Re: [Foundation-l] WMF Chapter Development Director job posting
I have to chime in to echo that the size of the USA and the fact that it is populated throughout is an issue for a general USA chapter. I attended a meetup in Nashville, Tennessee, which had people from five states and it was a seven hour drive for me, and I was in a state next to it. Going to DC in January was equally interesting, I had to fly in to visit and that's not even half a country away. The US is a different creature, I have no advice on chapter organization here. -- ~Keegan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] WMF Chapter Development Director job posting
I do agree with some of what Mr. Meijssen said in the last email but not all of it. Yes, there might be a bias with some of the new projects being undertaken in the US specifically, but outside of Europe there are very few chapters who would be in a position to take on university collaborated projects without some sort of experience and help from the foundation. The Idea that it is expensive to undertake projects in the US compared to the rest of the world in illusory, the costs incurred in lets say the UK or Germany might be higher than the US, simply because of the foundation is located across the Atlantic, their would be much higher travel cost and more paperwork involved when dealing with large institutions, not to mention a language barrier which might be prohibitive in the rest of the EU. With that said I do agree with Mr. Meijssen that the foundation might mix national and international priorities at some occasions. A wider representation using one of the EU chapters could easily be achieved especially in the case of the recent university projects. Regards Salmaan On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, The USA is a sizeable country. But it is not unique in that. Russia is certainly bigger and India is certainly more populous. Both Russia and India have one chapter. When the Wikimedia Foundation runs a project, it should be obvious that such a project can be easily understood from its perspective. For me the WMF is a worldwide organisation and consequently its actions should be acceptable from that perspective. When the WMF runs a pilot project like the current public policy project, it should therefore conform with its global perspective. Given that it is about SUBJECT MATTER whose appreciation differs from country to country it is weird that no foreign universities are part of this project. It is also easy to argue that from a cost point of view, this project requires less funding when it is run in many other countries. The fact that it is run only in the USA also has NPOV implications. The issue is that when there is an USA chapter and this project was run by the chapter, such reservations would not be as potent. Mixing national and international priorities is not appropriate. Thanks, GerardM On 23 August 2010 08:56, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com wrote: I have to chime in to echo that the size of the USA and the fact that it is populated throughout is an issue for a general USA chapter. I attended a meetup in Nashville, Tennessee, which had people from five states and it was a seven hour drive for me, and I was in a state next to it. Going to DC in January was equally interesting, I had to fly in to visit and that's not even half a country away. The US is a different creature, I have no advice on chapter organization here. -- ~Keegan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] WMF Chapter Development Director job posting
I can see how people may be concerned that the development of a U.S. chapter may be impeded because the WMF is already involved in projects like the universities project. But, it is important to consider that the WMF is scheduled to finish the project in about a year. What may actually be a problem is that there will not be anyone to take over the relationships with local universities and academic institutions if and when the WMF shifts focus to more international projects. A U.S. chapter would be great in that regard. - Anya On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 6:55 AM, theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote: I do agree with some of what Mr. Meijssen said in the last email but not all of it. Yes, there might be a bias with some of the new projects being undertaken in the US specifically, but outside of Europe there are very few chapters who would be in a position to take on university collaborated projects without some sort of experience and help from the foundation. The Idea that it is expensive to undertake projects in the US compared to the rest of the world in illusory, the costs incurred in lets say the UK or Germany might be higher than the US, simply because of the foundation is located across the Atlantic, their would be much higher travel cost and more paperwork involved when dealing with large institutions, not to mention a language barrier which might be prohibitive in the rest of the EU. With that said I do agree with Mr. Meijssen that the foundation might mix national and international priorities at some occasions. A wider representation using one of the EU chapters could easily be achieved especially in the case of the recent university projects. Regards Salmaan On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, The USA is a sizeable country. But it is not unique in that. Russia is certainly bigger and India is certainly more populous. Both