Re: [Foundation-l] Push translation
> I don't know whether other wikipedias have similar policies, but on > the Italian Wikipedia an article which is just a machine translation > can be speedy deleted according to our policies. The reason is that > machine translations are not good enough and the autotranslated text > is too difficult to read, at least for Italian. It is true that as > Italian is not as used as a foreign language as others, native > speakers are not used to people writing in bad Italian (Bad English is > far more common) so it is natural to set a higher threshold. Same in Ukrainian Wikipedia > I agree > that machine translations are a good starting point, For time being machine translations are good only as aid to comprehend/grasp articles, pointed by interwiki. On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Marco Chiesa wrote: > On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 2:57 AM, stevertigo wrote: >> Translation between wikis currently exists as a largely pulling >> paradigm: Someone on the target wiki finds an article in another >> language (English for example) and then pulls it to their language >> wiki. >> >> These days Google and other translate tools are good enough to use as >> the starting basis for an translated article, and we can consider how >> we make use of them in an active way. What is largely a "pull" >> paradigm can also be a "push" paradigm - we can use translation tools >> to "push" articles to other wikis. > > I don't know whether other wikipedias have similar policies, but on > the Italian Wikipedia an article which is just a machine translation > can be speedy deleted according to our policies. The reason is that > machine translations are not good enough and the autotranslated text > is too difficult to read, at least for Italian. It is true that as > Italian is not as used as a foreign language as others, native > speakers are not used to people writing in bad Italian (Bad English is > far more common) so it is natural to set a higher threshold. I agree > that machine translations are a good starting point, but that means > that someone who knows the target language (it doesn't matter whether > as native or not) must fix the translation correcting for the typical > machine mistakes (such as translating person names, etc.) >> >> If there are issues, they can be overcome. The fact of the matter is >> that the vast majority of articles in English can be "pushed" over to >> other languages, and fill a need for those topics in those languages. >> > > I see a big risk that this may be perceived as cultural colonialism, > but that's something that already happens (some parts of the world > write more on Wikipedia than others). But somehow pushing from the > small wikis to the big ones is one of the best ways to get local > topics globally known. > > Cruccone > > ___ > 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] Push translation
> These days Google and other translate tools are good enough to use as > the starting basis for an translated article No, it's far not true - at least for such target language as Ukrainian etc. So any attempt of "push" translation will be almost the disaster... On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 3:57 AM, stevertigo wrote: > Translation between wikis currently exists as a largely pulling > paradigm: Someone on the target wiki finds an article in another > language (English for example) and then pulls it to their language > wiki. > > These days Google and other translate tools are good enough to use as > the starting basis for an translated article, and we can consider how > we make use of them in an active way. What is largely a "pull" > paradigm can also be a "push" paradigm - we can use translation tools > to "push" articles to other wikis. > > If there are issues, they can be overcome. The fact of the matter is > that the vast majority of articles in English can be "pushed" over to > other languages, and fill a need for those topics in those languages. > > -SC > > ___ > 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] Boycott in a...@wiki
Oh well, if any community is completely free to define what is neutral... :( On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:47 PM, Prodego wrote: > There are some constraints on what is written - it is supposed to be a > neutrally presented encyclopedia. But if a particular wiki's community comes > to a different conclusion than another on what is neutral than another, who > is to say which one is "right"? 'What is neutral?' is one of the > things collaborative editing is supposed to determine. > > Prodego > > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki
> There is no problem > with what consensus on different wikis decides, be that about article > wording Is that really so? ... and please don't mix that with personal, by own choice made editorial decision(s) On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Prodego wrote: > Talking about the inclusion of different images is beside the point. Each > project can, and does, decide what content is appropriate for it. You could > call this selection "censorship", although it is very much an editorial > decision that anyone writing anything must make. If a particular wiki > decides not to show some particular image then so be it. There is no problem > with what consensus on different wikis decides, be that about article > wording, image inclusion, style guidelines... The only problem I see is that > the main page of a WMF site being used to make a statement about another > site (which happens to also be a WMF site). This I do not consider to be > acceptable. It is outside the scope of "the growth, development and > distribution of free, multilingual content" that the WMF claims to be about. > Regardless of if acewiki has a problem with another site, they should not be > using the main page of Wikipedia to air their grievances. > > Prodego > > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki
> 2) We do not cater to the wishes and desires of any group, no exception. If > we cater one, we have to cater a second, then a third and so on and on. It's the very core of the whole this issue. That's why it's so ...mission critical to stay very firm with WP:5P with all due respect to all and every particular group. Sincerely, Pavlo On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Excirial wrote: > *There is no general Christian prohibition on depicting Christ. In fact it > is a generally accepted practice. Generally Muslims don't, and consider it a > mark of disrespect to do so. Why offend?* > > 1) It is a historically important subject which should be covered in an > encyclopedia. > 2) We do not cater to the wishes and desires of any group, no exception. If > we cater one, we have to cater a second, then a third and so on and on. > 3) Anyone who does not wish to see the images can block them - its a > personal choice on whether you do or don't want to see. If there is a > problem with their mere existence there is nothing we can do - we can't > erase them from history. > 4) The images may offend millions, but that still leaves billions who aren't > offended by them. I would argue that the knowledge needs of the larger group > outweigh the issues of the smaller group - especially since we are not > forcing anything on the small group. As said in point 3: Images are on > specific pages, and even those are accessible since images can be blocked. > > As said before, we should be careful with content that could be deemed > offensive, to prevent needless friction - For example we shouldn't be > placing images of Muhammad on article's that have only a partial relation > with him, such as "Prophets of Islam". In other words, the are in which they > are posted should be contained, but not exterminated. > > ~Excirial > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki
> Er, en:wp, and other languages, are outstandingly "owned" by the > Western democratic cultures of the US and Europe. Well in that meaning it's true to the extent how well WP:5P reflects "Western democratic cultures of the US and Europe". On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Bod Notbod wrote: > On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Pavlo Shevelo > wrote: > >>> No, that's completely incorrect. Wikipedias are per language, not per >>> country, and no country owns the wiki in its language. >> >> I'm completely agree on that and would add (to make it closer to >> context of Excirial wording): >> >> ... nor per country neither per culture, and no culture own no >> Wikipedia in no language. > > Er, en:wp, and other languages, are outstandingly "owned" by the > Western democratic cultures of the US and Europe. > > It's what makes us able to show pictures that those of another culture > might be willing to kill someone for. > > I think that's fine. More than fine, I would go on a march for those > rights. Had I been born into a muslim family I would probably think > completely differently. I don't see how the fact of my birth in one or > the other can make me any more or less "neutral". > > en.User:Bodnotbod > > ___ > 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] Boycott in a...@wiki
> So? Is every single rule on Wikipedia completely determined by NPOV? As to the best of my understanding Each and every single rule on Wikipedia is completely determined by WP:5P (and NPOV is one of them) in sense that no rule may contradict to 5P. On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Andre Engels wrote: > On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 7:25 PM, David Gerard wrote: >> On 16 July 2010 17:58, Excirial wrote: >> >>> If a culture sees these images as highly offensive, and if the main >>> complement of editors / readers agrees with this i wouldn't object to such a >>> rule, as long as it remained in their local Wiki, with no attempts to force >>> it on other wikipedia's. Every culture has its own inherent bias towards >>> certain topics, and i don't believe that we should try to enforce a certain >>> "Morale" on other people - in other words, country specific Wikipedia's >>> should be granted some lenience in setting their own rules. >> >> >> No, that's completely incorrect. Wikipedias are per language, not per >> country, and no country owns the wiki in its language. Neutral point >> of view is not local point of view. > > So? Is every single rule on Wikipedia completely determined by NPOV? > If not, then there apparently is some leeway, some possibility of > having different rules. And if that is the case, then isn't the > Wikipedia thing to do to have those be decided by the local community? > > > -- > André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com > > ___ > 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] Boycott in a...@wiki
> No, that's completely incorrect. Wikipedias are per language, not per > country, and no country owns the wiki in its language. I'm completely agree on that and would add (to make it closer to context of Excirial wording): ... nor per country neither per culture, and no culture own no Wikipedia in no language. I'm talking about matter of fact (see [[WP:5P]]), without any connection to whether I like that or not. If somebody need another situation he/she should start another wiki (on Wikimedia platform or not) with different "pillars". Sincerely, Pavlo On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 8:25 PM, David Gerard wrote: > On 16 July 2010 17:58, Excirial wrote: > >> If a culture sees these images as highly offensive, and if the main >> complement of editors / readers agrees with this i wouldn't object to such a >> rule, as long as it remained in their local Wiki, with no attempts to force >> it on other wikipedia's. Every culture has its own inherent bias towards >> certain topics, and i don't believe that we should try to enforce a certain >> "Morale" on other people - in other words, country specific Wikipedia's >> should be granted some lenience in setting their own rules. > > > No, that's completely incorrect. Wikipedias are per language, not per > country, and no country owns the wiki in its language. Neutral point > of view is not local point of view. > > > - d. > > ___ > 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] encouraging women's participation
I like (and support) most of all the following wording > ... there's a lot to be said for being > motivated enough to do it that you learn the systems without any help, > becoming a part of the community the way most of us did. But just > relying on those mechanisms does restrict our editor base a lot, and > saying that only those people willing to jump through many interface > and social hoops can join the club is just as unhelpful for our > worldwide community of researchers and writers >From that point of view we see two thresholds/barriers in front of each WP-newcomer: * to master craft of research; * to master system (with DIY "facepages"/profiles, indents and signatures in discussion, etc.) - that is interface hoop; * becoming part of the community (socialization) - social hoop. oh, actually there are three of them :) Yes we (all of us) were motivated, even fanatic :) enough to survive in so Spartan conditions, but should we insist that all newcomers have to go same way? Yes, one of favorite proverbs says "Wind from the North creates Vikings" but I'm not sure that Wikipedia needs only Vikings :) Sincerely, Pavlo On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:59 AM, phoebe ayers wrote: > On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Tim Landscheidt > wrote: >> While I appreciate the efforts to encourage wider partici- >> pation, IMHO we should make sure that we keep the quality of >> our "products" and our "human resources" in mind. No edits >> at all may be better than one edit in ten days for probably >> 99% of the population. And I don't think that we will at- >> tract the right 1% who will wander the libraries and the web >> in search of the missing pieces of information, tackle thick >> books and pause before clicking on the "Save" button to es- >> timate whether their edit will find the approval of their >> peers, by emphasizing that editing is easy or fun - because >> it isn't. And it probably shouldn't be. >> >> Tim > > spoken like a true wikipedian :) > > (are you sure that editing isn't fun, though? I'm pretty sure that if > most of us didn't derive at least some joy from it (at some point in > our editing careers) we wouldn't be here having this conversation.) > > I find it helpful to translate the question of whether editing is an > inherently elitist activity -- as it may well be -- by thinking of > analogies in the sphere of my day job, which is being a librarian in a > big university library. > > To be a librarian -- or even to be a successful grad student or > professor -- you have to really, really like to do research. A lot. > You have to find true pleasure and satisfaction in chasing down the > world's most obscure references or figuring out how to make sense of > the literature on some topic. You have to be a total research nerd, in > other words. > > But we cannot do research *for* every single student who wanders > through our doors (I serve a school of 30,000 people). We have to help > them figure it out how to do it themselves. And there's been a real > push in the last 20 years or so to move academic librarianship from > the model of the cranky old scholar who might let you touch the books, > to the model of teaching "information literacy" -- how to research and > evaluate information for yourself. I do a whole lot of teaching, and > it can be frustrating to watch student after student work on their > papers and do a bad job of their research and their bibliographies, > and complain about how it's not easy to do research, when you know > that it's possible to do it better. But my job is not to do it all for > them: it's also to aid them along the paths of becoming scholars > themselves. There's a real temptation to say "research isn't supposed > to be easy! It's supposed to be a rite of passage into the academy! > Get a backbone, kids!" But I think collectively in the profession we > have basically come to the understanding that taking that attitude > doesn't make it any easier for non-librarians and non-academics to > navigate our crazy, unusable systems -- doesn't make people of any age > any more likely to actually do research -- and that maybe, just maybe, > if we do enough outreach, and work enough on making our systems easier > and better, we'll reach more people overall as well as only the people > that are predisposed to become information nerds themselves. > > I think of Wikipedia the same way. Sure, not everyone wants to or has > the ability to edit. And hey, there's a lot to be said for being > motivated enough to do it that you learn the systems without any help, > becoming a part of the community the way most of us did. But just > relying on those mechanisms does restrict our editor base a lot, and > saying that only those people willing to jump through many interface > and social hoops can join the club is just as unhelpful for our > worldwide community of researchers and writers -- and the world of > scholarship in general -- as keeping the books chained up in the > library was. > >
Re: [Foundation-l] encouraging women's participation
