Not really, if you give your eyes to blogosphere global and hence
multingual, including mine. I hope some would go through mine to the
fundraising page, and some of trackbacks to my entry were clearly
positive (I've donated them, you can do too) too.
It is still anectodal, but I think it good to
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Anders Wegge Keller we...@wegge.dk wrote:
geni geni...@gmail.com writes:
2009/1/7 Anders Wegge Keller we...@wegge.dk:
Now we can agree that fundraising banners that size are apparently
effective which is good but thankyou banners that size less so. If a
thank
Hoi,
Usability research done by UNICEF on MediaWiki, by English language people
in Tanzania had 100% of their test subjects failing to create a new article.
This research is repeatable, and it is easy to improve on this because
UNICEF created extensions that will be part of the initial research.
On Saturday 10 January 2009 10:02:11 Ray Saintonge wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
I disagree, I don't think each edit is a work but rather each revision
is a work, derived from the revision before. The question is then who
is the Original Author of the latest revision, is it just the person
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Lars Aronsson l...@aronsson.se wrote:
Anthony wrote:
My complaint was that the WMF was (and still is) copying and
distributing my copyrighted content in a manner other than that
expressly
Hoi,
In a way you remind me of the pope, you want to dictate the rules but you do
not play the game. Your idea of what the WMF and its projects should be are
not shared by all, for from it. The reason why the GFDL needs to be replaced
is because we want to be better able to share. At that the GFDL
Hi
This is my first post to this list - I'm a thirtysomething newbie from
England. After using Wikipedia for years without getting involved, I
thought I should look more closely into how it all works - and
possibly even join the project! However, as a strong believer in the
importance of
2009/1/10 James Rigg jamesrigg1...@googlemail.com:
I don't understand why discussing everything openly is 'beyond
nonsense' and would lead to less transparency. I mean, can someone
give me a hypothetical example of some aspect of the running of the
Foundation which would be better not
2009/1/10 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
Title 17, Section 407.
Not actionable unless we receive an actual demand. Which I'm pretty
sure we haven't.
--
geni
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
2009/1/10 Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net:
on 1/10/09 6:59 AM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote:
I note that I have asked you before if you've actually attempted to
work directly with the community on-wiki, and you demurred:
Thanks geni.
So, to put it crudely, the talk of full transparency and lack of
hierarchy is now viewed as just naive idealism that existed at the
start of the project, and which has now been abandoned?
Best
James
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:41 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/10 James
Jesse Plamondon-Willard wrote:
I think there's room for improvement, but generally the Foundation
fulfills its ideals relatively well. Ironically, it's the community
itself that does more poorly in fulfilling the no-hierarchy rule;
people seem to naturally fall into hierarchies even if you
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
And, yes to spell it out. I am referring specifically to the
Arbitration Committee, which really should in all fairness
be renamed to something that bears even a passing
familiarity to its actual function...
I think transparency *is* about making everything public, and that the
Foundation is merely a semi-transparent organisation, and should at
least be open about not being a completely open. I don't know enough
about the Foundation and non-profit law to say whether the Foundation
could or should be
Thanks - I've bookmarked it for when I've got time to study it properly!
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 4:12 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/10 James Rigg jamesrigg1...@googlemail.com:
So, to put it crudely, the talk of full transparency and lack of
hierarchy is now viewed as just
2009/1/10 James Rigg jamesrigg1...@googlemail.com:
Thanks geni.
So, to put it crudely, the talk of full transparency and lack of
hierarchy is now viewed as just naive idealism that existed at the
start of the project, and which has now been abandoned?
I think it was all about Wikimedia wiki
This 'principle':
The mailing list will remain open, well-advertised, and will be
regarded as the place for meta-discussions about the nature of
Wikipedia.
does seem to be referring to not just content, but also the running of
Wikipedia. But the 'private' mailing lists which now exist seem to be
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 9:47 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/10 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
Title 17, Section 407.
Not actionable unless we receive an actual demand. Which I'm pretty
sure we haven't.
It's not required unless the work is published anyway.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:44 AM, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote:
In a way you remind me of the pope, you want to dictate the rules but you
do
not play the game. Your idea of what the WMF and its projects should be are
not shared by all, for from it.