Russia and India have one chapter. When the Wikimedia Foundation runs a project, it should be obvious that such a project can be easily understood from its perspective. For me the WMF is a worldwide organisation and consequently its actions should be acceptable from that perspective. When the WMF runs a pilot project like the current public policy project, it should therefore conform with its global perspective. Given that it is about SUBJECT MATTER whose appreciation differs from country to country it is weird that no foreign universities are part of this project. It is also easy to argue that from a cost point of view, this project requires less funding when it is run in many other countries. The fact that it is run only in the USA also has NPOV implications. The issue is that when there is an USA chapter and this project was run by the chapter, such reservations would not be as potent. Mixing national and international priorities is not appropriate. Thanks, GerardM On 23 August 2010 08:56, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com wrote: I have to chime in to echo that the size of the USA and the fact that it is populated throughout is an issue for a general USA chapter. I attended a meetup in Nashville, Tennessee, which had people from five states and it was a seven hour drive for me, and I was in a state next to it. Going to DC in January was equally interesting, I had to fly in to visit and that's not even half a country away. The US is a different creature, I have no advice on chapter organization here. -- ~Keegan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Controversial Content Study Update
Robert Harris here again, the consultant looking at the issues surrounding controversial content on Wikimedia projects. I wanted first of all to thank all of you who have taken the trouble to once again weigh in on a subject I know has been debated many times within the Wikimedia community. It has been very valuable for me, a newcomer to these questions, to witness the debate first-hand for several reasons. The first is to remind me of the thinking behind various positions, rather than simply to be presented with the results of those positions. And the second is as a reminder to myself to remember my self-imposed rule of do no harm” and to reflect on how easy it is to break that rule, even if unintentionally. So far, the immediate result for me of the dialogue has been to recognize that the question of whether there is any problem to solve at all is a real question that will need a detailed and serious response, as well as a recognition that the possibility of unintended consequence in these matters is high, so caution and modesty is a virtue. Having said that, I will note that I'm convinced that if there are problems to be solved around questions of controversial content, the solutions can probably best be found at the level of practical application. (and I’ll note that several of you have expressed qualified confidence that a solution on that level may be findable). That's not to say that the intellectual and philosophical debate around these issues is not valuable -- it is essential, in my opinion. It's just to note that not only is the devil in the details as a few of you have noted, but that the angel may be in the details as well -- that is -- perhaps -- questions insoluble on the theoretical level may find more areas of agreement on a practical level. I'm not sure of that, but I'm presenting it as a working hypothesis at this point. My intended course of action over the next month or so is the following. I'm planning to actually write the study on a wiki, where my thinking as it develops, plus comments, suggestions, and re-workings will be available for all to see. I was planning to begin that perhaps early in September. (A presentation to the Foundation Board is tentatively scheduled for early October). Between now and then, I would like to continue the kind of feedback I've been getting, all of it so valuable for me. I have posted another set of questions about controversy in text articles on the Meta page devoted to the study, (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content) because my ambit does not just include images, and text and image, in my opinion, are quite different forms of content. As well, I will start to post research I've been collecting for information and comment. I have some interesting notes about the experience of public libraries in these matters (who have been struggling with many of these same questions since the time television, not the Internet, was the world’s new communications medium), as well as information on the policies of other big-tent sites (Google Images, Flickr, YouTube, eBay,etc.) on these same issues. I haven't finished collecting all the info I need on the latter, but will say that the policies on these sites are extremely complex (although not always presented as such) and subject within their communities to many of the same controversies that have arisen in ours. We are not them, by any means, but it is interesting to observe how they have struggled with many of the same issues with which we are struggling. The time is soon coming when I will lose the luxury of mere observation and research, and will have to face the moment where I will enter the arena myself as a participant in these questions. I’m looking forward to that moment, with the understanding that you will be watching what I do with care, concern, and attention. Robert Harris ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] WMF Chapter Development Director job posting