> If wikipedia is to survive it needs to be fun. If wikipedia is going > to get a broad coverage it needs to be easy. Exactly! > Given that 99% of the population is over 6 billion people 1 edit every > ten days would result in a lot of worthwhile edits. As to the best of my belief the healthier (more natural, organic) future of WP and all other projects is contribution of wast amount of people who work not so regularly - mainly when "curiosity strikes" versus fierce/fanatic :-P activity of (relatively) very small ...tribe of wp-geeks (like we are :) ). pavlo On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 3:21 AM, geni wrote: > On 22 June 2010 00:10, Tim Landscheidt wrote: >> Isn't an iPhone one of those gadgets with about 10 cm of >> screen and no keyboard? Why would we want to encourage some- >> one to edit with such a device? It must be very frustrating >> to do so properly, and we don't profit, in fact it is to our >> disadvantage if it's done improperly. > > Augmented reality. > > Wikipedia's coverage of local history and geography benefits if we can > get edits from people on the move. > >> While I appreciate the efforts to encourage wider partici- >> pation, IMHO we should make sure that we keep the quality of >> our "products" and our "human resources" in mind. No edits >> at all may be better than one edit in ten days for probably >> 99% of the population. > > Given that 99% of the population is over 6 billion people 1 edit every > ten days would result in a lot of worthwhile edits. > >> And I don't think that we will at- >> tract the right 1% who will wander the libraries and the web >> in search of the missing pieces of information, tackle thick >> books and pause before clicking on the "Save" button to es- >> timate whether their edit will find the approval of their >> peers, by emphasizing that editing is easy or fun - because >> it isn't. And it probably shouldn't be. > > If wikipedia is to survive it needs to be fun. If wikipedia is going > to get a broad coverage it needs to be easy. > > -- > geni > > ___ > 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] Encouraging participation
Hello James, It seems to me (moreover I'm quite sure) that nobody is talking about making content editing more complicate and/or about fancy and nasty distracting stuff like different "bells&whistles". But now it's standard for any site to have well-structured "facepages" (profiles) to provide for academic the mean to: * properly introduce himself/herself; * get the idea about who is some other contributor/peer; * communicate with other people in well-structured way (structured by groups with particular interests etc.) with modern means to express support of one's opinion etc. Yes, Wikimedia platform provides very flexible and rather mighty (HTML-based) DIY means to organize some profile/facepage but they distract from content creation, do not they (as well as any DIY stuff do)? Yes, Wikimedia platform provides very flexible and rather mighty (HTML-based) DIY-means to organize some "groups of interest" (portals, projects) but... (see above). So my point is not increase of distraction from content (as main object of contributor care, intended care I would stress) but the opposite - significant decrease of such distraction by eliminating the need of DIY self-care (which is not intended at all). The last but far not least: if we really would like to attract more academics we have to change socialization policies and/or traditions as academics (most of them) don't like/appreciate blind (anonymous) peer cooperation. Or we can look at that in such way: if we are talking about credibility of content we have to talk about credibility of contributors as peers in teamwork first. That's why we will need as much of real&exact info on "facepages" as possible plus as much de-"virtualization" by mean of meetups as possible. Look on experience of de:WP. Sincerely, Pavlo On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 2:16 AM, James Heilman wrote: > To attract academics this is and must be viewed as a serious endeavor. > Yes some aspects such as reverting vandalism could have a fun twist > applied to them but the creation of content must remain simple and > serious. Wikipedia already has a problem with its image regarding > credibility. Things that would affect Wikipedia's image must be > carefully considered. I personally do not need further distraction > while I edit. Medpedia http://www.medpedia.com/ has more of a > facebook appearance to it and for that among other reasons I will not > contribute their. We need to keep our goal of writing an encyclopedia > first and foremost. > > -- > James Heilman > MD, CCFP-EM, B.Sc. > > ___ > 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] Encouraging participation
I would support Gerard's point that Wikipedia needs to have strong community (social network in modern buzzwords) as all such projects are results of well coordinated effort of community (with work differentiation etc.) but not of chaotic crowd/horde of individuals. Common goal and work means community, doesn't it? What is more important - community or communication is chicken-egg dilemma obviously. So regarding >> Wikipedia is not a ... social networking >> site, it is not a file/picture/video hosting service, it is an online >> encyclopedia. I think that Wikipedia is same time online encyclopedia (in it front pages so to say) _and_ social networking site (to maintain project community ecosystem) _and_ hosting service (to provide multimedia for articles) in it back-office. Regarding MMORG situation is much different because of strong negative side effect(s) of this metaphor/attitude being used for Wikipedia. Sincerely, Pavlo On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > With due respect, the amount of wordage on our talk pages, IRC channels, > mailing lists and even skype calls and conferences is such that I disagree > with you. It is exactly because we do not foster communication that many > people do not feel at home at Wikipedia. The first years of Wikipedia there > were no social networking sites and Wikipedia gave a sense of community. Now > that such sites are well established, we find that we do not find the new > people that we so desperately want come to us. > > Yes, we are about creating educational content in our Wikipedia, Wiktionary > and .. and .. We have however our fair share of social problems and your > appreciation of what improved social networking functionality has to offer > is sadly wrong. Look at Wikia they have invested in a healthy community and > it is paying off for them because they show a healthy grow. > > Your suggestion of clubs at universities is in and of itself a good one. > These clubs are welcome, they are able to bring us new contributors. The > question I have for you is, do you realise that such a club is a social > structure and effectively very much like what you dismissed in your > proposal? > > So in conclusion, we should care for our social networks and we should grow > them in any way we can. You are right that the creation of educational > content is what we achieve, but we should appreciate our social networks for > what they do; they bring us and keep us together. > Thanks, > GerardM > > On 19 June 2010 13:51, James Heilman wrote: > >> I have found some of the suggestions for increasing participation >> strange. Wikipedia is not a MMORG, it is not a social networking >> site, it is not a file/picture/video hosting service, it is an online >> encyclopedia. Some people like the first three. However trying to >> turn Wikipedia into a combination of them is not how we go about >> writing an encyclopedia. We need to attract people who are interested >> in writing an encyclopedia and need to drive away / direct to the >> appropriate venue those who are looking for something different. >> >> My suggestion for increasing editor numbers would be to promote >> Wikipedia at Universities. McGill has a Wikipedia club. Promoting >> the formation of clubs at other Universities would have a positive >> influence. Currently most University students are female ( about 55% >> ) http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20091023110831548 >> however Asperger syndrome occurs 5 times more frequently in males than >> females. This might have something to do with the gender ratio we >> see. :-) >> >> -- >> James Heilman >> MD, CCFP-EM, B.Sc. >> >> ___ >> 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] Gmail - List messages flagged as spam
Hi Thomas, I appreciate a lot your warning and hint > This will NOT get things out of spam that are already in it, though. > Search for "in:spam to:lists.wikimedia.org" to find them and "Not > Spam" them manually. as I never noticed before that checkbox "Also apply filter to XXX conversations below." (see 2nd page of Gmail filter wizard) doesn't process letters which're in Spam already. Regards, Pavlo On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 17 June 2010 18:12, Ryan Lomonaco wrote: >> A housekeeping note: Gmail has been marking some list messages as spam for >> the past five days or so. It sounds like this is affecting other Wikimedia >> lists, including Otrs-en-l and daily-article-l. I don't know what if any >> work has been done to try to fix this issue, but until it's sorted out, you >> might need to watch your spam folders for list posts. > > So *that's* why nothing's been making any sense! Thanks for telling me! > > There is a simple solution: > > 1) Click "create a filter" next to the search bar > 2) Type "lists.wikimedia.org" in the "To:" box > 3) Click "Next step" > 4) Check "Never send to spam" > 5) Save the filter > > This will NOT get things out of spam that are already in it, though. > Search for "in:spam to:lists.wikimedia.org" to find them and "Not > Spam" them manually. > > ___ > 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] Cultural awareness and sensitivity
Hello Delphine, Talking about 'cultural awareness and sensitivity' would you let me propose some minor case study? > reaction to what to me was actually a rather funny comment. However, > Mariano's following reaction as well as Yaroslav's came across to me > as unecessarily aggressive and actually shocked me in what I perceived > as a lack of consideration and altogether rather nasty answers. > Strange. It was very strange for me to read that Yaroslav (while I know only one Yaroslav here on the list - it's Yaroslav Blanter) was... OMG... "unecessarily aggressive". Moreover I was 'actually shocked' as to my experience Yaroslav is not too kind or better to say warm in tone sometimes (!), but I never saw him "unecessarily aggressive". So I spent some slice of night (it's 3:30AM here in Kyiv now) to run some investigation. As to the best of my understanding (and if I'm not mistaken) that was another person (should I point exactly?) which has not much in common with Yaroslav: he is from Russia as well and he is admin in ru:WP also. It was that another person who spoked about "lynching", 0.55% and was... yes, "unecessarily aggressive" toward Michael, while I was unable to discover Yaroslav' participation in that thread. While I'm not from Russia (perhaps because of that my perception of word "lynching" is almost exactly as Michael's), I could treat this small ...incident in several different ways and most of them will not make me happy, some could make me angry. Obviously my main explanation that it was just mistake :) 'cause 'somebody' was too much in hurry and didn't check the name. Sincerely, Pavlo Shevelo 2010/6/8 Delphine Ménard : > On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 9:30 AM, Lodewijk wrote: >> Dear Michael, >> >> on one side, thank you for bringing this up - I had for example no idea of >> this interpretation, and couldn't even have imagined it probably. >> >> On a more general note, how do you think this problem could be approached? I >> assume that you can understand that someone uses a word in a different >> meaning than the one you brought up, and this is something that is happening >> all the time of course - I have experienced it several times. Translating or >> writing in a non-native language can be a tricky thing (For example, calling >> someone "black" would be considered highly offensive in the Netherlands, >> where negroid is apparently offensive in the US), but even within one >> language there can be different interpretations. Do you see a way that >> people can consider this? Do you see here a task for the writer, or rather a >> message for the reader of messages that there might be another meaning in it >> than the offensive one you might read at first? > > [snip] > >> So although I do agree that we should be careful with cultural differences, >> I do not think that we can avoid possible "lynching"-issues (as in, how the >> word is used) because we can't expect everybody to be have a major in >> English. I think it is rather likely that these offenses are actually more >> often the other way around, where non-natives consider something as >> offensive, but will not speak up about it. Not so much because Americans or >> Brits are so harsh (well, some are) but because of the numbers - there are >> numerous more cultures compared to the few that have English as a native >> tongue. > > > Hmmm. On the specific "lynching issue", I have to say that I must > disagree with you. I believe it *could* have been avoided. There are > times when "going public" (ie. answer on the list) about things that > shocked, bothered, or angered us is possibly the least effective way > of "communicating". > > To give a personal "assesment" of the lynching issue, I understood > Mariano's first post as sarcasm, and it did not shock me much > (Spanish, French, maybe close enough in the first place?). I came to > realize with Michael's post that this might be a poor choice of words, > but did not really understand what I perceived as a really strong > reaction to what to me was actually a rather funny comment. However, > Mariano's following reaction as well as Yaroslav's came across to me > as unecessarily aggressive and actually shocked me in what I perceived > as a lack of consideration and altogether rather nasty answers. > Strange. > > But then, this is me. A woman, French, living in a country that does > not speak my mother tongue, reading in yet another language not my > own, with my background (cultural, social, educational etc.). In the > end, the above co
Re: [Foundation-l] Community, collaboration, and cognitive biases
> The basic attitude has to be that paid developers are treated > identically to volunteers, except that you can tell the former what to > do and expect them to put in more time. There should not be > communication between paid developers and the community, paid > developers should be an integral *part* of the community rather than a > separate group of people. I do believe that it's very true and very universal (so could and should be treated this way far beyond platform development). I mean that "communication between us and them" is error-prone concept in it very bottom. The should be only community as "us". Seemingly/IMHO Erik Zachte' 'story' is right example: he started his statics endeavor as volunteer and as soon as WMF started to 'expect him to put in more time' he became paid person. Pavlo On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 1:55 AM, Aryeh Gregor wrote: > On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Erik Moeller wrote: >> With all this in mind, here are just a few concrete ideas for closing the >> gap: >> >> 1) Embedding teams funded by WMF into larger, publicly visible >> workgroups which include volunteers and which meet regularly e.g. via >> IRC; >> 1 a) Outreach to grow and strengthen those workgroups with the best >> skills present in the Wikimedia volunteer community; >> 2) Publication of mini-projects which we identify and which can be >> tackled by self-organized volunteers, with mentoring by experienced >> WMF staff and volunteers (happening a bit via GSoC, but not as much >> outside of it yet); >> 3) Making development roadmaps fully transparent and open to >> discussion, and sharing justifications for all key priorities; >> 4) Further iteration of tools and processes for rapid volunteer-driven >> bug reporting, cross-browser testing, and submission of simple >> patches; >> 5) Stimulating larger scale contests focusing on specific areas of interest; >> 6) More topic-focused meetings and sprints like the multimedia >> usability meeting in Paris. >> 7) Further experimentation with tools like IdeaTorrent for large-scale >> brainstorming and ranking purposes (we have a prototype running at >> http://prototype.wikimedia.org/en-idea/ideatorrent/ ). > > None of these strike me as essential for a successful bazaar-style > development model, except (4). I'd say some of the most important > things are (from a development point of view, not talking about > non-developer communities) > > 1) Rely on public mailing lists for communication as much as possible, > supplemented by IRC channels (preferably publicly logged). Private > e-mail, face-to-face meetings, and telephone meetings are impossible > for volunteers to join in on, so they should be used as little as > possible. Don't try to move everyone to San Francisco -- if you do > that, they'll inevitably rely heavily on face-to-face communication > and lock out volunteers. I get the impression this has happened with > the usability team. > > 2) Make sure that every paid developer spends time dealing with the > community. This can include giving support to end users, discussing > things with volunteers, reviewing patches, etc. They should be doing > this on paid time, and they should be discussing their personal > opinions without consulting with anyone else (i.e., not summarizing > official positions). Paid developers and volunteers have to get to > know each other and have to be able to discuss MediaWiki together. > > 3) Don't needlessly fork discussion fora. The Usability Initiative > made its own public wiki, IRC chat, etc., and those are used > overwhelmingly by paid people. This might not have happened if they > stuck to existing, established fora like wikitech-l, #mediawiki, and > mediawiki.org, where there are already a lot of community members > reading. > > The basic attitude has to be that paid developers are treated > identically to volunteers, except that you can tell the former what to > do and expect them to put in more time. There should not be > communication between paid developers and the community, paid > developers should be an integral *part* of the community rather than a > separate group of people. > > ___ > 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] Funny news from Poland
