Talk:Enciclopedia Libre Universal en Español

This article was nominated for deletion on July 23, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Wikipedia Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Websites: Computing

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Books: Reference works

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook
	This article is supported by the Reference works task force.

Warning - read this

Be careful about this entry. It's better to first provide links to discussion on meta, etc., than to just summarize a contentious self-referential topic as the relationship between Wikipedia and Enciclopedia Libre.

I personally created the page just so there would be a place for the statistics Scipius had so carefully collected. --The Cunctator

The split between Spanish 'pedia and la Enciclopedia Libre

What exactly caused the split between Spanish 'pedia and its daughter project that came to be la Enciclopedia Libre? Unresolvably different objectives? If so, what are the differences? It seems rather illogical to divert manpower into two separate projects that could've been one combinedly better one. --Menchi 20:04 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

See m:User:Maveric49/The Wikipedia Family and also the history section of Wikipedia. --mav

This information as to why the split occured is important, perhaps the most important, part of the article yet it is missing. What do we expect to learn in the future from this incident if most of it is shrouded in mystery? If someone knows what happened, add it to the page. I do not know what happens, but I will poke around and if I found out why they left I will add it to the page unless a very convincing arguement is presented here to change my mind. --ShaunMacPherson 05:10, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Other older talk

Copied from http://enciclopedia.us.es/wiki.phtml?title=Usuario_discusi�n:Gonis , 31 October 2002:

It has already been decided on our side that there will not be an external Spanish Wikipedia and the current focus is to further combine the separate databases into one database on one wiki (this will have many interlanguage benefits that have been asked-for by the non-English Wikipedias). The developers tell me that this does require one server or a closely-linked cluster of servers. We do, however, plan on eventually letting other people set-up mirrors that can serve viewable content but all editing will be on one Wikipedia server or cluster of servers (we can't do this right now because of technical problems involved with real-time syncing of content).

Network costs will be lower overall this way since bytes are cheaper in bulk. Hard drive space is very cheap so that isn't an important consideration. Also since the biggest internet network "pipes" are located in the US this is the best place to have any server (or so the developers tell me). Since light takes less than a second to travel around the earth geographic proximity is not as important as network size and capabilities.

I tried to delay it but es.wiki has been revived with a software upgrade. We also decided to use the old database to avoid the conversion problems that occurred with your database during your Phase II conversion (excess space inbetween paragraphs and in tables and also the loss of most of the pre-convertion histories). Since we never turned-off es.wiki after the fork its database is a bit different than the one you left and has been slowly improving. Now since the software has been upgraded it is rapidly improving. This is exactly what I feared would happen. Now there are definitely two separate databases and this makes it harder for future reunification.

We had no intention of just letting es.wiki languish while we waited for your project to return. I tried very hard but the Retorno a Wikipedia vote ended most reunification efforts on our end. We can't have a loosely-associated external Wikipedia and we also can not have a dead Spanish Wikipedia. So we revived es.wiki and are now in the process of interlinking and improving each es.wiki article with the other languages.

We can and should continue to exchange articles and also work together in other ways. One day, after we are a non-profit and are a truly multilanguage project that doesn't play favorites then maybe your project can then merge with es.wiki. But when that day comes we will have very different databases and this will make a merger difficult. I just wish I could convince your project that we would never let Jimbo or anybody else do anything to harm it and that there are many loud voices calling for interlanguage fairness and harmony (Jimbo and Larry are two of these voices).

We are going to be a non-profit, the English Wikipedia will be at en.wikipedia.org and we have already changed our url for your project (.com to .org), upgraded the software and were willing to listen to any other requests your project might have. We are also planning on making www.wikipedia.org into a language neutral portal.

Time was a critical factor for the reunification effort because of the impending upgrade to es.wiki. Since your project's vote decided the issue for at least the short-term we went ahead and upgraded es.wiki, however.

It should still be possible to port over your articles (and maybe even their histories) to our database but this would be limited to page titles that do not yet exist in our database (that is; only articles that EL has and es.wiki does not have). All the other articles would have to be merged by humans. This is still only about 2000 articles so it is still possible for a merge.