When the Wikimedia Foundation runs a project, it should be obvious that such a project can be easily understood from its perspective. For me the WMF is a worldwide organisation and consequently its actions should be acceptable from that perspective. When the WMF runs a pilot project like the current public policy project, it should therefore conform with its global perspective. Given that it is about SUBJECT MATTER whose appreciation differs from country to country it is weird that no foreign universities are part of this project. It is also easy to argue that from a cost point of view, this project requires less funding when it is run in many other countries. The fact that it is run only in the USA also has NPOV implications. Ever heard the expression, the perfect is the enemy of the good? I assume you're referring to the public policy project in the passage above. Everything you say is true. The program should be extended to universities outside the U.S. for a long list of reasons. But it is just a beginning and no group of people, whether it's the Foundation or volunteers, can do everything at once. Let's not let perfectionism get in the way of trying something useful that could later be expanded and refined to work at scale and internationally. Steven Walling On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:19 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, The USA is a sizeable country. But it is not unique in that. Russia is certainly bigger and India is certainly more populous. Both Russia and India have one chapter. When the Wikimedia Foundation runs a project, it should be obvious that such a project can be easily understood from its perspective. For me the WMF is a worldwide organisation and consequently its actions should be acceptable from that perspective. When the WMF runs a pilot project like the current public policy project, it should therefore conform with its global perspective. Given that it is about SUBJECT MATTER whose appreciation differs from country to country it is weird that no foreign universities are part of this project. It is also easy to argue that from a cost point of view, this project requires less funding when it is run in many other countries. The fact that it is run only in the USA also has NPOV implications. The issue is that when there is an USA chapter and this project was run by the chapter, such reservations would not be as potent. Mixing national and international priorities is not appropriate. Thanks, GerardM On 23 August 2010 08:56, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com wrote: I have to chime in to echo that the size of the USA and the fact that it is populated throughout is an issue for a general USA chapter. I attended a meetup in Nashville, Tennessee, which had people from five states and it was a seven hour drive for me, and I was in a state next to it. Going to DC in January was equally interesting, I had to fly in to visit and that's not even half a country away. The US is a different creature, I have no advice on chapter organization here. -- ~Keegan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] WMF Chapter Development Director job posting
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 07:32:17 -0700, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote: When the Wikimedia Foundation runs a project, it should be obvious that such a project can be easily understood from its perspective. For me the WMF is a worldwide organisation and consequently its actions should be acceptable from that perspective. When the WMF runs a pilot project like the current public policy project, it should therefore conform with its global perspective. Given that it is about SUBJECT MATTER whose appreciation differs from country to country it is weird that no foreign universities are part of this project. It is also easy to argue that from a cost point of view, this project requires less funding when it is run in many other countries. The fact that it is run only in the USA also has NPOV implications. I raised similar objections on this list when the project has been announced, and I received a reply that the choice of four US universities was somehow related to the conditions on which the grant was extended. I find this explanation to be fair enough. Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] WMF Chapter Development Director job posting
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 If I understand correctly the situation, the USA community currently interact with Wikipedia through the Foundation or the en. chapter, which are not necessarily representative of their interests. The point of view that a chapter should represent the USA community depends strongly of what is a chapter. I still don't know if it is a geopolitical, a cultural, a social or a linguistic entity... Anyway, there's the concern that a community deprived of proper identity and voice is easily ignored. As for the Foundation, I'm still not sure what role people are expecting from it. Some comments now and then make me believe that a significant share think of it as a leading, decision-making, representing and executing role. Other think the foundation should only play a pragmatic, executive auxiliary role, implementing the will and decisions of the communities, USA community included. I believe the separation of powers to be healthy. As for the global and international