 2 Oct 2004 (CDT)

And do you think that it would be usefull to make daily backups of database because of some mysql problem? --Millosh 20:22, 2 Oct 2004 (CDT)

I do not know what the problem is but I can guess. Recyclopedia was a wiki that went up that people saw as an alternative to Wikipedia. So they did a lot of edits and work on the site and then *boom*, it went down. It didn't do mysql dumps to an ftp'able directory every week, so when Recyclopedia went down for good, all the work was lost (except for what people saved and Google cache and so forth).

Wikipedia has a policy that it dumps its database twice a week. Of course, Wikipedia does not follow its policy, the last database dump was 8 days ago. Wikipedia (all languages) has a (compressed) 26.8 gig database. To download just English is 13.5 gigs compressed for the old database, plus 384MB compressed of diffs from the previous dump. Your database is not that big so you don't have to worry about all of that - yet. But backups are always good. Once or twice a week should be enough. Compressed and erased after a certain amount of time (perhaps saving one backup once a month or so). Lance Murdoch 08:45, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say (here) that mysqldumps are working every day at 01:00 CDT (I'll change it soon to 01:00 UTC). I know that mysqldumps would not be so often when Anarchopedia becomes large, but we will find some way for backups... (You can see MySQL dump page for details.) --Millosh 12:31, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Templates

Templates

Just rename templates:

Typical lines are:

| style="border-top:1px solid #000000; font: 125% Verdana; color:white"align="center" bgcolor="#000000"|'''HEADING'''
|-
| style="border-top:1px solid #000000; font: 95% Verdana; color:white" align="justify" bgcolor="#222222"|
{{THE NAME OF THE TEMPLATE}}
<div style="float: right;"><small>[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:Template:THE NAME OF THE TEMPLATE|action=edit}} edit]</small></div>

I'll move templates to name space like {{en:THE NAME OF THE TEMPLATE}} of {{localurl:Template:en:THE NAME OF THE TEMPLATE}} for english, but use this form for other languages, ie: {{ie:THE NAME OF THE TEMPLATE}} or {{localurl:Template:ie:THE NAME OF THE TEMPLATE}}.

--Millosh 15:18, 6 Oct 2004 (CDT)

Name of templates

The French and the German pages are now in the new look. I did reserve different traductions where my English is not the best... Template names: I did prefer to use the same name on English but the introduction with the language signs. For ex. :en:Templates, :de:Templates, :fr:Templates (not :en:Templates, :de:Schablonen, :fr:pochoir). Reasons: It is so better to follow if a page has an absolutely equivalent in de, fr etc. Different internet names have no official equivalent and can be transleted with really very different translations. --Oui 12:49, 7 Oct 2004 (CDT)

Languages

Hi I propose you to introduce each titel with a language mark like, for this page: "en:Syndicate" so you don't need to split as in Wikipedia/Wikibooks/Wiktionary and can use the same titel in different languages. If you rename now your 100 existing pages, we can assure so a really better start! French and German will continue (it is to late for me now in Europe)! Spanish will follow in a few days...

If you say so, but do you think that linking should be more complicated if you have to write always [[en:Name of the page]]? I said (on the lost Syndicate page) that I'll open Anarchopedias in other languages, of course. Maybe it is better to have modular Anarchopedia... If we have Anarchopedia in different languages, for example, I can move 10% of data to another server or something like that. If we have one large database, I'll (we'll) have to play with some distributed database, with distributed file system etc. If we look at Wikipeda, we can see that all of non-English Wikipedias has around 1.000.000 articles and English Wikipedia has 300.000. It means that we will have to use "non-conventional" solutions three times after we would have to if all articles are in one database. We do not have to hurry (a lot). 100 or 200 articles are reasonable for moving by hand. Do you still think that it is better not to separate different languages Anarchopedias? --Millosh 10:19, 5 Oct 2004 (CDT)