But I own the copyright
2009/1/10 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
I care to prevent the relicensing *of my content* to CC-BY-SA. Remove my
content, and you won't hear from me on the license issue again (unless you
choose to read my blog or the blog of the non-profit Internet Review
Corporation).
If you licensed it
Hello, I want to wish you all a Happy New Year !
Also, I'd like to know what's the progress of renaming the subdomain mo to
mo-cyrl mo.wikipedia.org - mo-cyrl.wikipedia.org, as was stated in
november last year, an important issue for us.
Thanks for your activity.
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 2:04
Why do developers have such priviledged access to the source code, and the
community such little input?
In my experience, this is the way that most open source projects
operate. You can download and play with the source code to your
heart's content, but typically only a handful of committers
2009/1/10 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/10 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
I care to prevent the relicensing *of my content* to CC-BY-SA. Remove my
content, and you won't hear from me on the license issue again (unless
James Rigg wrote:
This 'principle':
The mailing list will remain open, well-advertised, and will be
regarded as the place for meta-discussions about the nature of
Wikipedia.
does seem to be referring to not just content, but also the running of
Wikipedia. But the 'private' mailing lists
I'm not questioning here whether or not there are good reasons for
sometimes being non-transparent and hierarchical, I'm just saying that
it's interesting that, contrary to its founding ideals, and probably
also to how many people think, or like to think, Wikipedia is run, it
is not run in a fully
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:53 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
2009/1/8 Klaus Graf klausg...@googlemail.com:
You have to read the license carefully. The principle of attribution
is codified in the preamble. Secondarily, this License preserves for
the author and publisher a way to
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:41 AM, James Rigg
jamesrigg1...@googlemail.com wrote:
I'm not questioning here whether or not there are good reasons for
sometimes being non-transparent and hierarchical, I'm just saying that
it's interesting that, contrary to its founding ideals, and probably
also
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:58 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/10 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:17 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/10 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
wrote:
James Rigg wrote:
Thanks geni.
So, to put it crudely, the talk of full transparency and lack of
hierarchy is now viewed as just naive idealism that existed at the
start of the project, and which has now been abandoned?
No, not at all.
___
James Rigg wrote:
I don't understand why discussing everything openly is 'beyond
nonsense' and would lead to less transparency. I mean, can someone
give me a hypothetical example of some aspect of the running of the
Foundation which would be better not discussed openly?
Contract negotiations.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:00 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/10 James Rigg jamesrigg1...@googlemail.com:
I'm not questioning here whether or not there are good reasons for
sometimes being non-transparent and hierarchical, I'm just saying that
it's interesting that, contrary
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Sfmammamia sfmamma...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:41 AM, James Rigg
jamesrigg1...@googlemail.com wrote:
I'm not questioning here whether or not there are good reasons for
sometimes being non-transparent and hierarchical, I'm just saying that
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Jimmy Wales jwa...@wikia-inc.com wrote:
James Rigg wrote:
Thanks geni.
So, to put it crudely, the talk of full transparency and lack of
hierarchy is now viewed as just naive idealism that existed at the
start of the project, and which has now been abandoned?
on 1/10/09 6:59 AM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote:
I note that I have asked you before if you've actually attempted to
work directly with the community on-wiki, and you demurred:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2009-January/097693.html
You claim to be defending the
I don't see the conflict James Riggs is describing. You point to statements
of principles by Jimmy Wales, and then describe how - in your opinion - the
conduct of the English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation don't live up
to those principles. Well, that doesn't shock me and it shouldn't
I believe the point that Jimbo is making (i will certainly be corrected if
wrong :-) is that there is no externally imposed hierarchy. The wiki really
did start as a tabula rasa, and all discussions of its hierarchy can be
found in its pages.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 1:23 PM, James Rigg
I do not describe how - in your opinion - the conduct of the English
Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation don't live up to those
principles.
I'm actually simply pointing-out that the *stated* semi-transparency,
and hierarchical structure, of Wikipedia/Wikimedia is contrary to the
*stated*
Hi all,
I would like to propose the dismantling of the language committee and
creating a new one (not including Gerard, of course).
Why?
Because it is chronically malfunctioning.