Well, he might turn it another way: He checked in person whether no real state secret is presented to public in that article :) ... or (making some good PR for Wikimainia ;) ) that he checked himself whether article is good enough as Wikipedia project is so important (and because some of those nasty joutnalists will need Wikipedia to get some knowledge for themselves :-P ) 2010/5/13 Tomasz Ganicz : > As you maybe now, after the sudden death of Lech Kaczynski (jn airjet > crash in Smolens) we have now fast presidential election. One of the > most serious candidates Bronisław Komorowski was cached with printed > copy of Wikipedia article about > > "Rada Bezpieczeństwa Narodowego" > > http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rada_Bezpiecze%C5%84stwa_Narodowego > > a presidential advisory board for national security :-) > > Journalist from Poland just started commenting if we really need a > president who's main source of knowledge about national security > comes form Wikipedia :-). > > http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/2169210,11,wikipedia_nowym_doradca_komorowskiego,item.html > > > -- > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ > http://www.ptchem.lodz.pl/en/TomaszGanicz.html > > ___ > 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] Banners to increase editors
> ... many are unaware > that it is even possible for them to edit. Recently I discovered, that it's true On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 8:26 AM, James Heilman wrote: > Having trouble posting. Trying again: > > We had a banner last year to raise funds for the WMF. Unsure if anyone has > suggested this yet but how about running a banner to encourage our readers > to: 1) add content 2) correct spelling 3) revert vandalism? > > I have asked many people about their use of Wikipedia and many are unaware > that it is even possible for them to edit. We could have something like > "Wikipedia is in the public domain that means it belongs to all of us. > Please help us expand, protect, and improve it" or some such thing? We > could either run this sort of message alone or combine it with the fun > raiser banner next year? > > -- > James Heilman > MD, CCFP-EM, B.Sc. > ___ > 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] strategic planning process update
> timescale or level of granularity. And each major stakeholder will > have to choose their short-term efforts aligned with that longer-term > strategy. Oh, that's sounds a bit different for me: The result of worldwide wiki-ish brainstorming will be sorta menu given to each and every of said stakeholders and they will pick up the ... granules from it combining them into own strategy of that stakeholder - like piking up 'meal' fitting their needs & preferences. Did I get the idea in a right (metaphor) way? > And when there are mutually incompatible suggestions which have to be > reconciled *for each party*, it will often be possible for different > parts of the community and movement to pursue each idea. I think of > projects such as Omegawiki that way - it is incompatible with what is > currently implemented as Wiktionary, and is supported outside of WMF, > but clearly pursuing the goals of the movement. It sounds like one more confirmation that process and it result will be open, so any 'body' (either institution or person, as well as group) will have a right to spin off some ideas getting them out/outside of WMF. Right? Thinking along that way: I presume that after WMF will 'make it mind' about 5-year strategy (ant apply the mentioned rubber stamp) the only way to get some ideas (incompatible or not fully compatible with WMF plan) implemented will be to take them outside the WMF. Oh > ... community and movement ... I thought those are synonyms? No? Perhaps Movement=WMF+community Any comments, please? :) -- Pavlo Shevelo On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 7:14 PM, Samuel J Klein wrote: > On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:35 PM, Sue Gardner wrote: >> 2009/9/22 Eugene Eric Kim : >>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Pavlo Shevelo >>> wrote: >>>> "Who will decide what the strategy will be, and what will be the >>>> decision-making process?" ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] strategic planning process update
Hello Ray, > ... conflicts with the institutionalized deference implicit in Pavlo's > question. You understood my point perfectly well ;) I have no personal reasons/causes to be ... 'suspicious' about WMF but I'm from that part of the Earth where > ... an essential mistrust of > institutions ... beginning with governments. is in blood of everybody. So if some institution did not explain (publicly and in sufficient details) some important future steps it is the sign (for me and alike) that it's time to start asking questions ;) using > The internet has provided tools for questioning > institutions Thank you very much for all your thoughtful letter. I do believe that further discussion about... 'relationships' (being non-native speaker I'm in lack of better wording) between community/'movement' and WMF (as main institution) should be essential part of strategic planning process. -- Pavlo Shevelo <<[SUL & real name] On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote: > Eugene Eric Kim wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Pavlo Shevelo wrote: ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] strategic planning process update
Thanks, Eugene With kind help from Sue :) you managed to make it much clearer. Please either avoid or be much more explicit & clearer with concepts like > ... I expect that to > be a rubber stamp. I mean well made comment from Ray Saintonge (in his own letter from Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 9:19 AM) > An end-game where the legal entity applies a rubber stamp is fine, but a > prerequisite for that is that a decision has already been made in some > manner. I decide to copy his comment to here in order to stress what was said by Ray. -- Pavlo Shevelo <<[SUL & real name] On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 1:47 AM, Eugene Eric Kim wrote: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Pavlo Shevelo > wrote: >> "Who will decide what the strategy will be, and what will be the >> decision-making process?" ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] strategic planning process update
Hello Sue, Thank you very much for your explanation which is very informative and clear. So for your question > You see what I mean? my answer is "Yes, I do":) Let me presume that (in some reasonably short time) these explanation will be placed to http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Process/Decision-Making as (to the best of my belief) I'm not the only one who will look for such things there (as page title promises explanation). > -- Board members should please speak up here > also, especially if there are nuances to their understanding that > differ from mine or Eugene's. Yes, it would be great! And again > Hope that helps. Yes it does. A lot. -- Pavlo Shevelo <<[SUL & real name] On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 4:35 AM, Sue Gardner wrote: > 2009/9/22 Eugene Eric Kim : >> On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Pavlo Shevelo >> wrote: ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] strategic planning process update
>> the strategy that emerges from thoughtful interaction >> between the community and the foundation. > Not sure what your definition of "the community" is. There are lots of... It's misfit, isn't it? ... are Brian and Eugene speaking in different languages? -- Pavlo Shevelo [SUL] On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 1:48 AM, Eugene Eric Kim wrote: > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Brian wrote: >> This is great to hear and I am very curious to see how it turns out. > > Me too. :-) > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] strategic planning process update
Hello Eugene, Thanks for heads up (two days before the D-day), > ... I wanted to point you to a few links that explain this > in more detail. > http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Process As to me, as to the best of my belief the nutshell is on the page http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Process/Decision-Making (obviously "Process" refers to it). I mean that despite first, very promising clause "Who will decide what the strategy will be, and what will be the decision-making process?" this page explains nothing about (or explains in no detail if somebody prefers) how main stakeholder - Foundation will make decision about said strategy. The huge, extremely intensive (and effective, if we will do our best) Earth-wide pipeline for proposal preparation - it's good. But what will be in the very end? How Foundation will decide what idea is good enough to stand behind it (and to put money in it)? At the very bottom of that page one can read "stakeholders need to be transparent in their decision-making process". It's exactly my point. --Pavlo Shevelo [SUL] On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:42 AM, Eugene Eric Kim wrote: > Hi everybody, > > For those of you who don't know me, I'm leading the Wikimedia > strategic planning process. Our goal is to develop a five-year > strategic plan through an open community process that is going on > =Eugene ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list
> That's usually what codification means :-) Ah-ha! Many thanks! :) On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Mark Williamson wrote: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Pavlo Shevelo > wrote: >> Or you mean 'codification' as 'put all rules systematically/structured >> and in written'? >> If so it's exactly the basic proposal of Anders Wennersten: > > That's usually what codification means :-) > > Mark > > ___ > 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] Moderate this list
> I believe what was meant by this is that we should codify policies the > same way that all large Wikipedias have codified policies, NOT that we > should adopt the same policies as en.wp or any other for that matter. If we're talking about Wikipedias - yes. But if we are talking about moderation policies for this particular mailing list (what was and still is the context - if I'm not mistaken) codification will not work: moderator will ban me (it's only mind game I do hope :) ) according to en:WP rules, I will appeal according to uk:WP rules and, say, Yaroslav will object my appeal according to ru:WP rules while you will support my appeal according to some other rules. Or you mean 'codification' as 'put all rules systematically/structured and in written'? If so it's exactly the basic proposal of Anders Wennersten: > -Document wanted behavior rules on meta in the same way as on wikipedia > (wp:et, wp:not, no chat, do not overload etc) and perhaps Yaroslav just missed "in the same way as" and understood that as proposal to adopt en:WP rules without any adaptation to multicultured (did I used the proper word?) community of this mailing list and/or Meta On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 12:47 AM, Mark Williamson wrote: -Document wanted behavior rules on meta in the same way as on wikipedia (wp:et, wp:not, no chat, do not overload etc) >> >> What wikipedia? I have no idea what the en.wp rules are for discussions, >> and I do not wnat to be blocked on this list for not having this idea. On >> ru.wp, my home project, we may very well use different rules. > > I believe what was meant by this is that we should codify policies the > same way that all large Wikipedias have codified policies, NOT that we > should adopt the same policies as en.wp or any other for that matter. > > Mark > > ___ > 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] Moderate this list
> Yes. You are right about that. So, may we (insiders) promise not to > have such discourse? :) It's a problem with mailing versus face to face meeting: it's impossible to see whether you crossed your heart or crossed you fingers while writing that :-P [Disclaimer: It's just Friday evening joke, sorry if somebody minds/objects] On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 11:43 PM, Milos Rancic wrote: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:36 PM, Birgitte SB wrote: >> As someone who does not think heavy-moderation is a good answer to the >> problem, I think you are missing the point. >> >> These bold/imprudent sort of people have useful contributions in sharing >> their positions. It is the way they ridicule others who have different >> positions that is the problem. BTW this is not limited only to those >> generally critical of WMF, there are supporters of WMF that have the same >> problem. The end result of this behavior is that there less participation >> from people not comfortable with the ridicule. And the people who are less >> likely to participate because of this is not equally spread across cultures. >> So it hurts our outreach and it hurts our general purpose because we end up >> hearing thoughts from a much less diverse group than we might. >> >> Two examples of the tone I find to be such a problem >> >> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-August/054235.html >> >> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-August/054159.html >> >> I honestly believe that as long as this sort of tone continues to be a >> regular feature here; the overwhelming majority of participants here will be >> Western men. > > Yes. You are right about that. So, may we (insiders) promise not to > have such discourse? :) > > ___ > 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] Moderate this list
> Isn't temporarily blocking such a user a way to calm him/her down? I Yes it might be the way, but far not universal way. And it should be the last (ultimate) in moderator toolkit, far not the first to be used. --Pavlo Shevelo On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:42 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: >> By imposing strictly rule that, for example, discourse like "See this >> [...], I told you that members of WMF Board are liars!", you would >> exclude from communication a person who may point from time to time to >> some problem. Of course, nicely worded "Calm down!" should be said to >> that person, but such person shouldn't be instantly blocked after one >> or two emotional overreactions. And it is quite possible that we would >> have such situations if we strictly impose rules. >> > > Isn't temporarily blocking such a user a way to calm him/her down? I > admit, it might be not the nicest or even not the most efficient way, but > still? > > Cheers > Yaroslav > > > ___ > 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] open IRC meeting w/ Wikimedia Trustees: this Friday, 1800 UTC
> ... I'd think there should be no objection to publishing > the entire log. And if "minutes" is taken to mean simply a summary of > the discussion, no doubt that would be welcome as well. I do believe that if such objections will ever have place they should be processed with all due respect and attention but I hope that there will not be any because of following reasons: * it's announced explicitly and clear in advance that it will be public event so somebody badly can demand protection of some private stuff; * [last but not least] non-native speakers do need log available to, say, after-reading (it's tough to be really on-line among native speakers and never miss something essential) And yes, in this case "minutes" will be just summary (if references to log segments will be included it will be greatly helpful). -- Pavlo Shevelo [SUL] Pavlo Shevelo On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Michael Snow wrote: > Gregory Maxwell wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Samuel J Klein wrote: >> [snip] >> >>> Speaking of which, I'm also looking for someone to organize the >>> minutes. [NB: you don't have to be present during the chat to do >>> this.] Again, pls contact me off-list. >>> >> Doesn't the board have a role designated to take minutes at meetings? >> > It does, but this is not an official meeting for the board to conduct > business, it's a meeting to provide people in the community with a > chance to have a discussion with the new board members. As such, I'm not > sure it's meaningful to have minutes, but as mentioned it will be an > open meeting and I'd think there should be no objection to publishing > the entire log. And if "minutes" is taken to mean simply a summary of > the discussion, no doubt that would be welcome as well. > > --Michael Snow > > ___ > 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] Moderate this list
> -All users on foundation-l must have an User account on Meta, with > automatic mailsignal when discussion page is changed If I'm not mistaken it (implicitly) suggests that all mail signatures should contain a reference to that account (and/or SUL). I would support that and I never did it yet presuming that it might :) be obvious that if my mail address says Pavlo Shevelo wrote: > A proposal from me that I have entered on > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Improving_Foundation-l > > Wikiinfrastructure to support and ease moderation > -All users on foundation-l must have an User account on Meta, with > automatic mailsignal when discussion page is changed > -Document wanted behavior rules on meta in the same way as on wikipedia > (wp:et, wp:not, no chat, do not overload etc) > -Warn unwanted behavior on the users discussion page (gives tracebility) > -Block user when the bad behavior does not stop after warnings > -(and keep pages like this on meta to be a place for discussion on > processes etc of foundation-l, ie keep them away from the list itself) > > Anders > > > ___ > 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] Do we have a complete set of WMF projects?
