Do we really need so much stuff for these groups? I agree with a basic charter
for each group, but all the regulation (yearly renewal, regular reporting)
seems bureaucratic and pointless. It is not the wikimedian way to control but
rather to nurture an organic community. Also, we should let
Hoi,
A typical scenario would be like this. An organisation does something that
is of interest to the WMF. The WMF and the organisation decide to cooperate
on this. Depending on what the project is, the WMF may decide to be actively
involve or sponsor the activity. The sponsorship is either
Anders Wennersten wrote:
I agree with you analysis, and that we need to come up with some
definition of entities not being a chapter but in need of official
recognition and having some rights being formally regulated .
I would suggest we
1. come up with a name for these types of groups -
2009/7/3 Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com:
{{qif}} was being used massively, even if the majority of the community
didn't know about it (or care). It supported their work and allowed them
to do the things with templates that they needed in articles. I would
argue these complex templates came
I agree that this is a discussion worth having. Chapters fulfil one
very specific purpose (furthering the goals of the movement within a
certain geographical area), there are all kinds of other useful things
to do which need appropriate tools.
Several people have talked about informal groups
2009/7/6 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/7/3 Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com:
{{qif}} was being used massively, even if the majority of the community
didn't know about it (or care). It supported their work and allowed them
to do the things with templates that they needed in articles. I
2009/7/6 geni geni...@gmail.com:
Questionable. Since for fairly obvious reasons you can't let
wikipedians execute arbitrary code through templates there is always
going to be the problem of wikipedians useing workarounds that
generate problematical code.
ParserFunctions is already
2009/7/6 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/7/6 geni geni...@gmail.com:
Questionable. Since for fairly obvious reasons you can't let
wikipedians execute arbitrary code through templates there is always
going to be the problem of wikipedians useing workarounds that
generate problematical
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:29 AM, genigeni...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
Getting back to the point attempts to highly optimize code to stay
within whatever the new equivalent of [[Wikipedia:Template_limits]]
would risk even a fairly clean language turning into something of a
mess.
Any reasonable
On Sun, 2009-07-05 at 21:54 -0700, Michael Snow wrote:
One example is interest groups
that aren't tied to geography, the way the chapters are. I always cite
the idea of an Association of Blind Wikipedians, who might wish to
organize to promote work on accessibility issues.
Actually, that
Michael, thanks for starting this thread.
I'll try to synthesize below some information about the development of the
Brazilian chapter. I hope the list will find it useful.
A group of volunteers spent more than one year discussing, writing,
translating and approving the bylaws to create a legal
Once a name or monument transcends what it originally named and is
used by reference to describe similar things elsewhere, there is a
tendency to add the definite article -- the Earth, the Sun, the
Sphinx, the Oracle, the Colosseum. I do see people running wikis of
any sort on their own or their
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:16 PM, Robert Rohderaro...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
An idea that has been toyed with a couple of other places is to allow
defined blocks and references to them in article text. For example:
An article might start:
display name=infobox /
Thomas Jefferson was the third
13 matches
Mail list logo