concerns... Cultural centrism or insularism cannot be at the core of the big goal of an universal access to knowledge: they're a certain path to failure. The latest conflicts about censorship and NPOV have shown, IMHO, that they cannot be solved without distinguishing the few principles aimed to the sharing and collective building of knowledge from the cultural values - the western ones included. Yet, the en.wikipedia is much more developed than the others and seems to be progressing faster. Like a sun with a few satellites orbiting. The motor doesn't distribute its energy to everybody, it mainly benefits itself because it is not decentralized. Thus, it creates a cultural inequality and domination. I wonder if this tendency can be smoothed. I wonder also how this is perceived by the rest of the world. The english and american imperialisms are strongly present in their minds. Wikipedia should avoid to look like yet another tool of cultural domination. Thus, to favor the emergent chapters the USA community should have its own chapter. It should have no more power of decision than the others and certainly not a privileged relationship with the Foundation. The Foundation should aim to be less insular and a clear separation from the national concerns would help. On 23/08/2010 12:55, theo10011 wrote: I do agree with some of what Mr. Meijssen said in the last email but not all of it. Yes, there might be a bias with some of the new projects being undertaken in the US specifically, but outside of Europe there are very few chapters who would be in a position to take on university collaborated projects without some sort of experience and help from the foundation. The Idea that it is expensive to undertake projects in the US compared to the rest of the world in illusory, the costs incurred in lets say the UK or Germany might be higher than the US, simply because of the foundation is located across the Atlantic, their would be much higher travel cost and more paperwork involved when dealing with large institutions, not to mention a language barrier which might be prohibitive in the rest of the EU. With that said I do agree with Mr. Meijssen that the foundation might mix national and international priorities at some occasions. A wider representation using one of the EU chapters could easily be achieved especially in the case of the recent university projects. Regards Salmaan On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, The USA is a sizeable country. But it is not unique in that. Russia is certainly bigger and India is certainly more populous. Both Russia and India have one chapter. When the Wikimedia Foundation runs a project, it should be obvious that such a project can be easily understood from its perspective. For me the WMF is a worldwide organisation and consequently its actions should be acceptable from that perspective. When the WMF runs a pilot project like the current public policy project, it should therefore conform with its global perspective. Given that it is about SUBJECT MATTER whose appreciation differs from country to country it is weird that no foreign universities are part of this project. It is also easy to argue that from a cost point of view, this project requires less funding when it is run in many other countries. The fact that it is run only in the USA also has NPOV implications. The issue is that when there is an USA chapter and this project was run by the chapter, such reservations would not be as potent. Mixing national and international priorities is not appropriate. Thanks, GerardM On 23 August 2010 08:56, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com wrote: I have to chime in to echo that the size of the USA and the fact that it is populated throughout is an issue for a general USA chapter. I attended a meetup in Nashville, Tennessee, which had people from five states
[Foundation-l] data centralization for the benefit of small (and also bigger) projects
Several wikis have used bots to increase their article count in the
past. Examples are the Volapük Wikipedia (vo) with 118,000 articles of
which about 117,000 are bot-created stubs or the Aromanian Wikipedia
(roa-rup) with 61,000 articles at the moment and less than 10,000 before
the bot run.
Why do they use bots? Because they have a small userbase and want to
cover as much topics as possible with small effort. Most of the
languages that use bots are small languages without much written
literature especially when it comes to non-fiction reference literature.
There are no Aromanian encyclopedias, no or few reference books, no
databases etc. An Aromanian either has to learn and use foreign
languages or he will never be able to get informations about places in
China or in America. The bot operator tried to change this by creating
stubs about places in China, America and elsewhere. (Geographic objects
are the easiest method to cover large numbers of topics without much
effort.) But he did a horrible job with really bad and uninformative
articles. I assume the reason for the bad articles is not any bad intent
but just lack of technical skills to program a more useful bot.
The easiest reaction to this is to just let them do their thing and
don't care about it. The second easiest reaction is running a delete bot
and removing the bad articles because of their negative effects. But
both methods do not address the original motivation of the bot operator:
the wish to have information about a large range of entities available
in the wiki's language.
