Can we please copyedit this? This sentence doesn't make sense. Carmelapple 15:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As of 1 August 2006, 106 users of the French Wikipedia have been nominated for adminship. This makes 0.08% of the total number of 134,124 registered users .

Woah... anyone have details? 68.39.174.238 06:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it was a sysop using his sockpuppets to vote twice or more. He also candidates with two accounts ;). You can read our report (in french) here Pyb 16:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)2222[reply]

Sound brilliant, but isn't that original research? -- Zanimum 17:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. "it is the first time that an interview is realised for Wikipedia" -> Nobody did it before because wikipedia is not a newspaper... Username9 21:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't check for those kinds of things. Kpjas and me are the heads of the Interwiki reports but we don't check that kind of stuff; we only do copyediting. You can direct all comments to here. Pyb wrote the article; he should say something about why he added that. I might change it later in the week; as of now, I don't have time. Carmelapple 01:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yep may be. But we can also see these interviews as extra ressources, like external links. Pyb 16:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not about words only. It contains images, graphs, sounds, external links, documents provided on others wiki... Making interviews allows us to provide the readers with a new type of media within the Media (Wikipedia), in addition to the text and other traditionnal supports. Basically, such interviews provide additional information for a given article: it is not a matter of, say, writing a newspaper or providing original work, but only a way to have additional content describing or explaining a subject. This content could be provided in a text-formated way, but interviews have their own interest. They are also a good way to get scientists involved in the life of Wikipedia. If the interviews are well led, one will be able to have new materials regarding the sciences field (or other fields): new content from great figures, not « latest news about original researches". --Valérie75 19:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One may say "ok, right. But interviews can't be edited!". Images and other sounds files are in the same position: you might well edit them with software, but basically, it's a matter of "keep or delete". Interviews are great in that they stand separated from the text. It is clear, I assess, that an interview is about a personnality, who has bias and personnal views. It is the (hard but necessary) work of the person who makes the interview to keep the content line as NPOV as possible: by asking neutral but interesting questions, by putting ideas in perspective by introducing different point of views within the discussion, and so on. Interviews of scholars are good at providing quality, I mean peer-reviewed-like content from trusted sources. The NPOV issue is not an issue if you, the author, insert the interview in a NPOV flow (the "in this interview, X presents this point of view, but some of his/her colleague defend Z position [blabla]" thing). I support the idea of Wikipedia having more different and original media. jd 19:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Valerie75. True, Wikipedia is not only words. And I also agree with Meanos that interviews can't be editing. I fully support to NPOV policy. However, this time I think that Valerie75 has a more major point. Carmelapple 01:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki reports should be aggregated into some easy to access tool, like the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Series/Wikimania 2006 template.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Wikimania and the ArbCom stopped; the interwiki would never stop; because were going to go on and on. The publisher, Ral315 also agrees with me. Carmelapple 01:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]