Hi millosh, I personaly would find better to consider that all the contributors are on the same ship. I am really a new user of such open sites for team work but I did have big difficulties at wikipedia with the terrible big amount of help pages. My special problem for example is that I never did learn English. I can understand 80 .. 90 % of the texts or perhaps more. I can write easier, but not correct, as I can read :-) . Especially because I use a computer programme to translate and check the orthography: I write on English where I can and can enter a German word if don't know it on English: It appairs (sometimes, the computer don't all the words) in the window where I am working. But if I search in an help page it is because I have a really difficult problem. For this reason I did have to look for help on the pages of my familiar languages French and German. But in most situations I did find empty links for the difficult pages, for example concerning "templates" etc. The subdivision wikipedia in different wikis make the multilingual user tired. The logins work only within the lingual subdivision. Etc. It is evident by using Wikipedia that we don't live all on the same planet ;-) ! But specialists oft knows more than one language and would appreciate to considerate the community as a global community and continue to write without to change of community and of interlocutors her messages. There are very different possibilities to split a big site if necessary: I would find the "thematics" better because if I am an occasional user of information, I surf on the web and accept to have to relink and login if I will show my identity. If I work as contributor I would find better to occupate me with writing or translating good things as with logins and other difficulies. If the sum of all contributions (also in all languages) about "technology" for example make a problem and is to heavy, you can split the serveur no 1 in two serveurs no. 1 and no. 2 and bring all the thing about technology on the new serveur. The technology specialist stay all together in only one environment and preserve an high efficacity by working. Perhaps it is also a matter of the technic of redirection technical, login and cookies? --Oui 12:10, 5 Oct 2004 (CDT)

Yes, you are right. (I am in the similar position as you are... I don't need computer translator (and there are no computer translators for Serbian), but I use dictionaries often and my English syntax is terrible :) ). I think that the most important reason is "living on the same planet". I think that that the Main Page in the future should have welcome and links to other languages. Also, I'll try to work on MediaWiki so we can have different localizations at the same engine. So, we can start with moving. I think that we can work like that: "real pages" should be named like "en:Main Page", but we should have redirect from "Main Page" to "en:Main Page". If one word is written the same in some number of languages; for example, if "Proudhon" is written the same in English and in French -- we should have the page "Proudhon" with links to en:Proudhon and fr:Proudhon. Also, with the note that if someone used an internal link, (s)he should change link to the correct page. --Millosh 13:58, 5 Oct 2004 (CDT)

I think the pages look messy. There's and as well as anarchism. Instead of something simple like libertarian socialism, something like becomes necessary. I perceive this getting messy. Perhaps you should do it the way Wikipedia does it. Otherwise, it should be as invisible to the end-user as Wikipedia (the web server can detect the language from browser settings or something). 68.161.98.133 21:43, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It is open problem at Anarchopedia. Please, read and talk there. --Millosh 02:35, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Contribution to interlingual organization of Anarchopedia

Main pages for languages should be at the place: [[Anarchopedia:The name of the language]]. Does anyone have better idea? I moved Main Page to Anarchopedia:English. For now, Anarchopedia:English is the main page, but it would not be in the future,.. Also, use Anarchopedia:en:Design to be envolved in making new design(s) of Anarchopedia. As soon as possible, I'll put somewhere into Anarchopedian wiki CSS code of Anarchopedian current design. --Millosh 14:52, 5 Oct 2004 (CDT)

Dictionary, Template:en:Languages

Where is the template now? (I have no copy because the construction of the dictionary isn't finish). This template is one of the 2 more important pages for the multi-linguage traduction dictionary! --Oui 05:10, 9 Oct 2004 (CDT)

Hum! all templates are away. The almost finish dictionary is completly broken. Perhaps my error? --Oui 05:17, 9 Oct 2004 (CDT)

Main page

Encyclopedia

I would propose a new titel "Equiped for the live" (in good English)! --Oui 12:36, 5 Oct 2004 (CDT)

I am working on the New Main Page. My idea is to devide "Anarchopedia" and "Encyclopedia". The part "Anarchopedia" should be encyclopedia of anarchism and "Encyclopedia" (or your term "Equiped for the life"; I think correct is "life", but I don't know if the article "the" is correct ;) ... of "Equiped to live"). What do (all of) you think about that? I'll finish new design today, but, of course, everything can be changed. --Millosh 14:01, 5 Oct 2004 (CDT)

I did trying following on French (the page is finish; only proofs and timelines did give me problems to understand it): "Knowledge giving a sens/signification/orientation to live"--Oui 14:22, 5 Oct 2004 (CDT)

Gaiagraphy

The Gaiagraphy work by 213 is quite interesting, isn't it? Perhaps this should be a broad, popular front wiki for anarchists, socialists, greens and other Anarchopedia:Factions to have encyclopedic articles on activism, direct action, social change and the like? See [1] for one perspective.