How can this be addressed?
We need a datawiki. That's not a new proposal, proposals for datawikis
have a long history. But there never was a specific reason not to
implement it, it was just that nobody cared about it so much that it was
implemented until now.
Here's my idea about it:
When a search does not yield any matching articles on the local wiki,
the software will look up the name in the central datawiki. If the
central datawiki contains a matching entry, this entry will be loaded.
It will contain an instance of a template filled with information about
the entity. E.g.:
{{Town
|name=Fab City
|country=Awesomia
|pop=89042
|lat=42.0
|lon=42.0
|elevation=12
|mayor=Adam Sweet
}}
The software will now look for a template called Town on the local
wiki. The local template [[Template:Town]] will for example look like this:
{| class=infobox
|-
! Name
|
{{{name|}}}
|-
! Country
|
{{{country|}}}
|-
! Population
|
{{{pop|}}}
|-
! Mayor
|
{{{mayor|}}}
|-
! Elevation
|
{{{elevation|}}} above sea level
|-
! Geographic position
|
{{latlon| {{{lat|}}} | {{{lon|}}} }}
|}
'''{{{name|}}}''' is a place in [[{{countryname| {{{country|}}} }}]] with a
population of {{{pop|}}}.
[[Category:{{countryname| {{{country|}}} }}]]
[[Category:Towns]]
Of course this template will be localized in the language of the local
wiki. This information will now be shown to the user who entered the
name in the search. (The above examples are just, well, examples. Real
entries would most likely contain much more data.)
The datawiki can be filled with information about any entity that has a
certain set of recurring features (almost anything that has a infobox on
Wikipedia), especially geographic objects. These objects also have the
advantage that their names usually are international (at least among
Latin script languages).
The advantages are:
- when the central datawiki is filled with info (most of which can be
bot-extracted from existing Wikipedia infoboxes), every Wikipedia - how
small the userbase may be - has instant access to information about
hundreds of thousands or millions of objects, they just need to
implement some infobox templates
- this solution also erases problems with outdated information in
infoboxes (a problem even en.wp is suffering from). The data only needs
to be updated in one single place instead of every single Wikipedia
separately
With the work done by Nikola Smolenski on the Interlanguage extension
(http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Interlanguage) it shouldn't
be too hard to implement.
In view of the potential usefulness I cannot think of any argument that
speaks against this in general. The prospect of providing at least basic
information about millions of objects in all the different languages
seems really great to me.
Many native speakers of smaller languages use foreign language wikis as
their default wiki because the chance that their native wiki has an
article on the topic is small. If the number of topics where a search on
the native wiki yields results raises from some thousands to
millions, there is a chance that users will finally accept their
native wiki as their default wiki. The entries will be basic, but if
interwikis (of existing articles not generated from the datawiki) will
be included in the info obtained from the datawiki, the more extensive
data is just one click away, while an
Re: [Foundation-l] data centralization for the benefit of small (and also bigger) projects
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org wrote: ... In view of the potential usefulness I cannot think of any argument that speaks against this in general. The prospect of providing at least basic information about millions of objects in all the different languages seems really great to me. While I like the idea, I wonder how (and in which language) the community of this project will establish consensus.. -Palnatoke -- http://palnatoke.org * @palnatoke * +4522934588 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] data centralization for the benefit of small (and also bigger) projects
Am 23.08.2010 18:20, schrieb Ole Palnatoke Andersen: On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Marcus Buckm...@marcusbuck.org wrote: ... In view of the potential usefulness I cannot think of any argument that speaks against this in general. The prospect of providing at least basic information about millions of objects in all the different languages seems really great to me. While I like the idea, I wonder how (and in which language) the community of this project will establish consensus.. -Palnatoke It'll be multilingual in the same way as Meta or Commons or our other cross-language-border projects. Marcus Buck User:Slomox ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] data centralization for the benefit of small (and also bigger) projects