> * Wikisource -- better native support for side-by-side translations, > annotations, and extracting/citing primary source material from the > other sites like Wikipedia would be very helpful. Same thing is in need for Wikiquote as well while I do believe that > ... extracting/citing primary source material from the other sites like ... is extremely useful and very universal thing for any cross-project 'linking' (and even for internal citing) On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Brion Vibber wrote: > On 9/9/09 9:41 AM, David Gerard wrote: >> As Erik points out, at a certain point we have to actually write new >> code to support new ideas. Else "projects we could do at Wikimedia" >> becomes "projects we can do with a wiki engine." > > IMO we need to do that for the projects we already have before we take > on new obligations! > > We still have very poor software support for: > > * Commons -- We need a sane upload and post-upload workflow (eg review > and deletion), and a clean system for handling structured metadata > (descriptions, authorship, licence info). > > Some of this is being worked on now with Michael Dale's video & media > work, and the Ford Foundation grant will let us put more resources into > the workflow & metadata side, so this is the one I worry the least about. :) > > > * Wiktionary -- Really needs to be rebuilt as a structured system. It's > very hard to query Wiktionary or extract its data usefully, and there's > a lot of duplicated manual work maintaining it. > > There was some third-party work done in this direction (Ultimate > Wiktionary/WiktionaryZ/OmegaWiki) which was very interesting but never > got the community buy-in to push that work back towards the live Wiktionary. > > > * Wikibooks -- We still have very poor native support for multiple-page > "books" or "modules", which complicates navigation, search, authoring, > and downloading. > > Tools like the Collection extension are making it easier to download a > batch of related pages for offline reading, but someone still needs to > build those collections manually and they don't provide other navigation > aids. > > > * Wikinews -- Workflow on Wikinews has been aided by tools like > FlaggedRevs but is still a bit awkward. Native support for things like > exporting feeds of news articles is still missing, leading to a lot of > workarounds and manual effort being expended. > > > * Wikisource -- better native support for side-by-side translations, > annotations, and extracting/citing primary source material from the > other sites like Wikipedia would be very helpful. > > -- brion > > ___ > 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] Omidyar Network Commits $2 Million Grant to Wikimedia Foundation
> this subject with the project communities? How does this appointment > have any impact on the activities within the projects? This question is equivalent to the question: How does any appointment to the board have any impact on the activities within the projects? isn't it? ... or even How does the board have any impact on the activities within the projects? right? So what is/was the reason to 'elect' community representatives to the board? On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Sebastian Moleski wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > On Aug 26, 2009, at 2:20 PM, Thomas Dalton > wrote: > >> Those answers don't address the fact that you've just given a seat on >> the board to someone that has just given you a big pile of cash. I am >> open to being convinced that this is a good thing, but you haven't >> even tried to convince me. I am not arguing that Matt isn't a good >> choice for the board, I am arguing that the circumstances of his >> appointment are inappropriate. Had you discussed the general principle >> of selling board seats with the community you might have got a >> positive response, but you didn't ask. >> > This may be a heretic question but I'd like to pose it anyway: why > should it be necessary or appropriate for the Foundation to discuss > this subject with the project communities? How does this appointment > have any impact on the activities within the projects? > > Best regards, > > Sebastian > > ___ > 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] Lack of research on Wikipedia
So let me make a summary of our common position:
What all Wikipedias has in common is following:
* «What we're doing»: mission statement and core values - like content
being freely licensed, openness to newcomers ("...everybody can edit")
etc.
* «How we're doing that» (Howto): 'Requirements' and policies
(regulations) - like NPOV
* «Agenda» - list of issues/concerns/objectives which are common for
all Wikipedias (to get interwiki network tidy and in order - one of
the most natural examples);
* «Action»: Real cross-wiki teamwork in research, corrections etc. -
in handling items (actionitems) from agenda.
So regarding your point: we will
* facilitate the research proposal (scope etc.);
* put it on (to?) the common agenda;
* arrange teams ('special interest groups');
... (KPI ;) ...)
Right?
Regarding Siebrand - that was mainly joke to illustrate my point (to
have some spotlight on it). We respect him and have no problem in
teamworking with him.
Sincerely,
Pavlo
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Gerard
Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> I am very much a proponent of those who consider Wikipedia one project with
> many iterations in a language project and community. For me it means that
> there are several basic requirements for all Wikipedias. The content being
> freely licensed and of a neutral point of view are core values I also
> consider it essential that Wikipedia is open to new people who want to
> contribute to what we already do, as such I would welcome new projects that
> fit in the aims of the Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> As to people like Siebrand, he performs several crucial functions for
> MediaWiki and Wikipedia and I consider him one of the most important people
> in and for the Wikimedia Foundation. He plays a central role in
> translatewiki.net, with Raymond_ he commits the localisations to SVN after
> doing some quality assurance to the localisations. As a consequence of his
> internationalisation and QA work he is the one of the most prolific
> contributors to MediaWiki. He also runs Siebot for ages and he does not only
> but also work on the interwikilinks that bring our projects together.
>
> In answer to your question, the activities that Siebrand is involved in are
> best done in a collaborative way. Actually given the nature of Wikipedia it
> is the only way.
> Thanks,
> Gerard
>
> 2009/8/16 Pavlo Shevelo
>
>> Hello Gerard,
>>
>> Regarding you main point call for research I have nothing to say but
>> Hear! Hear!! HEAR!!! ;)
>>
>> Some small example (casestudy): recently I requested asked for
>> as much statistics data about WMF board elections as possible just
>> because I'm eager to make series of researches and possibly make them
>> regular if not neverending - like 24*7 dashboards or something like
>> that.
>>
>> There is one thing which might be either sorta objection to what
>> you've wrote (to one aspect of that) or proposal for research agenda:
>> Are all Wikipedias really separate projects or all of them are
>> segments of one single international project? Certainly 'single
>> project' model provides very different level of different segments
>> autonomy and some (many? most?) of them are loosely coupled yet (?or
>> forever?).
>> Let me mention Siebrand in this context as well (as you did): who is
>> Siebrand and his SieBot for, say, Ukrainian Wikipedia?
>> Should we say (shout? :) ) something like "Siebrand, go home and take
>> your bot with you! We have *our* bots and it's Ukrainian-made bots who
>> has a right to process Ukrainian Wikipedia"? ;-P
>> ... or just the opposite - interwiki maintaining (beginning from deep
>> interwiki research by the way) is concern of integral pan-Wikipedia
>> community so the only choice is teamwork with Siebrand?
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Pavlo Shevelo
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Gerard
>> Meijssen wrote:
>> > Hoi,
>> > For me while interesting, it is hardly new and therefore not that
>> > interesting what people like Ed H Chi write about Wikipedia. They do not
>> > write about Wikipedia, they write about the English language Wikipedia.
>> > Invariably news written about Wikipedia concentrates on just one of over
>> 260
>> > projects. It diminishes what Wikipedia is about and it ignores important
>> > things that are happening.
>> >
>> > I would be interested in more study looking at the "other" wikipedias.
>> This
>> > is where all kinds of other phenomena exist.
>> >
>> > Yesterday Siebrand observed that there is a group of languages that have
>&g
Re: [Foundation-l] Lack of research on Wikipedia
Hello Gerard, Regarding you main point call for research I have nothing to say but Hear! Hear!! HEAR!!! ;) Some small example (casestudy): recently I requested asked for as much statistics data about WMF board elections as possible just because I'm eager to make series of researches and possibly make them regular if not neverending - like 24*7 dashboards or something like that. There is one thing which might be either sorta objection to what you've wrote (to one aspect of that) or proposal for research agenda: Are all Wikipedias really separate projects or all of them are segments of one single international project? Certainly 'single project' model provides very different level of different segments autonomy and some (many? most?) of them are loosely coupled yet (?or forever?). Let me mention Siebrand in this context as well (as you did): who is Siebrand and his SieBot for, say, Ukrainian Wikipedia? Should we say (shout? :) ) something like "Siebrand, go home and take your bot with you! We have *our* bots and it's Ukrainian-made bots who has a right to process Ukrainian Wikipedia"? ;-P ... or just the opposite - interwiki maintaining (beginning from deep interwiki research by the way) is concern of integral pan-Wikipedia community so the only choice is teamwork with Siebrand? Sincerely, Pavlo Shevelo On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > For me while interesting, it is hardly new and therefore not that > interesting what people like Ed H Chi write about Wikipedia. They do not > write about Wikipedia, they write about the English language Wikipedia. > Invariably news written about Wikipedia concentrates on just one of over 260 > projects. It diminishes what Wikipedia is about and it ignores important > things that are happening. > > I would be interested in more study looking at the "other" wikipedias. This > is where all kinds of other phenomena exist. > > Yesterday Siebrand observed that there is a group of languages that have > solid localisations and, the current localisation rally makes this group > stand out even more. We have the impression that this coincides with the > vitality of projects; German French Dutch are top performers in localisation > they have a healthy community and provide a great Wikipedia. For languages > like Spanish Turkish Swedish Italian it is still possible for people to take > part in the translatewiki.net localisation rally. People who participate on > languages like Estonian and Khmer find that they have to concentrate on > doing the most used and MediaWiki core messages first (our rationale being > that our Wikipedia readers are best served in this way. > > With a sample size fof 260, it becomes possible to do research into the > effect of localisation and the performance of a project. As > LocalisationUpdate is being tested for use in the WMF, timely delivery of > localisations becomes a reality once it is implemented. This will give the > numbers of localisation and performance a much more direct relation with > each other... The question is, if someone is interested in the numbers > provided by such research.. > > It is known for languages like Bangla that Wikipedia is the biggest resource > in that language in that language, I can imagine that this is true for other > languages as well. When a Wikipedia has such a status, it changes the > relevance of that Wikipedia for scientists who study thea language. It is > interesting to learn what the effects are on the people who use the internet > in these languages. With Wikipedia being the biggest resource does this > populate the Google search results and, does this make the Internet more of > a worthwhile experience? > > We know that things like sources, NPOV, BLP are particularly relevant on our > biggest projects. On our smaller projects these things do not get the same > attention. Here it is more important to have articles in the first place. > The make-up of these communities is likely to be utterly different as well. > Would it not be nice to understand how our projects are populated and study > how it evolves over time? At what stage all kinds of policies start to kick > in? > > Research, the numbers they provide are important on many levels. They > indicate issues, they indicate where we want to put our resources. The lack > of research on the other Wikipedias make the other Wikipedias invisible, > issues particular to other languages do not get attention and consequently > resources needed to address issues are not available. > > My argument is that there is a lack of research on Wikipedia, Wikipedia as a > whole would benefit from research and indeed where the English Wikipedia's > growth is slowing down, there is plenty of room for growth elsewhere of > s
Re: [Foundation-l] Email list archives
> For me Google Groups do a good job and it's enough.
Yes, I would support the proposal to look at Google Groups (as
alternative mailing list platform) closer.
As we can see Wikimedia Brasil and Wikimedia UK are using that
platform and perhaps not only them (I'm pushing this platform for
Wikimedia Ukraine while we started from Mailman-based list, provided
by WMF).
> For me the main usability of using Google Groups is for making
> reference for a previous post.
Not just that. Some people appreciate option to reply to the posting
by web-interface (without necessity to copy-paste anything from one
browser window to another etc.).