Yes, it is interesting. I just wandered what is gaiagraphy :) because it is not so usual term. (Even Google doesn't have a lot of articles about gaiagraphy; around 5 to 10.) Maybe it is good idea to explain what is gaiagraphy first. An, of course, I would like that Anarchopedia become not only an encyclopedia of anarchism, but anarchist (activist, greens and others) encyclopedia. --Millosh 10:19, 5 Oct 2004 (CDT)</nowiki>

Hi Millosh enter "myers norman gaia" into a search motor to find (actually at yahoo) 11000 references on this autor --Oui 12:23, 5 Oct 2004 (CDT)

Community

It would be better to use in all pages the same template: In Wikipedia each one have to add new links to other linguage section, to his sections and to other sections that he find interessting. A template makes that alls sections are automaticly present after her first registation on the English master page... Only the titel would differ. Of course languages with different alphabet can choice a different way. I find it is not important to read the name of the different languages in the language what we frequent actually: If one read "magyar", if he speaks hungary, he knows what is magyar and it is enough! The links to the language subdivisions are not for a curiosity. Why this comment? On weekipedia the links to languages need really a lot of place on the main page. And after a time of growing, place problems can appair... --Oui 14:36, 7 Oct 2004 (CDT)

POV questions

What's the POV conventions for anarchopedia? Is it specifically anarchist? How would we guarantee an anarchist POV, and do it in an anarchist manner? millerc 00:44, 6 Oct 2004 (CDT)

I would think that anything between strict NPOV and APOV (anarchist point of view) is acceptable. Since actual NPOV content does not advocate any position, it does not advocate capitalism, statism, etc. However, if someone decided to insert a fascist or other unwelcome point of view, it could be reverted or cleaned up to remove their advocacy, depending on the circumstances. The content would be preserved in the page history. I do not think that we should attempt to hide any factual information; instead, any such arguments should simply be refuted in the text.

The way to enforce APOV is through SoftSecurity. All edits can be reverted or fixed as easily as they were originally made. In extreme circumstances (e.g. a bot designed to enforce a POV), we could use a block to defend the project. Unlike most other wikis, blocks on Anarchopedia are in no way restricted to a certain class of users, so there is no.

I believe that we should be neutral about differences in opinion between actual anarchists. For example, "" should not be an essay opposing violence, nor should it state that violence is necessary for change. Guanaco 01:25, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality is an illusion, we should change the concept of Neutral POV to Global POV. The Global POV is the only POV that includes all other POV. Which means it's the only one to includes itself. Global refers to global as in "Think global, act local". It is also known as the Natural POV, but as NPOV (Natural POV) could be easily confused with NPOV (Neutral POV), GPOV should be preferred. Not to mention the curiosity effect that will draw people to read our policy, guidelines and objectives, and that we have to cultivate our differences from other wiki/encyclopedia projects.

New look

The new main page looks good but I don't find the texts... (The same problem as at Wikipedia! What is a template, how does a template work! ;-) to complicate for me I'm sorry... The second problem is a "negative film" effect on my PC (Windows 98/IE6) in the editing window. --Oui 15:14, 6 Oct 2004 (CDT)

• I am using templates. Look at Anarchopedia talk:Interlingue where I explained how to make the main page. You can edit template by clicking on "edit" in the bottom of the cell and you can see there how to do that. If you need some more informations, be free to ask. --Millosh 15:21, 6 Oct 2004 (CDT)

Implications of English words

I found the words "old people" (I changed it to elderly) and "backwardness" (I changed it to dysfunction) on the main page. These words have negative connotations in English, and might be considered insulting, so I changed them. I understand that not everyone's native language is English, so I won't be offended, but I will continue to make large changes to the language used in the future. Feel free to talk with me if I change something in a way that doesn't seem to represent what you were thinking. millerc 16:25, 6 Oct 2004 (CDT)

Thank you millerc --Oui 12:51, 7 Oct 2004 (CDT)

Thank you from my side, too :) --Millosh 13:00, 7 Oct 2004 (CDT)

Yes good moves all -- an anonymous troll

As english is not my mother tongue, I'm no expert. But as an advanced linguist I can tell that, it is vital not to fall in the politically correct way of talking. As long as it doesn't change the meaning of the idea expressed through the words there will be no problem, so be sure to report such a change to Millerc.