But it really isn't so bad to have have two Spanish language, FDL wiki encyclopedias. We can always share articles, no? I know we can still work together even if we are apart.

Warmest regards and yours in the wiki,

Daniel Mayer (aka Maveric149)

Did Edgar Enyedy lead the leaving of the Wikipedian community and formation of Enciclopedia Libre, or lead the spanish wikipedia while others left? This should be clarified (Para 1).

User:Maveric149 link

I edited this from a wikilink into an external link. My understanding is that some sites are using dumps of Wikipedia that don't include the User: namespace, so linking a user page from an article is a bad idea. Correct me if I'm wrong about this. Graue 17:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't really think technical compatibility for mirrors is our problem. Twinxor t 02:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It does (did; I fixed it again) show up on this page Special:CrossNamespaceLinks . I it does count as a problem. Fplay 06:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AGAIN, THE QUESTION IS "WHY?"

I agree with an earlier poster who asked this all-important question, which the article completely avoids. Why did so many Spanish-speaking Wikipedians feel so strongly about Wikipedia that they felt it necessary to split from it? What were the reasons given for the split? deeceevoice 09:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons for that was the idea to put ads in Spanish Wikipedia, but now that idea is totally out of mind right now, but the problems now are:

1. Some users from Enciclopedia Libre, want to change the server (or the name) of the spanish wikipedia , but Wikimedia Foundation set if we change te server of the es.wikipedia have to stop being wikipedia, because are not supported by Wikimedia Foundation 2. Another users want to merge the articles, very difficult thing, and the problems with the history of the articles.

I hope that be useful for all you. Alexan talk page 20:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Good riddance

These ppl sound like terrible editors. They are all likely: 1. paranoid 2. intractable 3. dramatic I sure wish all editors in the English communtiy like that would voluntarily occupy themselves elsewhere. Lotsofissues 12:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

External link

Why is there a link to a user page on EL? Rich Farmbrough 09:15 27 February 2006 (UTC).

OK I get it. Rich Farmbrough 09:19 27 February 2006 (UTC).

need to login to view

I noticed that you need to login to read the Enciclopedia Libre, at least now that I try it. Does anybody knows anything about that? That seems very strange. --Walter Do you have news? Report it to Wikizine 22:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to es:Enciclopedia Libre Universal en Español,

Durante el mes de enero de 2007, su web estuvo caída durante varias semanas (del 5 al 26 de enero). Después de este suceso se restringió el acceso a la enciclopedia a usuarios registrados, impidiendo tanto la edición como la lectura a los usuarios anónimos.

"The web was down from January 5 to Jan. 26. After this the read/write access was allowed only to registered users. "

It is a temporary measure to avoid certain attacks. It will be lifted after the current conversion to 1.9.1 (including handling of utf-8) succeeds. Fix the article if you like, I don't think its worth mentioning.

User:Ejrrjs says What? 07:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed link to external site

It took me several attempts to fix the single link at the bottom, as I found no way to check how it would look (the link appears in another section, which was not the one I was editing).

I'm also deleting a stupid comment regarding beetles.

Licence

E.L.U.E to change licence from GNU free to cc-by-sa 3.0, from 1 August 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.77.204 (talk) 07:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia reforms should be discussed

I don't want to add personal guesswork, but it looks to me like the Spanish Wikipedia began exponential growth in June 2003, just as Bornis turned over control to the Wikimedia Foundation. I don't know whether this also addressed the editorial concerns. Currently the WMF isn't even mentioned in the article; I think it should go over the full list of concerns and discuss which have been met and which are still ongoing criticisms. Wnt (talk) 10:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this page really a COI issue if wikipedia is describing it's competition??

Wikipedia, posting metrics about how much better it does in comparison to the Spanish Revolt wiki sounds like internal scuttlebutt, marketing and severe conflict of interest. Cocoablini (talk). 18:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]