> ... I believe it's important to maintain
> archived Wikimedia mailing lists discussions on their own server
If I'm not mistaken you mean that in any case (that is whatever
platform will be used) WMF should have ('maintain') archive of mailing
list on WMF' own servers. Right?
And it that context
> Two volunteers have said there are various scripts for archiving
> mailing lists. I'll ask them.
are you talking about script which is able to copy (like backup or so)
Google Group archive to Mailman-formatted archive to be saved on WMF
servers?
Do you have any experience with usage of special Google group control
defining that mail archive will be out - on some proprietary servers
(if I'm not mistaken in understanding meaning of that control)?
Regards,
Pavlo
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 1:05 AM, Everton Zanella
Alvarenga wrote:
> 2009/8/15 Andrew Turvey :
>
>> When I subscribe to an email list I tend to get emails delivered, but I
>> sometimes find it useful to view older emails on the archive. I know some
>> people like to read all their emails on the archive, so this is also
>> important for them. It is also useful when you have to make a publicly
>> accessible reference to a previous post.
>
> We've, recently, discussed about this on WikimediaBR-l and someone
> pointed out Google Groups archiving solution.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/wikimediabr-l/topics
>
> For me the main usability of using Google Groups is for making
> reference for a previous post. Someone even asked if Wikimedia would
> mind about the archiving using a third party platform. Do you all
> think there is some problem?
>
>> The line spacing looks funny with the first and you still lose the text
>> formatting with the second.
>
> For me Google Groups do a good job and it's enough. It's software just
> convert HTML formatted texts to plain texts, which I believe it more
> adequate for email communication.
>
>> Has anyone got any tips about how I can either format an email to begin with
>> or view the email afterwards to solve this problem?
>>
>> Secondly, has this technology been developed recently? Seems it needs a bit
>> of investment, or alternatively, we need to move over to a better third
>> party platform like, perhaps, Yahoo Groups.
>
> Two volunteers have said there are various scripts for archiving
> mailing lists. I'll ask them. I believe it's important to maintain
> archived Wikimedia mailing lists discussions on their own server, but
> I don't see any problem in using third party platforms for purposes
> such as making easier reference for the topics.
>
> See you,
>
> Tom
>
> --
> http://blogdotom.wordpress.com/sobre
>
> ___
> 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] So, scientists tell us what do we know for some time...
OK,
There might be two (or more? :-) alternative models of that...
usurpation (?is that the right word?):
1. conspiracy of nitwits, which got organised into flock/gang/horde
and don't want anybody else to play with their beloved toy (even to
cross the border of their virtual territory);
2. some people ('veterans') are clever enough to make a conclusion (on
the base of community/tribe experience) that knowledge collection and
spreading is a craft and not so simple craft, so they start to filter
newbies... putting them into "either-or" situation: either you will
became apprentice first or (if you're too... bold or snobbish for
that) you should go somewhere else.
As to "guarding pitiful amateur POV productions like dogs" - well, I
admit that sometimes I do that (being aware that I'm protecting POV if
not worse) when some newcomer is too snobbish bold and start to
sustitute it by another POV, explicitly (and in some cases not
politely) refusing to supply sources, referring to his/her
self-confidence (+PhDs titles etc.) instead. ...and yes, I do cite (I
have to do that!) policies in this cases.
By the way - about policies:
I have no doubts that if one will compare the reverts statistics (just
numbers) before and after policies usage there might be same
conclusions: policies are evil.
I mean that
no policy = no edit criteria
so while each and every edit was good (at least acceptable) before,
policies means edits filtering what means editor filtering if newbie
is too ambitious or something...
Anyhow I'm sure that project evolves (grew up?) and there is no
surprise that it became different in comparison to "those days"
situation. So just the fact that some signs of evolution process are
discovered doesn't mean that it's signs of something bad. Those signs
are subject not to reflects (emotional ones) but to thorough thinking
then discussion then thinking then discussion... :-P
Pavlo
P.S. As I'm far not the native speaker in English so I needed
Wikipedia/vocabularies help to comprehend word 'nitwit'.
Now I understand the meaning but I have the question about roots of that word:
Is name of those
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nitwits&redirect=no cheering
people is the origin of this word
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nitwit
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=nitwit
? :-)
... yeah, I'm guilty - sorta original research (express one) :-P
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 3:11 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> Not a new topic, but I find editing about the same. Still nitwits
> guarding pitiful amateur POV productions like dogs, and citing inapropos
> policy as though it were holy writ.
>
> Fred
>
>>>From Slashdot article [1]:
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Open Library, Wikisource, and cleaning and translating OCR of Classics
> The training is typically an apprenticeship under the senior... To my regret training/apprenticeship does not fit to "everyone can...", "be bold!" set of wikimedia slogans/motto. As to me I would stand behind (vote for) training and apprenticeship. On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 12:23 AM, David Goodman wrote: > The training is typically an apprenticeship under the senior > cataloging librarians. > > David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG > > > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 1:48 AM, Samuel Klein wrote: >> DGG, I appreciate your points. Would we be so motivated by this >> thread if it weren't a complex problem? >> >> The fact that all of this is quite new, and that there are so many >> unknowns and gray areas, actually makes me consider it more likely >> that a body of wikimedians, experienced with their own form of >> large-scale authority file coordination, are in a position to say >> something meaningful about how to achieve something similar for tens >> of millions of metadata records. >> >>> OL rather than Wikimedia has the advantage that more of the people >>> there understand the problems. >> >> In some areas that is certainly so. In others, Wikimedia communities >> have useful recent experience. I hope that those who understand these >> problems on both sides recognize the importance of sharing what they >> know openly -- and showing others how to understand them as well. We >> will not succeed as a global community if we say that this class of >> problems can only be solved by the limited group of people with an MLS >> and a few years of focused training. (how would you name the sort of >> training you mean here, btw?) >> >> SJ >> >> ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Election Results
> I don't think so. "Your English is better than my
> language." is a honest response.
Thank you, Milos, I appreciate your input.
I meant another... aspect - like
> Rough eligibility can be derived from edit histories. This is a bit
> harder to calculate, though anyone with a toolserver account could do
> this.
... meaning that:
* I do believe that election comity should (if not have to / must)
share statistic data which is in their possession
as well as
* I don't have (and never had) toolserver account
etc.
So
{{Sofixit}}
looks like more the "friendliness to newcomers" issue (for this
mailing list and beyond) which is so popular in _discussions_ here
last time.
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 12:06 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:33 PM, Pavlo Shevelo
> wrote:
>> {{You're laughing on me }}
>>
>> :(
>
> I don't think so. "Your English is better than my
> language." is a honest response.
>
> ___
> 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] Election Results
{{You're laughing on me }}
:(
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 11:27 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Pavlo Shevelo wrote:
>> Maybe my English is not good enough but I don't get it:
>
> Your English is far better than my Ukrainian. I apologise for not
> being more clear.
>
>> Either you suggest that it will be possible or you're quite sure about that?
>> ... and what about data correction due to dramatic error being discussed.
>> ... and where are those public data anyhow?
>> (you may call me dummy, but I have no clue about that)
>
> The list of voters and projects is available at
>
> https://wikimedia.spi-inc.org/index.php?limit=5000&title=Special%3ASecurePoll%2Flist%2F17
>
> Rough eligibility can be derived from edit histories. This is a bit
> harder to calculate, though anyone with a toolserver account could do
> this.
>
> ___
> 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] Election Results
> The things you are asking for should be possible with already
> available public data. These things would be good, but they are
> things that *you* can do. :)
Maybe my English is not good enough but I don't get it:
Either you suggest that it will be possible or you're quite sure about that?
... and what about data correction due to dramatic error being discussed.
... and where are those public data anyhow?
(you may call me dummy, but I have no clue about that)
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 11:09 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Pavlo Shevelo wrote:
>>> A full pairwise defeats table will be posted shortly.
>>
>> Would you please add detailed statistic summary (number of people
>> voted, %% of eligible wikipedians, dice and slice of those to projects
>> groups etc.) ?
>> ... I mean as detailed as possible - more is better
>
> {{Sofixit}}
>
> The things you are asking for should be possible with already
> available public data. These things would be good, but they are
> things that *you* can do. :)
>
> Please save the election committees' cycles for dealing with whatever
> non-public stuff remains. :)
>
> ___
> 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] Election Results
> A full pairwise defeats table will be posted shortly. Would you please add detailed statistic summary (number of people voted, %% of eligible wikipedians, dice and slice of those to projects groups etc.) ? ... I mean as detailed as possible - more is better On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:47 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote: > The Wikimedia Foundation's Board Election Committee has concluded the > board selection process, and is pleased to announce that the > candidates ranked as follows: > > Final ranking > > 1 Ting Chen (Wing) > 2 Kat Walsh (mindspillage) > 3 Samuel Klein (Sj) > 4 Gerard Meijssen (GerardM) > 5 Domas Mituzas (Midom) > 6 Thomas Braun (Redlinux) > 7 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen (Cimon Avaro) > 8 Steve Smith (Sarcasticidealist) > 9 Dan Rosenthal (Swatjester) > 10 José Gustavo Góngora (Góngora) > 11 Brady Brim-DeForest (Bradybd) > 12 Lourie Pieterse (LouriePieterse) > 13 Adam Koenigsberg (CastAStone) > 14 Ralph Potdevin (Aruspice) > 15 Beauford Anton Stenberg (B9 hummingbird hovering) > 16 Gregory Kohs (Thekohser) > 17 Kevin Riley O'Keeffe (KevinOKeeffe) > 18 Relly Komaruzaman (Relly Komaruzaman) > > A full pairwise defeats table will be posted shortly. > > These names have been respectfully submitted to the Board, which has > moved to seat the top three candidates. > > The Committee wishes to thank all those who submitted themselves as > candidates. It was a broad and diverse field this year. We also wish > to recognize the many volunteers that helped with this process. The > committee extends its gratitude and thanks to them > > > For the committee, > Philippe > > > > > ___ > 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] Board election spamming
> The list of users who have voted is available at > https://wikimedia.spi-inc.org/index.php/Special:SecurePoll/list/17 Some names/nicks there appeared crossed (by horizontal line). Would somebody please explain what does it mean? 2009/8/8 Jon Harald Søby : > 2009/8/8 John Vandenberg > >> On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 6:09 PM, private musings >> wrote: >> > No silly - it's a mistake! (don't be so grumpy. - or be aware that >> this >> > could come across as grumpy at least) >> > >> > I recall the grumbles when Greg sent something out last year or the year >> > before, and feel the same about this as that - the folk sending the email >> > are using an imperfect system, but overall it's worth it - I'm hope that >> > those feeling personally affronted by such an approach can take solace in >> > something or other, and just generally relax a notch or two :-) >> >> Oh, I am not affronted. >> >> I am thrilled that the election committee decided that computer >> engineers should be rewarded for their ingenuity by allowing their >> fine opinion to be counted twice. >> >> This motivates me to write more bots for next year. >> >> p.s. can the election committee ensure that votes from bot accounts >> are not counted?? >> >> p.p.s. if I can have another free vote, I will gladly write a bot to >> help the election committee to discount bot votes... >> >> -- >> John Vandenberg >> >> ___ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > > The list of users who have voted is available at > https://wikimedia.spi-inc.org/index.php/Special:SecurePoll/list/17 , and I > know the committee will be more than happy for any help received. ;-) > > -- > Jon Harald Søby > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jon_Harald_S%C3%B8by > ___ > 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] How was the "only people who averaged two edits a week in the last six months can vote" rule decided?