Namespaces

Should we continue to use titles with language codes like "en" and "de"? I think it would be easier to use the name of the language in parentheses if it is shared by multiple languages, such as George W. Bush (English) and George W. Bush (Español). George W. Bush would be a disambiguation page if the article existed in multiple languages. Names like libertarian socialism are unique to their language and are unambiguous, so in that case, the English page would be at that name.

We should also merge the dictionary with the articles so that the information can be more easily found. Guanaco 11:34, 9 Oct 2004 (CDT)

• It is not so ugly as it is now... We would have more problems with name space if we stay at one Anarchopedia with a lot of languages. However, we need to find a way for simple tranlation from one Anarchopedia to more. --Millosh 02:30, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think the different languages should be separated as on Wikipedia. What's the point of linking things on the same site when you can't read the other language? You can have english.anarchopedia.org, deutsch.anarchopedia.org, français.encyclopedia.org, although I don't know if DNS handles cedillas. Whatever - it is too confusing as is. Wikipedia has been successful with its model. Wikipedia has language page links. I don't mind if something different is done, but it should be invisible to the front-end user. Lance Murdoch 05:29, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also, on Wikipedia, when I go to http://www.wikipedia.org it senses my browser is English and takes me to http://en.wikipedia.org . You could leave www (THIS site), as multi-language and whatever, and make en.wikipedia.org English-only. That might be a good idea. Lance Murdoch 05:31, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• We would use language codes when/if we would have different Anarchopedias (something like eng.anarchopedia.org, esp.anarchopedia.org, fra.anarchopedia.org etc.; I think that three letters code is more equal for all languages; a lot of them doesn't have two letters code because they are not in the group of around 300-400 "bigger" languages; so we should not have problems with non-ASCII characters in DNS). --Millosh 05:44, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Wikipedia doesn't detect your browser settings. "www.wikipedia.org" is just alias for "en.wikipedia.org", so you are getting redirection; i.e., I have Serbian settings in my browser and I am getting the same: www->en and I have to write sr.wikipedia.org for Serbian Wikipedia. --Millosh 05:44, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Use the exactly same ISO language codes (EN, FR, etc. as wikipedia for now, but the three-letter codes are in fact more equal, as long as they are also standard - are they?) -- an anonymous troll

Anarchapedia

Is Anarchapedia a viable project? It would make more sense for Anarchopedia and Anarchapedia to be one project. Guanaco 01:28, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Activity at AnarchApedia is very low. ... A lot of females say that "everything belongs to men". So, I didn't want to make male-centric project. In this moment we are working on AnarchOpedia and we are talking to other people about it. If some anarcha-feminists would like to work there, we can make some coordination. But, in the moment when there were two edits in one month -- I don't see any kind of good or bad things if AnarchApedia exits. --Millosh 02:23, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Or you think that AnarchApedia should be another name for AnarchOpedia? I don't know. Would we become "the same as others" if female project is just nickname for us? --Millosh 02:23, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  We could just invisibly redirect the domain to anarchopedia.org. Guanaco 20:01, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Yes, I know what do you want :) Apache should say that one more alias for anarchOpedia.org is anarchApedia.org. But, is it right thing to do? Would we become man-centric? I think the most ethically way is to leave that domain to women even it doesn't have a lot of sense. --Millosh 00:31, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Millosh is correct, leave it to evolve as it will evolve, and leave women in charge of it, period. -- anonymous trolls

• I don't get it. We shouldn't be seperating ourselves more than necessary, language made sense, cause it was practical, but gender? That makes no sense. As Anarchists, we're all feminists are we not? Furthermore, men have alot to learn from our companeras, so why would we divide? This way, when we do things that are a little "man-centric", we have companeras involved who would give us some righteous rage! If necessary, I say we have an invisible redirect from AnarchOpedia, to AnarchApedia, and just merge our projects there :D--Che y Marijuana 03:59, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Correct, you "don't get it": *YOU* don't get to define "We". No, not all anarhcists are feminists, and it's not up to you to decide what women will put up with. When there are enough women involved, they might decide to temporarily redirect invisibly, but they could retain the right to split - an anonymous troll

