On 5 April 2011 03:02, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
A lot of the projects that Wikimedia is investing in today are small and
focused on particular needs of the Wikimedia Foundation, not the Wikimedia
community. One example might be an article feedback tool that's largely
focused on
2011/4/5 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
On 5 April 2011 03:02, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
A lot of the projects that Wikimedia is investing in today are small and
focused on particular needs of the Wikimedia Foundation, not the Wikimedia
community. One example might be an article
On 5 April 2011 03:02, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Another example might be an UploadWizard that is focused on
ensuring that Wikimedia fulfills its Multimedia grant requirements rather
than actually being fully developed and ready for use by Wikimedia Commons.
These examples are off
On 5 April 2011 09:48, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
2011/4/5 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
Article rating has been a wanted feature for *years*.
... And in the Hungarian Wikipedia it was even implemented quite a
long time ago. If i recall correctly, at some point i
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 2:32 AM, Virgilio A. P. Machado v...@fct.unl.pt wrote:
After a cool off period of about 48 hours and considerable
reflection, it is my conviction that the posts of two above mentioned
editors should be moderated from now on.
As administrators, it's our policy not to take
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 19:16, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Machado initiated this matter by posting a sarcastic message directed at
me to the effect that I was ignorant.
I'm sorry if someone has overdone it in responding to him, but the
ugliness started with him.
Okay, I missed
2011/4/4 Rodan Bury bury.ro...@gmail.com:
As for the quantitative analysis, the one made during the beta testing of
Vector was detailed. It clearly showed that most users - and especially
newbies - preferred Vector over Monobook (retention rates of 70 - 80 % and
more).
It means that for most
Le 05/04/2011 07:41, Amir E. Aharoni a écrit :
That's the problem with grants, i guess. If a rich - and certainly
well-meaning - foundation invests money in a Big Project that doesn't
hurt free knowledge, but doesn't advance it too much either, it's not
a big problem by itself.
Indeed! Vector
David Gerard wrote:
On 5 April 2011 03:02, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Another example might be an UploadWizard that is focused on
ensuring that Wikimedia fulfills its Multimedia grant requirements rather
than actually being fully developed and ready for use by Wikimedia Commons.
David Gerard wrote:
On 5 April 2011 09:48, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
2011/4/5 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
Article rating has been a wanted feature for *years*.
... And in the Hungarian Wikipedia it was even implemented quite a
long time ago. If i recall
2011/4/5 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
What I see is grants supplying money to get initiatives that have been
long-wanted happening. The near-impossibility of getting even quite
simple things through a bureaucratic kudzu-choked community process
has been noted on this list *many* times.
To
In Egypt, I saw a wiki or two setup for the same purpose, but what seemed
to
work well is the use of Google Moderator:
http://www.google.com/moderator/?hl=ar#15/e=581e0t=581e0.40f=581e0.154b45
-Katie
Actually IMHO the reason Google moderator worked is that it was advertised
and actively
In Egypt, I saw a wiki or two setup for the same purpose, but what
seemed
to
work well is the use of Google Moderator:
http://www.google.com/moderator/?hl=ar#15/e=581e0t=581e0.40f=581e0.154b45
-Katie
Actually IMHO the reason Google moderator worked is that it was
advertised
and
On 5 April 2011 09:40, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
*cough* From 2005:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_Gerard/1.0
Magnus put together a quick version, but Brion didn't like the code
and it never happened. However, mine is just one such proposal.
Article rating has been a
On 5 April 2011 22:20, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 April 2011 09:40, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Article rating has been a wanted feature for *years*.
What I'd like to see is article rating being more widespread. But
having a grant push it through is *just fine*, because it
On 4/5/2011 2:37 PM, David Gerard wrote:
Classic is largely unmaintained, since no-one seems to want to bother
to maintain it.
To coin a phrase, Monobook is the new Classic. Maybe we should rename
Classic to Legacy? That might communicate the implications a bit better
to anyone considering it.
Hoi,
I am really happy to announce that the first Toolserver tools can now be
localised at translatewiki.net. Thanks to the hard work of Krinkle the first
tools make use of the Intuition messaging framework. People who know
Toolserver, will know that there are many useful tools that help
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 8:22 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 5 April 2011 03:02, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Another example might be an UploadWizard that is focused on
ensuring that Wikimedia fulfills its Multimedia grant requirements rather
than
Hi, just a ping to anybody interested in Wikipedia AND mobile:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Projects
Interested? Join the #wikimedia-mobile IRC channel and/or the mobile-l
mailing list - https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
Below you have the message sent to mobile-l
Hi!
Another quick note on the Movement Communications Manager posting that we
are hoping to fill at WMF. We have a number of applicants, but very, very
few are from the Wikimedia community. We would really love to fill this role
with a strong Wikimedian, so if you are interested or know someone
20 matches
Mail list logo
