Anarchopedia:eng:Syndicate

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)

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.

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

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)

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

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)

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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

Dictionary

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

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-Politacal Faction Unit

See Anarchopedia talk:en:Faction