• • Yes, (almost) all of us agree with principles of anarcha-feminism. But, feminists (sometime) like to work only with women, not with men. And we are men :) (as I think). ... Some time ago, I sent an email to Kate from Anarcha. She didn't say anything until today. I told to her today that I want to give domain anarchapedia.(org|net|info) (other domains doesn't exist; this opens another question: I would not like to see .com or .biz domain for anarchopedia; should we/I buy it and leave it without anything or not?) to her or them. It is not our business :) --Millosh 19:29, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes buy it and hold it for them. If it's exploited for porn, project over. And if women are associated with any URL, it will be exploited for porn. A lot of people just go to the .com first with direct navigation, i.e. typeins of the assumed domain name.

feminists (sometime) like to work only with women, not with men. - Very true, but this is in fact a general issue which is not specific to feminists -- see Anarchopedia:en:Faction. Anarchopedia namespace pages suggests that this is a progressive project, and as we know, progressives are divided into factions and lesser inclinations sometimes called a tendency, and while they may be aligned on short term goals, may often support quite different ideology or political party options.

There must be a way to ask the Marxists themselves to review and critique Marxist POVs without having them all hacked up and mixed up with animal rights POVs too soon, before they are clearly stated, and without having to ask oh say "royal libertarians" on the Wikipedia mailing list to judge their validity.

Yes there is: that is why "Reds" and "Golds" are different factions:

User:Lance Murdoch said that "Indymedia began very open, and then decided to finally stop authoritarian right-wing people from disrupting the site", but we might want to find some fairer way to draw a stop to Wikipedia-style attrition wars of exclusion. By supporting variants like Anarchopedia:Reds and Anarchopedia:Golds that may actually hate each other, we hope to create understanding. That might not work, but, it's a worthy experiment. Eventually we all need to get by on one planet. So why not get by with en:One big wiki, just like the one big union or world government thesis? If it doesn't work, well, something will be learned. Live and let Troll

Good plan. But remember that nothing alive has no gender at all, so the division or potential division into separate gendered wikis is a wise one at least in theory. No culture exists on Earth that did not have separated discourses for males and females - though some are losing that distinction now, it is certainly only an experiment, which is by no means guaranteed to be succesful. Best to reserve the right (and domains) to split off female from male discourse in case they turn out to be irreconcilable. - the trolls

I've redirected the Anarchapedia domain to Anarchopedia. It had been overrun by vandals and had no real contributors. Guanaco 20:12, 4 Feb 2005 (CST)

That's because nothing real was ever done with it. Reserve it until there are enough women to form a collective to make a binding decision.

Without a commitment to patroll anarchapedia, what do you expect?

article names, links, English and so forth

One of the things in Wikipedia is ease of use. In Wikipedia you just surround a [[word]] with brackets and it becomes an article. Here you must surround everything with [[en:lots of stuff|lots of stuff]]. Article names on wiki are simple as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassini-Huygens is for Cassini-Huygens, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism is for Buddhism. This software wasn't designed to have en: prepended to English pages, and for links be more complex than two brackets on each side. I think if these changes are necessary they should be done on the server side, not the user side. You have to segregate the different languages. Lance Murdoch 05:50, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• It seems that we need to vote about that problem. I'll reanarge page Anarchopedia:en:name space for voting. --Millosh 00:33, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• The consensus seems to be to segregate, how are we going to go about this now? Good thing the decision came with 200 pages, rather than later on in this resources life. That would have been a pain. Is there a way to get a list of all the articles named in the former format so we can figure out what needs to be done and divide up the work?--Che y Marijuana 04:03, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Yes. You can look at Special:Allpages (if it is what did you try to find). But, we have some questions to solve (and some work to do) before open Anarchopedia in different languages. Please, see Work in progress for details. --Millosh 19:19, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Anarcho"-Capitalism

I thought we were attempting to be different from wikipedia's self-defeating "NPOV" policies. Under an APOV atmosphere, why are we perpetuating the lie that there is such a thing as "Anarcho"-Capitalism? How are we supposed to be any better than wikipedia if we can't even defend our own movement from being defined into anything anyone wants us to be defined as? This is rediculous--Che y Marijuana 20:51, 12 Dec 2004 (CST)

This is in section "what we are not", i.e. "what anarchism is not" with rascism, homophobia etc. Also, we can change that article(s) into APOV, but I think that we should write encyclopedia... I.e.: we don't like capitalism but we should write about capitalism from APOV. (Notation is from An Anarchis FAQ with "Anarcho" inside of quotes.) Also, please use eng: for articles and talk about articles... --Milos Rancic