On 23 August 2010 17:23, Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org wrote: Am 23.08.2010 18:20, schrieb Ole Palnatoke Andersen: On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Marcus Buckm...@marcusbuck.org wrote: In view of the potential usefulness I cannot think of any argument that speaks against this in general. The prospect of providing at least basic information about millions of objects in all the different languages seems really great to me. While I like the idea, I wonder how (and in which language) the community of this project will establish consensus.. It'll be multilingual in the same way as Meta or Commons or our other cross-language-border projects. So, English then? ;-p - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] data centralization for the benefit of small (and also bigger) projects
An'n 23.08.2010 18:31, hett David Gerard schreven: It'll be multilingual in the same way as Meta or Commons or our other cross-language-border projects. So, English then? ;-p Yep, de facto English ;-) I don't like it and I spend much time to improve the usefulness of Commons for non-English speakers, but improving the participation oppurtunities for non-English folks on our multilingual projects is a different task with enough complexity in itself. Although I'm sure they will establish sub-communities on the new wiki like they did on Commons. E.g. German speakers meet at the Forum (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Forum) instead of the Village pump. That will happen on a datawiki too and probably these subcommunities will focus on their respective regions, e.g. German speakers will focus on maintaining the town data for places in Germany, Austria, Switzerland etc. Marcus Buck User:Slomox ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] data centralization for the benefit of small (and also bigger) projects
On 23 August 2010 17:43, Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org wrote: Although I'm sure they will establish sub-communities on the new wiki like they did on Commons. E.g. German speakers meet at the Forum (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Forum) instead of the Village pump. That will happen on a datawiki too and probably these subcommunities will focus on their respective regions, e.g. German speakers will focus on maintaining the town data for places in Germany, Austria, Switzerland etc. I do like this idea very much indeed. What will it take in software terms? Something similar to Freebase? Something like Freebase bolted onto MediaWiki? OmegaWiki? - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] data centralization for the benefit of small (and also bigger) projects
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 6:13 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 23 August 2010 17:43, Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org wrote: Although I'm sure they will establish sub-communities on the new wiki like they did on Commons. E.g. German speakers meet at the Forum (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Forum) instead of the Village pump. That will happen on a datawiki too and probably these subcommunities will focus on their respective regions, e.g. German speakers will focus on maintaining the town data for places in Germany, Austria, Switzerland etc. I do like this idea very much indeed. What will it take in software terms? Something similar to Freebase? Something like Freebase bolted onto MediaWiki? OmegaWiki? I thought transwiki template transclusion is being worked on? Magnus ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] data centralization for the benefit of small (and also bigger) projects
An'n 23.08.2010 19:20, hett Magnus Manske schreven: On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 6:13 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: On 23 August 2010 17:43, Marcus Buckm...@marcusbuck.org wrote: Although I'm sure they will establish sub-communities on the new wiki like they did on Commons. E.g. German speakers meet at the Forum (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Forum) instead of the Village pump. That will happen on a datawiki too and probably these subcommunities will focus on their respective regions, e.g. German speakers will focus on maintaining the town data for places in Germany, Austria, Switzerland etc. I do like this idea very much indeed. What will it take in software terms? Something similar to Freebase? Something like Freebase bolted onto MediaWiki? OmegaWiki? I thought transwiki template transclusion is being worked on? Magnus If what I proposed is planned to be part of transwiki template transclusion and if transwiki template transclusion is real soon now in the literal sense and not real soon now in the extended sense, than I'm happy and satisfied ;-) Is there a roadmap for transwiki template transclusion and is it decided that at the end of this roadmap transwiki template transclusion will go live on the Wikimedia projects? Additional question: My idea involves calling a local template from within the transwikied template to do the localisation. Will that be possible with transwiki template transclusion? Marcus Buck User:Slomox ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