> I was thinking particularly of ... Wikifamily (Rodovid), If you're thinking of _this_ Rodovid http://en.rodovid.org/ (frontend is http://rodovid.org/) I would strongly vote for that. It's really is > useful for significant audiences, and > implementable in an > elegant way In fact it's implemented already though development is going on (as never ending process). I would say that there is great synergy (between Rodovid and Wikipedia) opportunity as there is a lot of genealogy information to be described for Wikipedia. As of > ... if they > still need support of any kind, but their proposals for Wikimedia > hosting remain. I don't know (and never new) the team that is not in need of help. On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Samuel Klein wrote: > On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 9:09 PM, Erik Moeller wrote: >> 2009/7/31 Samuel Klein : >>> On critical complex topics, the Foundation could benefit from more >>> discussion and better planning. Why have we made it so hard to start >>> new Projects? >> >> I would suggest that we use the strategy call for proposals to >> re-surface some of the most important project ideas that people would >> like to bring attention to. >> >> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Call_for_Proposals > > Yes. > >> IMO there's simply a lack of community support for a lot of ideas, >> either because people feel they are bad ideas, out of scope for our >> mission, already covered within the scope of existing projects, or >> hard to make work with the existing software. That said, I think there > > I was thinking particularly of Wikikids and Wikifamily (Rodovid), > which are useful for significant audiences, implementable in an > elegant way, about creating and sharing collections of free knowledge, > and have existing multilingual communities. I don't know if they > still need support of any kind, but their proposals for Wikimedia > hosting remain. > >> are definitely many ideas that are worth exploring further. >> >> My personal favorites: >> * a shared repository for structured data, the equivalent to Wikimedia >> Commons for data (some coherent synthesis of ideas from FreeBase, >> OmegaWiki, and Semantic MediaWiki); >> * a wiki for the global community of makers to share designs and >> prototypes for both functional and entertaining objects, which is >> becoming increasingly important as fabbing facilities become >> commonplace; >> * a wiki for annotated source code examples, similar to LiteratePrograms.org; > +1 > >> * a wiki for standardization; >> * a dedicated public outreach / evangelism wiki. > > What would this look like? > > Also... > *A wiki for book metadata, with an entry for every published work, > statistics about its use and siblings, and discussion about its > usefulness as a citation (a collaboration with OpenLibrary, merging > WikiCite ideas) > > Sj > > ___ > 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] Analysis of statistics
> Just curious...where in WP do you think POV and specialist works > could fit? Well, 1) POV (best of them being articulated properly) are the only possible ingredients (raw materials) for NPOV producing. Are you able to create NPOV from scratch (from nothing)? 2) Specialists will (and they really do) select POVs, pre-process them and do their best in hamming out NPOV On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 1:32 AM, Kul Takanao Wadhwa wrote: > >> - experienced professional reference-work writers (and we should help them >> find ways to sustain themselves, particularly in niche markets -- one way is >> by distributing the underlying work needed to find and organize data). >> there is room in the world-of-WP for effective, sustainable POV and >> specialist works > > SJ - Just curious...where in WP do you think POV and specialist works > could fit? > > ___ > 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] Analysis of statistics
> licenses -- data, overviews, and reference-style knowledge should all Would you please explain what do you mean as "reference-style knowledge"? On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 2:21 AM, Samuel Klein wrote: > When I say "world of WP" I mean "world post-WP" -- the world we live > in, in which certain businesses are failing now that basic reliable > information and data are available freely... > > It would be healthy to see compatibly-licensed projects that use > different sets of core principles; not just wikinfo (for instance) but > also POV specialist reference works. There is an audience for that, > and they should also be encouraged to contribute to free knowledge. > And if someone can find a way to keep professional encyclopedists from > dying out as a breed, that would be good. I don't want to see other > reference works go out of business; I do want to see them adopt free > licenses -- data, overviews, and reference-style knowledge should all > be free. > > SJ > > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Kul Takanao > Wadhwa wrote: >> >>> - experienced professional reference-work writers (and we should help them >>> find ways to sustain themselves, particularly in niche markets -- one way is >>> by distributing the underlying work needed to find and organize data). >>> there is room in the world-of-WP for effective, sustainable POV and >>> specialist works >> >> SJ - Just curious...where in WP do you think POV and specialist works >> could fit? >> >> ___ >> 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] Analysis of statistics
> The whole thread is about long-term sustainability. At least, I > started it with this intention, mentioning that WMF started to work on > that (Strategy plan). Am I right understanding your words following way: This thread was started as PR action for WMF Strategy plan? :-P On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Milos Rancic wrote: > On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 7:39 AM, Henning > Schlottmann wrote: >> It is delusional to look three, five, ten years into the future. >> Wikipedia is and always will be done ad-hoc. It is fine to plan ahead >> half a year or a year, but that's it. I will not even spend time to >> think about who will write Wikipedia in five years, this is the job of >> those who will see themselves as stewards of the project then. I will >> most probably not be among them, because I am now contributing for about >> four years and can't possibly know what I will do five years from now. > > The whole thread is about long-term sustainability. At least, I > started it with this intention, mentioning that WMF started to work on > that (Strategy plan). > > ___ > 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] Analysis of statistics
People and/or folks :) Would you (several of you, starting from Milos) please, OH please stop playing with me in 'Straw man' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) game!!! > But still there is no really reason to think think we don't have > plenty youngsters able to write science and technology articles. Did I say (or at least hint?) that there is no such youngsters??? It seems that it's high time to recollect backbone of arguing between me and Milos: 1) Milos said - let's focus our 'recruitment' only on people within 15-24 years age limits. 2) I objected that our effort should be limited by so tight limits, but I never (Never, NEVER) objected that people of 15-24 age are of significant interest to recruitment (better to say *evengelisation*) process. On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 11:21 PM, geni wrote: > 2009/7/25 Pavlo Shevelo : >> Stewardship is (I'm simplifying) top level of adminship (sysopship). >> So if we have 16 year old addmin (sysop) so it 's not big surprise to >> see 19-year old steward. >> >> ... but what about articles on nuclear phisics or same >> scientific/technology topic written by 19 year old guy/lady? ... >> FA-grade articles if any? > > Sure. The 19 has a reasonable chance of being at a university that > means they have access to reliant journals and at least some free > time. > > >> ... and let's discuss not exceptions but... mainstream. > > Then why are you talking about FAs? The mainstream are not FAs. > > But still there is no really reason to think think we don't have > plenty youngsters able to write science and technology articles. > While people keep pretty quiet about ages on en I've certainly run > across people at university or younger who work in those areas. > > > > > -- > geni > > ___ > 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] Analysis of statistics
Oh, Milos... We were talking about articles on nuclear physics, aren't we? ... and you suddenly switched to stewardship. Why? With all due respect to the institution of stewardship (and each of our Stewards personally ;) ) what's the big deal with that in context of what we were talking before you switched. Stewardship is (I'm simplifying) top level of adminship (sysopship). So if we have 16 year old addmin (sysop) so it 's not big surprise to see 19-year old steward. ... but what about articles on nuclear phisics or same scientific/technology topic written by 19 year old guy/lady? ... FA-grade articles if any? ... and let's discuss not exceptions but... mainstream. I completely agree with David Gerard, Mark and others that there is bright young contributors (new Stephen Hawking etc.) but I (1001th confirmation!) never said that we should stop recruiting among youngsters. On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Milos Rancic wrote: > On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Pavlo Shevelo > wrote: >> Let me illustrate by example: >> I started to invest good portion of my time into comforting 11 (!) >> years old boy despite the fact that his usage of "be bold" rule to >> several most popular templates was like hurricane that not each vandal >> may create :) >> >>> 17 is probably interested more in music than in nuclear physics, but >>> just in two years she or he may be a valuable contributor in that >>> scientific field. >> >> Let's be realistic (though not cynical ;) ): >> >> 1. Far not in two years - not less than in 10 years. Will we be >> satisfied by popmusics/games-pedia until than +2-3 years (to create >> articles); >> 2. She or he may and may not became contributor in some scientific >> field. If she/he will see work of elders (in best - eventually pass >> the aprenticeship under control of master) during all these years it >> will increase both that probability to became and quality of future >> contribution. > > I have quite opposite experiences. One of them had become Wikimedian > with 16-17 and two years later became a steward (by passing elections > with ~95% of support). > > ___ > 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] Analysis of statistics
Mark, I appreciate your input to this discussion as well as I believe you regarding your contribution to en:WP. Both of us (you and me) know that there are "bright" young people (geeks etc.) and ... not so bright. Besides I'm willing not to be snobbish geek and I trust that people (whatever their age are) who do not care about science but love fun are *NOT* "bad"/"wrong" etc. people. We, Wikipedians, love fun as well - though our fun is very ... wikiish :-P Exact figures of people of both kind (fun oriented and other) as well as volumes of their contribution are yet to come as age disclosure (as well as real names etc.) is more exception than rule. >From another point of view I do respect such contribution like entertainment stuff - I care about balance between those and articles about science and technology. I'm 'old school guy' so for me encyclopedia is about science and technology first of all. P.S. I'm going to question you about you contribution as I failed to discover it myself. I will do that by private mailing to safe everything that you would like to keep not so public. On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Mark Williamson wrote: > Do you have data to back this up? For the record, I'll be 20 in August > and the main areas I edited were pages about cultures, countries, and > languages since I was about 15. > > There are lots of intelligent young people scattered across the globe, > I don't know how much they are able to contribute to de.wp but when it > comes to en.wp, you will find some of the brightest young people (in > addition to some not-so-bright ones (-: perhaps) > > Mark > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 6:54 AM, Pavlo Shevelo wrote: >>> Here we are not looking at 15 year olds, we are looking >>> at retired academics as the future of our user base. >> >> That's right point! >> >> If Wikipedia is education tool we should (!) think about something >> more than "cross-education" of teenagers and students >> >> As a matter od fact teenagers contribute mainly to articles about >> sports, movies and other entertainment staff. >> Almost only exception is computers hardware and software stuff. >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Henning >> Schlottmann wrote: >>> Milos Rancic wrote: >>>> In all cases we need to think seriously how to educate younger >>>> generations about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. >>> >>> Thanks for all the data and the number crunching. But I think you are >>> wrong in your assumptions and therefore in your analysis at least >>> regarding de-WP. Here we are not looking at 15 year olds, we are looking >>> at retired academics as the future of our user base. >>> >>> Quite frankly, a 15 years old can't contribute to de-WP anymore. Not >>> even 20 years olds can. De-WP has reached a level where undergraduates >>> can do vandal fighting and stuff like that, but writing and improving >>> articles needs access to academic literature and experience in academic >>> writing. 25 to 45 years olds usually have other priorities, they build a >>> career and a family. >>> >>> It is the logical step to look for retired academics, because they have >>> the expertise needed. The demographics in the 15-35 range therefore are >>> completely irrelevant for de-WP. >>> >>> Ciao Henning >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> 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
Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
John, Thanks a lot - you made my Saturday! ;) > Is it somehow possible to let newcomers write articles together with > oldtimers until they learn the most basic things? But why (?) we suggest that it's impossible? If we will put that as (realized) aim this is very possible - we should just to embody in Wikipedia community such thing as apprenticeship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apprenticeship . Isn't it sorta funny that Wikipedia contain guidelines which seems to be ignored by project community? ;) > How > can we change this, both at a human level and with technical solutions? ... > Perhaps it is possible > to make personal sandboxes where they can get some guidance before the > dogfight starts? Some people believe that it's good for newcomer to put him/her into the middle of dogfight from the day1. I'm not really supporter of that approach - there will be more than enough dogfights in future. So it's really important (mission-critical in terms of Wikipedia mission) what happens before the first dogfight. We have some stuff (RSS-feeds, personal sandboxes etc.) to assist both grossmeister and apprentice, but sure we should develop some more. On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 12:49 PM, John at Darkstar wrote: > > How the new contributors are approached by the community is very > important and it seems like they face a very hostile environment. How > can we change this, both at a human level and with technical solutions? > Is it somehow possible to let newcomers write articles together with > oldtimers until they learn the most basic things? Perhaps it is possible > to make personal sandboxes where they can get some guidance before the > dogfight starts? > > John > > ___ > 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] Analysis of statistics
> Pavlo, just try not to think synchronically. A teenager in her or his > 17 is probably interested more in music than in nuclear physics, but > just in two years she or he may be a valuable contributor in that > scientific field. And I think that it is clever to invest time and > energy even in 12 years old persons. > > Also, many of teenagers are interested in being a part of the "world > of mature people" and they are giving a strong contribution to various > scientific fields. Not to talk about constant battles against vandals. Milos, don't blame me in that what I'm not doing. I know, that I'm narrow-minded to certain extent (as all of us are :) ) but not as much as you think so describe me :)) Let me illustrate by example: I started to invest good portion of my time into comforting 11 (!) years old boy despite the fact that his usage of "be bold" rule to several most popular templates was like hurricane that not each vandal may create :) > 17 is probably interested more in music than in nuclear physics, but > just in two years she or he may be a valuable contributor in that > scientific field. Let's be realistic (though not cynical ;) ): 1. Far not in two years - not less than in 10 years. Will we be satisfied by popmusics/games-pedia until than +2-3 years (to create articles); 2. She or he may and may not became contributor in some scientific field. If she/he will see work of elders (in best - eventually pass the aprenticeship under control of master) during all these years it will increase both that probability to became and quality of future contribution. > Also, many of teenagers are interested in being a part of the "world > of mature people" Oh well, so we do need that "world of mature people" existing NOW, not that it will born in future if (!) youngsters will stay in it long enough being leaved on themselves. On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Milos Rancic wrote: > On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Pavlo Shevelo > wrote: >> Teenagers (age between 13-20 roughly) are most active in articles >> about entertainment (movies, musical bands, computer games etc.) but >> neither in articles on science & technology nor articles regarding >> museums, literature (but Harry Potter and likes) etc. > > Pavlo, just try not to think synchronically. A teenager in her or his > 17 is probably interested more in music than in nuclear physics, but > just in two years she or he may be a valuable contributor in that > scientific field. And I think that it is clever to invest time and > energy even in 12 years old persons. > > Also, many of teenagers are interested in being a part of the "world > of mature people" and they are giving a strong contribution to various > scientific fields. Not to talk about constant battles against vandals. > > ___ > 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] Analysis of statistics