Please be careful - there is no "APOV", there is perhaps a New Troll point of view you have not seen before, but no one has the right to decide that someone else "is not an anarchist" therefore something is "not APOV". - the trolls

The reason I was using this, was mostly just to understand what our general policy should be, cause I've heard mention of having coexisting "anarchopedia reds and anarchopedia golds" and things of the sort. I just wanted to understand what APOV means to us here. Will we be including "Anarcho"-Capitalists in what we consider to be APOV? Since we are at a small level right now, it makes sense to have coherent udnerstanding, rather than just leaving it to each article right now.--Che y Marijuana 23:31, 12 Dec 2004 (CST)

The coherent understanding is formed in the factions "reds" and "golds" and whatever, that is not up to any central committee with a single "we" as you suggest. If you wish to take over one of those factions, do so, but you will not be able to take them ALL over - and that is for a reason. -- trolls

Sorry for waiting for answer to your question. The question is complex and I'll try to say my point of view (which is relevant as your point of view is): --Milos Rancic 22:51, 18 Dec 2004 (CST)

• First of all this is (free) encyclopedia. We should make encyclopedic articles which describes some questions. "Anarcho"-capitalism is one of the encyclopedic articles. --Milos Rancic 22:51, 18 Dec 2004 (CST)
• Anarchopedia is anarchist encyclopedia and encyclopedia for anarchists. I assume that capitalism can exists only inside of state. So, this is not encyclopedia for capitalists which claim that they are anarchists. In this sense, we are not "anarcho"-capitalists. --Milos Rancic 22:51, 18 Dec 2004 (CST)

It's good you discuss it that way, but, there are lots of people who want a very small state that is perhaps only the size of a single valley, and they are "anarchists" from the perspective of larger state societies. So I think you may be correct on some very large scale but "we" in other senses are exactly the same as those people: Commerce and trade will continue and there is always a way of mediating disputes about that, and that is ultimately "the state" whether it carries guns or not. -- trolls

• If you want to write some article about national-socialism, you would: (1) explain positions of national-socialists and (2) you would make some anarchist critique of national-socialism. The same situation is for "anarcho"-capitalists: you woudl say what "anarcho"-capitalists claim and you would say why anarchists don't think that "anarcho"-capitalism is anarchism. --Milos Rancic 22:51, 18 Dec 2004 (CST)
• We are anarchists and we don't like to use myths in our discourse. But, anarchists have their myths. We should explain our myths, too. We should give marxist, liberal or other kinds of critique of anarchism and anarchists. (I am proud because I think that all humans are good by nature. Someone thinks that I am stupid if I think something like that.) --Milos Rancic 22:51, 18 Dec 2004 (CST)

Give them recognition as factions, and the problem will ease, it will be more like a game.

• NPOV from Wikipedia is not good solution. The best solution is to say what different sides think about some question. Of course, we can have sections "Anarchist point of view" in all articles. But we should not make cenzorship. --Milos Rancic 22:51, 18 Dec 2004 (CST)
• The idea about coexistention of "golds, reds, greens..." is Troll's idea. They want to make one big wiki. This is OK while users don't start to make articles which says that rascism is good or that exploatation is good that state is good... --Milos Rancic 22:51, 18 Dec 2004 (CST)

One could have articles like that but they would be CLEARLY MARKED ONLY FROM ONE FACTION'S VIEW and would largely serve to discredit that faction, as other extreme political views serve to discredit parties and factions in the real world. One must simulate the real world's conflicts. If a view is not widely held in the real world it will have no defending faction. But the view that "the state is good" is held by so many groups you cannot avoid dealing with it. We, trolls, must deal daily with sysopism which tries to tell us how to express ourselves, or to go away, -- trolls

• We should keep in mind that Anarchopedia should be test for anarchy: To explain to us how can we work together even with people which are not explicit anarchists. Because anarchy is not the place where anarchists live, but the place where all humans live. And we should explain why anarchy is better then other social relations. And Anarchopedia is one of the places where we can try to explain this. --Milos Rancic 22:51, 18 Dec 2004 (CST)

Correct. And part of that test is to show how differences of view can be dealt with, without forcing everyone to conform to a single arbiter, the state or the sysop. -- trolls

I hope I gave to you some explanation :) --Milos Rancic 22:51, 18 Dec 2004 (CST)