Manifested in:
# Gerard is forcing all his opinion, anything else is going nowhere.
# Other members don't really care
James Rigg writes:
I'm not questioning here whether or not there are good reasons for
sometimes being non-transparent and hierarchical, I'm just saying that
it's interesting that, contrary to its founding ideals, and probably
also to how many people think, or like to think, Wikipedia is run,
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org wrote:
James Rigg writes:
I'm not questioning here whether or not there are good reasons for
sometimes being non-transparent and hierarchical, I'm just saying that
it's interesting that, contrary to its founding ideals, and
I think there's two parallel conversations going on here, which is making it
hard for anybody to come to an understanding.
James, it seems like you're saying that Wikimedia (apparently) espouses
absolute transparency and equality, and in fact only practices those virtues
to the boundaries of
ok! I was wrong about that part of the sarcasm
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 9:30 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 4:24 PM, James Rigg
jamesrigg1...@googlemail.comwrote:
As a member of the Wikimedia staff, using sarcasm - in both the post
title and contents - against
James,
Not to get all mechanistic on you, but the fact that you posted to the
Foundation list is part of the confusion as well. The focus here is
on the Foundation. If you have concerns specifically about the
English Wikipedia's transparency, that's really fodder for a different
discussion
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 1:39 PM, James Rigg jamesrigg1...@googlemail.comwrote:
But the problem is that Wikipedia is *today* proudly portrayed to the
general public as being transparent and non-hierarchical, when it is
semi-transparent and hierarchical.
Right. Wikipedia (and Wikimedia) is
(This message is not an official message from the subcommittee, just
myself as a member.)
Hello Mohamed Magdy,
As a member of the language subcommittee, I am sorry you are
disappointed with our performance, but it is not true that its members
do not care.
The Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia was
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:43 AM, James Rigg
jamesrigg1...@googlemail.com wrote:
I think transparency *is* about making everything public, and that the
Foundation is merely a semi-transparent organisation, and should at
least be open about not being a completely open. I don't know enough
about
I was against the idea of creating a Masry Wikipedia (there is a looong
thread where I brought it up here), *However* I am against deleting any
Wikipedia that has been created and picked up an active community,
regardless of how controversial it is. It is simply unfair to the people who
have
Muhammad Alsebaey shipmas...@gmail.com wrote:
- Gerard has been the *only* person from LangCom that I have seen reply
to any of the issues, his replies are selective, he refuses to answer
whatever he doesnt think is relevant to his argument and is in general very
aggressive, If the
I don´t think this is very fair. You can call Gerard a lot, but not really
agressive... He can be very enthusiast, committed, and very sure he is
right, and trying to persuade others, but agressive?
Anyway, I don't think a mailinglist (especially not this one) is a good
place to discuss *people*
Hi Jesse,
Thank you for the links, the last time I asked to look at those I was told
the whole mailing list was private and not open to the public, I think
opening this up is a huge step forward towards transparency.
I appreciate also your clarification about Gerard, I would have appreciated
him
I personally do not care about the nature of Gerard's character, he may be a
very nice person if I meet him in person ( next Wikimania maybe). I am just
refering to the way he conducted himself during the discussions on
languages. And yes, I strongly believe this was aggressive. I won't get into
Mohamed Magdy wrote:
(I heard that people were happy at Wikimania (Florence?)
because of that proposal but I fail to understand why the Egyptian people
there didn't express their opinion about it (it was in Egypt :!).
I was sitting next to an Egyptian VIP in the front row when the
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 5:26 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Lars Aronsson l...@aronsson.se wrote:
Anthony wrote:
My complaint was that the WMF was (and still is) copying and
So Based on the the Archives Jesse and Casey graciously provided the link
to, the only discussion about Masry I found was:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_subcommittee/Archives/2008-07#Wikipedia_Egyptian_Arabic
When I raised the issue of Masry on this mailing list, raising what I
thought
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Muhammad Alsebaey shipmas...@gmail.com wrote:
So Based on the the Archives Jesse and Casey graciously provided the link
to, the only discussion about Masry I found was:
Hoi,
This is a personal attack, an attack that is the result of discontent of the
way in which the policy of the language committee has been implemented.