Hi Milos, Thanks a lot for so informative comment. Sorry but you provided more for my new counterargumentation than "beat" previous portion :) Let me start bottomup (I have such habit) > ... we are at the dead end Wikipedia community evolve and became different, who said that it's signs of death? I like this quotation of wise person: "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning." By this I mean that we should have thorough research howto treat current tendencies (while I don't mean to do nothing until that research will be done). > yes, it is > possible that quality brings quantity. This thread is about that: we > have to think how to do that. Yes, it's quite *possible* that quantity of people within "15-24" age range will bring quality of articles that are "sexy"/"cool" for those ...agers, but what about articles that: - are boring for them if not of any interest for them; - they have no clue about that field of science&technology that this article should be about; - they are unable to comprehend the literature about that topic - just because they are too young and not yet educated ??? Scenario analysis: There was no reason to waste invest time into Scenario1 - nobody (not me, neither anybody else) said that we should abandon wiki-evangelisation of youngsters. Scenario3 seems very scary in terms of imbalance in articles quantity and quality: only topics which seems "cool" for youngsters will be covered (see above). >From other point of view don't you think that 100% concentration on youngsters recruiting will be treated by elders community members like age discrimination increasing their discomfort in projects (like Ukrainian) where they are in dramatic minority (that is their percentage is much less than in country population)? I mean they could decrease their contribution if not leave project instead of evangelisation among friends and colleagues. And what I'm saying is not just my guesswork - I know many cases of such elders decisions. On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 7:48 AM, Milos Rancic wrote: > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Pavlo Shevelo > wrote: >>> * ... Older age groups are not interesting >>> anymore in the sense of quantity >> >> Are we really interested in quantity as that? Are we? >> >>> In other words, whatever we want or prefer, projects which hope that >>> their main recruiting age is older than 30 -- are dead projects in the >>> long run (i.e., if you are spending time of people in 30s to recruit >>> people in 50s, who will spend time to recruit more people in 50s when >>> those who are now in 30s will be in 70s?). >> >> :) >> My point is not switch from "15-24" to "50+" age limits, but to object >> narrowing of limits too much. >> I mean that combining of several age diapasons could provide "best of >> two worlds" result. >> >> And "recruiting" process should go as snowball - for example "50s" >> should hunt for more "50s" (as "30s" seems not mature enough to do >> that really well :) ) > > I have to say a lot about this, but I'll try to be concise... ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
Well, well, well > ... even if your > observations are true Not so bad for the beginning: you can suggest that my observations might be correct. By the way, when I wrote "Face the facts!" I meant (and still mean) observations first of all. > ... You are cynical, and ... > your conclusions are wrong. Would you please be so kind as to concentrate on weaknesses of my conclusions, but not on you personal judgement about my personality? I have doubts that you grasped my conclusions (maybe because I missed/failed in clear explanation provisioning) so let me put everything once again: 1) Observation as survey (summary) of facts was (and still is): Teenagers (age between 13-20 roughly) are most active in articles about entertainment (movies, musical bands, computer games etc.) but neither in articles on science & technology nor articles regarding museums, literature (but Harry Potter and likes) etc. As it could be easily seen (from all this discussion and beyond) it's far not only my point. 2) Conclusion: If we are serious in "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment." (are we?) we should attract people of other (older) ages as they are able to contribute that part of "sum of all knowledge" which is out of teenager's activity focus right now. What is wrong (and what is cynical, by the way) in that conclusion? I'm not saying that this conclusion could not be wrong, but please be specific versus just putting "Wrong!" label. I'm aware that this conclusion could help (serve) only as part of solution but not the complete solution. So? :) On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Nikola Smolenski wrote: > Дана Friday 24 July 2009 16:42:06 Pavlo Shevelo написа: >> > Anyone else concerned by this line of reasoning? What happened to >> > Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia anyone can edit? >> >> Nothing happened and we (at least talking about me) are only realistic >> in analysis and straight in putting things as they are. >> Face the reality. Period. >> Nothing else. > > Well, I don't think you are realistic. You are cynical, and even if your > observations are true, your conclusions are wrong. > >> > Pavlo Shevelo wrote: >> > > As a matter od fact teenagers contribute mainly to articles about >> > > sports, movies and other entertainment staff. >> > > Almost only exception is computers hardware and software stuff. > > ___ > 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] Analysis of statistics
> * ... Older age groups are not interesting > anymore in the sense of quantity Are we really interested in quantity as that? Are we? > In other words, whatever we want or prefer, projects which hope that > their main recruiting age is older than 30 -- are dead projects in the > long run (i.e., if you are spending time of people in 30s to recruit > people in 50s, who will spend time to recruit more people in 50s when > those who are now in 30s will be in 70s?). :) My point is not switch from "15-24" to "50+" age limits, but to object narrowing of limits too much. I mean that combining of several age diapasons could provide "best of two worlds" result. And "recruiting" process should go as snowball - for example "50s" should hunt for more "50s" (as "30s" seems not mature enough to do that really well :) ) On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Milos Rancic wrote: > Initially, I wanted to ask questions; to say that we need this or that > analysis. But, I realized that I am able to make some approximations > based on my Wikimedian experience. Of course, if we get more precise > data, we would be able to make more precise conclusions. > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Pavlo Shevelo wrote: >>> If we assume that our target groups >>> are between 15 and 24... >> (and you never went over age of 35 in your analisys) > > 15-24 is the main recruiting phase. Also, there is the next reasoning behind > it: > > * We already reached the peak. Older age groups are not interesting > anymore in the sense of quantity (of course, retired academicians > *are* interesting, but there are not a lot of them; again, relatively > speaking). > * If we reached the peak, we are able just to catch new generations in > bigger numbers. > * Also, statistically, old people are dying more often than young > people. Fortunately our generations (20+, 30+ and 40+) will become > retired academicians or so one day in the future and then we'll have a > very nice expansion in the number of highly qualified contributors. > However, if we don't attract younger than us, Wikimedia projects will > die with us. > > In other words, whatever we want or prefer, projects which hope that > their main recruiting age is older than 30 -- are dead projects in the > long run (i.e., if you are spending time of people in 30s to recruit > people in 50s, who will spend time to recruit more people in 50s when > those who are now in 30s will be in 70s?). > >> I mean are you talking about people who just come (enter the door), or >> about those, who come and stay (don’t leave and eventually grow to >> “most active”)? >> >> My aim is to point following: to accommodate newcomers is not less >> important than to attract attention (educate as you say) of >> prospective candidates. > > Whatever means in the official statistics. It would be good to have > numbers about newcomers and those who made 10 or 100 edits, so we may > compare how do we attract attention through the time. However, I think > that those numbers are relatively stable in the past couple of years > (let's say, from 2005 or so). > > ___ > 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] Analysis of statistics
> we should not dumb down articles Exactly! On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Henning Schlottmann wrote: > Dennis During wrote: > >> It might be possible to rely on a population of academics as contributors >> but there needs to be a mechanism to make sure that the needs of our actual >> users have appropriate weight in decision making > > Who are our actual users? Students are of course well known to use > Wikipedia excessively. > > But do we know how many professionals and other people from the general > public use Wikipedia every day? One of the most active contributors to > de-WP once told the story that he was at a pediatric with his sick child > and the doctor used Wikipedia to confirm his diagnosis - of course > without knowing that the father of his patient had expert knowledge on > how this "second opinion" was written. > > I met teachers, university docents, authors, journalists, lawyers, > social workers, telcom technicians and members of pretty much any other > profession, who rely on Wikipedia for a quick lookup of something. > > My point is: We don't write for students. Our articles should be on a > level where everyone, including kids understands the introduction and > can find further information in the main text, but we should not dumb > down articles to the needs of school curriculums. > > Ciao Henning > > > ___ > 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] Analysis of statistics
> Dennis During wrote: >> Uhm sorry but I don't think it's acceptable to confine ourselves with the >> user vulgaris, which is by definition semi-literate imbecile :) Our target > > Anyone else concerned by this line of reasoning? What happened to > Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia anyone can edit? Nothing happened and we (at least talking about me) are only realistic in analysis and straight in putting things as they are. Face the reality. Period. Nothing else. ... I’m not talking about any limitations for teenagers or something like that. On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Nikola Smolenski wrote: > Henning Schlottmann wrote: > > Quite frankly, a 15 years old can't contribute to de-WP anymore. Not > > even 20 years olds can. De-WP has reached a level where undergraduates > > Pavlo Shevelo wrote: > > As a matter od fact teenagers contribute mainly to articles about > > sports, movies and other entertainment staff. > > Almost only exception is computers hardware and software stuff. > > Dennis During wrote: >> Uhm sorry but I don't think it's acceptable to confine ourselves with the >> user vulgaris, which is by definition semi-literate imbecile :) Our target > > Anyone else concerned by this line of reasoning? What happened to > Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia anyone can edit? > > ___ > 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] Analysis of statistics
> Do you have any ideas how to get them? As I still believe, for many > articles this is a meta issue, meaning that it is likely that only a few > people in the world have necessary expertise AND a wish to edit the > articles, and they all speak English, but may have random mothertongues > (not necessarily German speakers). You're right, but it's only part of the story. Another side of the coin is: even relatively young PhDs don't like the idea to contribute to the progect which is of the "youth and teenagers for youth and teenagers" type. On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: >> It is the logical step to look for retired academics, because they have >> the expertise needed. The demographics in the 15-35 range therefore are >> completely irrelevant for de-WP. >> >> Ciao Henning >> >> >> ___ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > > Do you have any ideas how to get them? As I still believe, for many > articles this is a meta issue, meaning that it is likely that only a few > people in the world have necessary expertise AND a wish to edit the > articles, and they all speak English, but may have random mothertongues > (not necessarily German speakers). > > Cheers > Yaroslav > > > ___ > 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] Analysis of statistics
> Here we are not looking at 15 year olds, we are looking > at retired academics as the future of our user base. That's right point! If Wikipedia is education tool we should (!) think about something more than "cross-education" of teenagers and students As a matter od fact teenagers contribute mainly to articles about sports, movies and other entertainment staff. Almost only exception is computers hardware and software stuff. On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Henning Schlottmann wrote: > Milos Rancic wrote: >> In all cases we need to think seriously how to educate younger >> generations about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. > > Thanks for all the data and the number crunching. But I think you are > wrong in your assumptions and therefore in your analysis at least > regarding de-WP. Here we are not looking at 15 year olds, we are looking > at retired academics as the future of our user base. > > Quite frankly, a 15 years old can't contribute to de-WP anymore. Not > even 20 years olds can. De-WP has reached a level where undergraduates > can do vandal fighting and stuff like that, but writing and improving > articles needs access to academic literature and experience in academic > writing. 25 to 45 years olds usually have other priorities, they build a > career and a family. > > It is the logical step to look for retired academics, because they have > the expertise needed. The demographics in the 15-35 range therefore are > completely irrelevant for de-WP. > > Ciao Henning > > > ___ > 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] Analysis of statistics
Hello Milos, What an informative note you made! Thanks a lot! There is a lot to think about but as for meantime would you please provide more details on > If we assume that our target groups > are between 15 and 24... (and you never went over age of 35 in your analisys) ? As a part of that: do you have wikipedians age analysis for largest projects (let it be en: de: fr: ru: ). And closer to your data: When you say "new Wikipedians" what do you mean exactly: - either new people registered; - or new people who made at least 1 edition (any other threshold?)? I mean are you talking about people who just come (enter the door), or about those, who come and stay (don’t leave and eventually grow to “most active”)? My aim is to point following: to accommodate newcomers is not less important than to attract attention (educate as you say) of prospective candidates. On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Milos Rancic wrote: > Bad news is that I was right almost a year ago about trends of new > Wikimedians. Relatively good news is that the statistics may be > interpreted as not so bad ones. Good news is that WMF started to act > in relation to those problems around half a year ago. > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikitech-l] Britain or Ukraine? What UK stands for in Wikimedia jargon