It explains a bit, but I think the factons should be something people start and maintain themselves, not something Anarchopedia officially sanctions or builds for people, before they have even signed up. None of the factions have a memebership, let people coalesce on their own and build these factions if they want, not categorize them before they even get here. And I don't think it should be on the main page either.--Che y Marijuana 17:42, 5 Jan 2005 (CST)

No, experience shows that factions need some support or they take ungiven powers as at Wikipedia where sysop factions cooperate to censor, especially the Zionists and American Exceptionalists and Neoliberals, all of whom cooperate to attack articles questioning those views. Political systems didn't take account of parties when they were designe, and look what happened: parties control eveyrthing. The factions must be officially sanctioned only to the degree that they must have a reliable way to say "this faction approves of this version of this article" - and if they are not on the main page they wont be noticed. And if you don't put a scheme on them like colour, on the default obvious political views, you will have ridiculous names chosen for them and no way at all to create a colour referencing scheme to tell what articles are shaded what, what areas are most patrolled by the trolls of specific factions. -- trolls

Nothing prevents people starting new factions with names they like better than colours. -- trolls

Dictionary

I don't know what to do with... Any suggestion? --Milos Rancic 23:33, 12 Dec 2004 (CST)

Hi, Millosh, I visit you again! You speek here from me. I don't know the answer for following reason. Last year, you, or an other programmer, did change at different time the presentation of this site. After the "red phase" did beginn, I didn't find access any more to the necessery tools to contribute well on this site (no "navigation" tool, no communications and command lines on top of the site, etc. And I was sorry to must to abandon the beginned work! You will remember, that I did look for help to open an Spanish Main Page. And I did have after that to excuse me for the obtained translation into Spanish that I didn't can write completely on the site of anarchopedia. My friend excuse me; more! My friend did give to me a first class internet site for my activities to permit me to realize a part of my plans with a different way so that I am really very busy now with my own site! I can not continue both at the same time... But the implemented dictionary on anarchopedia is really unique in performance thank the technik of templates. It is really possible with him to build an universal dictionary for an open numero of languages. It would be good to find a successor for this domain. I will look for a such successor in the next time if you can and will wait a few month to decide if you will erase it or not. It works completely different of the dictionary in wikipedia: all languages are completely integrated and equivalent or able to be integrated and chained toghether (only English will be used as the Index; but it would be possible to redefine this point and to choice a neutral language as index without homophones like Esperanto or Ido)! But it would be better to work in the first time as coordinated staff. If 25 people would enter only 2 words each day (email-chain), all the same word for each of the 25 persons, we would have after only one year a dictionary with 730 words in 25 languages and it is really enough for a simple but effektiv discussion (to compare: full Basic English has only 850 words; restricted Basic English as by I. A. Richards has only 500 words)! In the first time, it would be better to work completely synchron through the different languages. After a start phase it would be indifferent! Oui 00:20, 9 Feb 2005 (CDT)

Meta/Eng/Other languages

I miss a control for moving easily from one page in the meta or eng to the corresponding page on the other side. Would it be impossible to add a widget (say, under the toolbox) "This page in:" (meta, eng, fra, spa, deu). For easy jumping and editing. ----Anni 10:54, 5 Jan 2005 (JAP)

You can add it. But not on Meta for now. We should move all pages from "en:something" to "eng:something" on Meta and then we can use as link to the English Anarchopedia. However, I can see if it is possible to make other magic abbervations (i.e. eng: instead of en: for shortcuts). --Milos Rancic 05:55, 5 Jan 2005 (CST)

I meant on a more global level, like on wikipedia, where under the toolbox there is another box that lets you jump directly to the corresponding site on the flip side. (I.E. it jumps from say, eng.anarchopedia.org to meta.anarchopedia.org, without changing anything else than the prefix.) I cannot add this, exept on a site per site basis, and I don't feel like doing that. --Anni 07:30, 5 Jan 2005 (CST)

Administrative-Political Faction Unit

See Anarchopedia talk:en:Faction

Vandalism

Since everyone is given admin powers, people are coming in and deleting pages, vandalizing pages and whatnot. I just restored a page I wrote that was deleted. Is there any way to deal with this? Wikipedia has a high bar to become an administrator, Anarchopedia has no bar.