So let me show where Mohammed is wrong. First of all, the language committee
is multiple people. Recently two high powered people were added to
Which creates the situation we are in, according to you, all members of the
language committee were explicitly asked to consider the issues that I and
others raised, but since only one out of the 10+ people responded, therefore
they must have all considered all the issues and have no comment, and
Hoi,
You are wrong. If one person had objected at the time, the proposal would
not have been made eligible.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/1/11 Muhammad Alsebaey shipmas...@gmail.com
Which creates the situation we are in, according to you, all members of
the
language committee were explicitly
Do you have a set time limit for people to respond in? a week? a month? and
what about the 4 inactive persons, how do you consider them inactive? what
if you had 7 inactive members out of 10 at a time and didnt know it, would
it still be a 'unanimous' decision?
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 4:02 PM,
Jimmy Wales hett schreven:
Mohamed Magdy wrote:
(I heard that people were happy at Wikimania (Florence?)
because of that proposal but I fail to understand why the Egyptian people
there didn't express their opinion about it (it was in Egypt :!).
I was sitting next to an Egyptian VIP
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 12:08 AM, Jimmy Wales jwa...@wikia-inc.com wrote:
Mohamed Magdy wrote:
(I heard that people were happy at Wikimania (Florence?)
because of that proposal but I fail to understand why the Egyptian people
there didn't express their opinion about it (it was in Egypt :!).
2009/1/11 Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org:
In the Arabic world there's a prevalent POV, that Arabs form one nation
united by the use of the Arabic language. But in reality Standard Arabic
is something like Latin. With the difference, that Latin fell out of use
to make place for the Romance
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
Why are so few community-developed mediawiki extensions used by the
Foundation?
Because there's approximately one person (Tim Starling) who reviews
such extensions in practice, and he has limited time. There's
approximately
I still believe my questions have been answered adequately. However,
Why do developers have such priviledged access to the source code
So that they can actually improve it. I don't know what alternative
you're suggesting.
This question cannot be viewed outside of the context of the rest
Simetrical, a general comment on your reply: I do not believe it is fair to
reply to parts of sentences. It lead to several replies that were clearly
out of context. I want to clarify one of my sentences that you broke into
parts:
Why must the community 'vote' on extensions such as Semantic
I do have another question: Who approved deploying parser functions on
Wikipedia?
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
Simetrical, a general comment on your reply: I do not believe it is fair
to reply to parts of sentences. It lead to several replies that
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 9:04 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
False: Extension Matrix.
See the rest of that paragraph. Anyone who can write code and wants
commit access can get it. The only ones without commit access who
want it are those who can't or won't write code. Most of the
I don't believe the specific technical details that led to the development
of ParserFunctions are all that relevant. It is always possible to implement
a simple 'crash guard', so its not even that great of an excuse.
No single person should have the power to develop and deploy such a thing on
Brian wrote:
I am quite sure that the answer to Wikipedia's usability issues was not
properly taken into concern when ParserFunctions were written. This is based
on a very simple principle that I am following in this discussion:
Improvements in usability in MediaWiki will not happen through
Mark,
Keep in mind regarding my Semantic drum beating that I am not a developer of
Semantic Mediawiki or Semantic Forms. I am just a user, and as Erik put it,
an advocate.
That said, I believe these two extensions together solve the problem you are
talking about. And for whatever reason, the
Not sure why I said English Wikipedia - but I mean all Foundation sites of
course :)
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 10:43 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
Mark,
Keep in mind regarding my Semantic drum beating that I am not a developer
of Semantic Mediawiki or Semantic Forms. I am just a
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 3:27 AM, Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org wrote:
elisabeth bauer hett schreven:
2009/1/11 Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org:
In the Arabic world there's a prevalent POV, that Arabs form one nation
united by the use of the Arabic language. But in reality Standard Arabic
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 2:46 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/11 Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com:
Jimmy, just to remind you that people in one academic institution in
Belgrade laughed when you mentioned Bosnian language in 2005. But,
things are somewhat changed now.
Not really. There
Brian wrote:
Mark,
Keep in mind regarding my Semantic drum beating that I am not a developer of
Semantic Mediawiki or Semantic Forms. I am just a user, and as Erik put it,
an advocate.
That said, I believe these two extensions together solve the problem you are
talking about. And for
Muhammad Alsebaey hett schreven:
The mission of the foundation is an educational one. So it would be
better to ask the uneducated masses of Egypt, whether they feel a gain
from a Wikipedia in their language or whether they stick with the
Latin Wikipedia.
Marcus Buck
It is
75 matches
Mail list logo