I think the rule should be as long as you're not an out-and-out vandal, you can be an admin. Maybe people should have to wait a day to become an admin or something? Eventually, everyone has to come to terms with vandalism. Otherwise the community becomes authoritarian - the vandal winds up running the community. Anyhow, this is something to think about. My best idea would be there being a time limit to becoming an admin. A day, a week, whatever. And if someone is making good edits they can get it even quicker. Lance Murdoch 19:47, 27 Mar 2005 (CST)

I disagree. Admin actions are easily undone AFAICT, so there's no reason to restrict them - the latest MediaWiki release could really help here as it makes them MUCH easier to track. IMHO these people should be treated like any other vandal - if they continue to protect or delete pages w/o giving a reason after being warned, they should be blocked entirely.

I think we should wait until MediaWiki 1.5 is released to make any more changes to this. Currently I (or Millosh) have to hard-code every change to the admin powers system, but 1.5 will allow us to more easily edit the settings using the wiki interface. Guanaco 13:10, 28 Mar 2005 (CST)

• No user should be given the power to delete an article. This should be a developer only function.
• Blocking is useless on an open system such as a wiki project. Blocking is the process that creates vandals.

I can tell cause I came to wikipedia full of good intents and after being censored through deletion and blocked many times for authoritarian reasons, my good intents were gone. We should avoid here errors that have already been committed. Remember that the most secured door is the one you can keep fully open. We should go for prevention and information instead of repression. Anarchy success is based on responsability, and it relies on us to explain this to newcomers and offer them a chance ot understand what anarchy is not (degradations) and what anarchy truly is (freedom to think and act which is no reason to behave as a stoopid idiot).

GFDL ?

It is obvious that GFDL is not appropriate to a wiki project. Should be replaced by GNU GPL or a Creative Common Licence.

more vandalism

English Anarchopedia was vandalized once again. The vandal blocked me, so I can't fix anything he vandalized. Currently the entire front page is messed up.

Vandals have the ability to come in on day one and block everyone, and delete a bunch of pages. Right now the vandal has complete control of the web site. If you are waiting for the next version of the software to come out to make major changes, why don't you just remove admin powers for all new users, or for all users.

It's a waste of my time across many months spending hours working on articles here and then have a vandal come along and ruin everything within a few minutes, where I am blocked from editing and my pages are all deleted.

I complained about this before, and now once again I am blocked and many pages have been deleted. This could all be fixed if admin powers were not granted to new users. Lance Murdoch 13:29, 2 Apr 2005 (CST)

You can unblock yourself even you are blocked. --Milos Rancic 02:40, 6 Apr 2005 (CDT)

You can email me if a user blocks everyone. I can clear all the blocks by a given user with one SQL query. Guanaco 07:45, 8 Apr 2005 (CDT)

even more vandalism

Someone just went on English Anarchopedia and deleted 25 images. Of course as soon as they show up they are given full admin privileges. Now that these images have been deleted, they can not be undeleted. As I said two months ago, by giving full admin powers to anyone who shows up on this wiki the instant they show up, you have handed this wiki over to vandals. I am getting tired with wasting time dealing with vandals due to the inane policy of handing full admin power to anyone who shows up. I said this two months ago, and I was told there would be changes soon, yet two months have gone by of vandals taking over and destroying the wiki, and things are as before. The solution is quite simple: limit the number of people who have admin powers, no other wikis let any user block and delete at will because they have enough problems with vandals. I was told two months ago to "wait for MediaWiki 1.5". Two months have gone by, MediaWiki 1.5 has yet to be released, and Anarchopedia has been and continues to be ruled by vandals. Lance Murdoch 11:28, 2 Jul 2005 (CDT)

I added +a attribute on the file system. This means that no one can remove any image. (Until 1.5, you should say here if you want to remove some image.) Sorry for deleted images... --Milos Rancic 06:40, 5 Jul 2005 (UTC)

The policy is correct and must be maintained at all costs. It is as non-negotiable as anonymous edits. Hopefully if it is easily undone then it is going to be a boring target. Tools to quickly undo common types of such sysop vandalism are what are required, not stupid "limits" on "the number of people who have admin powers". Anyone who says "The solution is quite simple" to a political problem is a fool. Reconsider, Lance Murdoch. -- trolls

Forum

Blackat from French Anarchopedia asked me to open forum. I didn't open under anarchopedia.org, but I opened one multilingual forum (phpBB2) on http://forum.anarhija.org/ . If anynone thinks that it is useful, please use it. --Milos Rancic 08:22, 5 Jul 2005 (UTC)