Hello Aryeh, Thanks a lot for your prompt and informative input. Obviously special thanks goes to Thomas Dalton for swift move for consultation. All other details are taken already to direct mailing between two chapters (Wikimedia UK/GB and Wikimedia UA) in order not to bother (or bore :) ) mailing list members. Thanks again to everybody involved and contributed. Regards, Pavlo Shevelo On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 1:59 AM, Aryeh Gregor wrote: > On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: >> 2009/7/22 Pavlo Shevelo : >>> There should not be any real problem to link wikimedia.org.uk directly >>> to Wikimedia UK chapter wiki (wherever it's hosted). >> >> It depends on how the WMF has everything set up. They have a >> complicated setup for hosting multiple wikis, it may well be >> hard-coded that they all use the WMF domains. I'm cross-posting this >> to wikitech-l, hopefully someone there can clarify the situation. Can >> a wiki hosted on the WMF servers use a non-WMF domain? > > Of course it can. There are plenty of domains for Wikimedia wikis, > there's no reason you couldn't add as many more as you felt like. > Likewise some subdomains of Wikimedia domains are hosted on > non-Wikimedia servers. You can point domain names however you like. > (Disclaimer: I'm not a shell user, but this is still right. :P) > > ___ > 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] Britain or Ukraine? What UK stands for in Wikimedia jargon
> How about a new mailing list. Wikimedia-uk-uk-l ? What for? (: To arrange mailing between two chapters? :) On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Cary Bass wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Pavlo Shevelo wrote: >> Hi Andrew, >> >>> Could we take this offline and start a bilateral discussion >>> rather than doing this via an open mailing list. >> >> Shure, we *have to* :) do so No sense to bother everybody by >> details. >> >> Pavlo Shevelo >> > How about a new mailing list. Wikimedia-uk-uk-l ? > > - -- > Cary Bass > Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation > > Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iEYEARECAAYFAkpnbbMACgkQyQg4JSymDYn7oQCeL+p3WSIU7rng9sqjvuBZlTOz > eX0An1p00S90+NmF0D2IECmUz2iNYHbc > =IcGA > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > > > ___ > 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] Britain or Ukraine? What UK stands for in Wikimedia jargon
Hi Andrew, > Could we take this offline and start a bilateral discussion rather than > doing this via an open mailing list. Shure, we *have to* :) do so No sense to bother everybody by details. Pavlo Shevelo On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:30 PM, Andrew Turvey wrote: > Hi Pavlo, > > I'm glad this issue has risen up here and I'm sure the United Kingdom and > Ukraine chapters can come up with something together that solves this to > both chapters satisfaction. > > Could we take this offline and start a bilateral discussion rather than > doing this via an open mailing list. > > Regards, > > Andrew Turvey > Secretary > Wikimedia UK > Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited. > Wiki UK Ltd is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and > Wales, Registered No. 6741827. > The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL, United > Kingdom. > > > - "Pavlo Shevelo" wrote: >> From: "Pavlo Shevelo" >> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" >> Sent: Wednesday, 22 July, 2009 10:26:02 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, >> Portugal >> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Britain or Ukraine? What UK stands for in >> Wikimedia jargon >> >> Hello Teofilo, >> >> I appreciate a lot that you rose up this issue of confusion (I was >> planning to do that myself a bit later). >> >> I'm from Ukrainian WP (recently - from WMF chapter for Ukraine as >> well) and I've met many times those confusions/misunderstandings >> starting from >> http://uk.wikipedia.org >> vs. >> http://uk.wikimedia.org >> >> I'm sure that this issue deserves some portion of attention & thorough >> brainstorming ;) >> >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Teofilo wrote: >> > Hello everybody; >> > >> > This is to say that I have written a piece on this topic at : >> > >> > >> > http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#uk.wikimedia.org_is_Wikimedia_Ukraine,_isn't_it_? >> > >> > ___ >> > 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 >> > > -- > > > Andrew Turvey > Secretary > Wikimedia UK > Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited. > Wiki UK Ltd is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and > Wales, Registered No. 6741827. > The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL, United > Kingdom. > > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Britain or Ukraine? What UK stands for in Wikimedia jargon
>> I don't get it why elimination depends on hosting. > > I'm not sure how the WMF servers are set up, it might be possible to > direct our domain directly at their servers... Worth looking into. Please look into as move to own servers will not be in nearest weeks. As to the best of my understanding: * domain name management is separate (from hosting) thing. * technically both uk.wikimedia.org and wikimedia.org.uk are very similar things. Now (according to your explanation) uk.wikimedia.org is linked to your chapter wiki (using IP address I guess), while wikimedia.org.uk is redirection to former. There should not be any real problem to link wikimedia.org.uk directly to Wikimedia UK chapter wiki (wherever it's hosted). On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/7/22 Pavlo Shevelo : >>> ... At some point we will probably want to set >>> up our own server(s) and then the confusion will be eliminated. >> >> I don't get it why elimination depends on hosting. > > I'm not sure how the WMF servers are set up, it might be possible to > direct our domain directly at their servers... Worth looking into. > >> Anyhow is it possible to have some explicit estimation about when "at >> some point" could happen? > > Not really. It depends on both when we have the funds to do it > (hopefully in the next year) and when we feel we would gain > significantly from it (which could be longer - at the moment the WMF's > setup works perfectly well for us). > >> let me ask one sorta side question: >> Now, when Wikimedia UK wiki is hosted on WMF resources you have a >> luxury of SUL support. Do you have any idea whether it will be still >> possible when you will move to your own server(s)? > > Good question. I don't know. I would guess not - it would require our > servers to have a connection to the WMF database server... > > ___ > 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] Britain or Ukraine? What UK stands for in Wikimedia jargon
> ... At some point we will probably want to set > up our own server(s) and then the confusion will be eliminated. I don't get it why elimination depends on hosting. Anyhow is it possible to have some explicit estimation about when "at some point" could happen? > It > might make sense to put a note at the top of the main page linking to > the Ukrainian Wikipedia. I do believe that it's both quite possible and useful to put such note at the top of Wikimedia UK main page let me ask one sorta side question: Now, when Wikimedia UK wiki is hosted on WMF resources you have a luxury of SUL support. Do you have any idea whether it will be still possible when you will move to your own server(s)? On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 7:54 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/7/22 Marco Chiesa : >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Teofilo wrote: >>> Hello everybody; >>> >>> This is to say that I have written a piece on this topic at : >>> >>> http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#uk.wikimedia.org_is_Wikimedia_Ukraine,_isn't_it_? >>> >> >> I've noticed that http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ redirects to >> http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page If I remember correctly the >> first domain was the address of the "old" Wikimedia UK, and that the >> second was created by the "new" chapter. I'd say the .org.uk address >> is definitely much more recognizable as belonging to a UK >> organisation, while the uk.wikimedia.org is more confusing; >> furthermore, being a foundation-owned domain (at least I guess), there >> may be the issue of the separation of WMF and WM-UK. > > At the moment the site is hosted by the WMF so is at a WMF domain, our > domain redirects to that. At some point we will probably want to set > up our own server(s) and then the confusion will be eliminated. It > might make sense to put a note at the top of the main page linking to > the Ukrainian Wikipedia. > > ___ > 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] Britain or Ukraine? What UK stands for in Wikimedia jargon
> I'm sure there are several other cases as well. I'm quite sure that was the main reason to pick this issue up to this mailing list. It seems that it's high time to create some page on Meta to place whole list there and to collect there precedents how such issue were solved. On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Mark Williamson wrote: > Yes same issue for Sinhala (of Sri Lanka) and the country code for > Slovenia - SI or Burmese and Malaysia - MY or Virgin Islands and > Vietnamese - VI. > > I'm sure there are several other cases as well. > > Mark > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 5:29 AM, Milos Rancic wrote: >> Wikimedia Serbia and Serbian language projects have similar problem >> with Suriname: The code for Serbian language is sr, while the code for >> Serbia is rs. It is interesting that .sr code was one of the preferred >> codes for some Serbian sites for a long time: it is free and for a >> long time Serbia used .yu. >> >> So, sr.wikipedia.org is the proper name for Wikipedia in Serbian. >> rs.wikimedia.org is the proper name for Wikimedia Serbia site. >> However, we have a mailing list wikimediasr-l, which is used as a >> generic public list for all projects in Serbian, not for Wikimedia >> Serbia. And in some not so near future we'll have to solve this. >> >> ___ >> 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] Britain or Ukraine? What UK stands for in Wikimedia jargon
Hi Jon, Thanks a lot for promt and informative (so valuable) input. Regarding > Wikipedias follow the ISO 639 language code standard and > The chapter sites, however, use the ISO 3166 standard for country codes, all WPs and all chapters have to do that very strictly and same way, aren't they (that's us ;) ) ? Regarding > ... our usage however mirrors that of the country > code top level > domains<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country_code_top-level_domain> seems not really applicable to situation except for http://wikimedia.org.uk which is not disputable same as http://wikimedia.org.uk (yes, again "same as" :) ) So it seems logical (including Nikola Smolenski thought) that one and only fair usage for >> http://uk.wikimedia.org is to serve for placement of informative disabiguation page as > ... "uk" is unused; 2009/7/22 Jon Harald Søby : > Wikipedias follow the ISO 639 > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_639>language code standard, where > "uk" is the code for the Ukrainian language. > The chapter sites, however, use the ISO > 3166<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166>standard for country codes, > and "ua" is the code for the country of Ukraine. > > (There is however the fact that the ISO 3166 code for the United Kingdom is > "gb", while "uk" is unused; our usage however mirrors that of the country > code top level > domains<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country_code_top-level_domain> > .) > > 2009/7/22 Pavlo Shevelo > >> Hello Teofilo, >> >> I appreciate a lot that you rose up this issue of confusion (I was >> planning to do that myself a bit later). >> >> I'm from Ukrainian WP (recently - from WMF chapter for Ukraine as >> well) and I've met many times those confusions/misunderstandings >> starting from >> http://uk.wikipedia.org >> vs. >> http://uk.wikimedia.org >> >> I'm sure that this issue deserves some portion of attention & thorough >> brainstorming ;) >> >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Teofilo wrote: >> > Hello everybody; >> > >> > This is to say that I have written a piece on this topic at : >> > >> > >> http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#uk.wikimedia.org_is_Wikimedia_Ukraine,_isn't_it_<http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#uk.wikimedia.org_is_Wikimedia_Ukraine,_isn%27t_it_> >> ? >> > >> > ___ >> > 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 >> > > > > -- > Jon Harald Søby > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jon_Harald_S%C3%B8by > ___ > 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] Britain or Ukraine? What UK stands for in Wikimedia jargon
Hello Teofilo, I appreciate a lot that you rose up this issue of confusion (I was planning to do that myself a bit later). I'm from Ukrainian WP (recently - from WMF chapter for Ukraine as well) and I've met many times those confusions/misunderstandings starting from http://uk.wikipedia.org vs. http://uk.wikimedia.org I'm sure that this issue deserves some portion of attention & thorough brainstorming ;) On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Teofilo wrote: > Hello everybody; > > This is to say that I have written a piece on this topic at : > > http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#uk.wikimedia.org_is_Wikimedia_Ukraine,_isn't_it_? > > ___ > 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] The problem with native languages vs. the lingua franca
>> I mean what kind of affects (positive/negative) do you mean and what >> is the cause "mechanism" between such governmental rulings and quality >> of projects in local (national) languages? > > > I'm not sure, that's why I just posted the link. As to me the long-term effects should be positive as more articles regarding science and technology in local language will be created. Taking into account that improving of the scientific & technology terminology in this or that local language will need some time there could be some short-term effects like creation of articles in interim terminology to be reedited later On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 2:19 PM, David Gerard wrote: > 2009/7/10 Pavlo Shevelo : >> Would you please be more clear in >>> This sort of thing affects the quality of our projects in languages >>> other than English. >> ? >> I mean what kind of affects (positive/negative) do you mean and what >> is the cause "mechanism" between such governmental rulings and quality >> of projects in local (national) languages? > > > I'm not sure, that's why I just posted the link. > > > - d. > > ___ > 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] The problem with native languages vs. the lingua franca
> ...he had to learn French and German well enough to read I'd like to stress that he needed French *and* German meaning that in any field of activity dominating lingua franca (or lingua anglica ) is not the only foreign language that one will need to know in order to really profess that field. Even in computer sciences & engineering where lingua anglica is undisputable dominator in some (not so rare) cases one should beg Google Translate to assist in grasping some article or forum posting made in Spanish, German, French… (to name a few) On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 2:53 PM, David Gerard wrote: > 2009/7/10 Milos Rancic : > >> So, even a discipline with a lot of polyglots can't work without lingua >> franca. > > > I remember reading in Isaac Asimov's autobiography how, as a chemist > in the 1940s, he had to learn French and German well enough to read > papers in those languages. So the lingua franca in a field varies with > time as well as field. > > > - d. > > ___ > 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] The problem with native languages vs. the lingua franca
> English is the last lingua franca So it's better to say Lingua Anglica http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,869957,00.html ;) > ... In 20-30 years we'll have good > enough translators Do you mean computer tools like Google Translate or human interpreters? On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Milos Rancic wrote: > On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 1:53 PM, David Gerard wrote: >> 2009/7/10 Milos Rancic : >>> So, even a discipline with a lot of polyglots can't work without lingua >>> franca. >> >> I remember reading in Isaac Asimov's autobiography how, as a chemist >> in the 1940s, he had to learn French and German well enough to read >> papers in those languages. So the lingua franca in a field varies with >> time as well as field. > > English is the last lingua franca. In 20-30 years we'll have good > enough translators and in 20-30 years it is not big enough period of > time for changing lingua franca. > > ___ > 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] The problem with native languages vs. the lingua franca
Would you please be more clear in > This sort of thing affects the quality of our projects in languages > other than English. ? I mean what kind of affects (positive/negative) do you mean and what is the cause "mechanism" between such governmental rulings and quality of projects in local (national) languages? On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 1:38 PM, David Gerard wrote: > > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/10/world/asia/10iht-malay.html > > The Malaysian government has declared that science instruction will be > conducted in Bahasa rather than English. Parents, teachers and > professors are very unhappy because "English is the language of > science." > > This sort of thing affects the quality of our projects in languages > other than English. > > I'm not sure what to suggest, but it struck me as relevant to language > issues we face. > > > - d. > > ___ > 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] Wikipedians groups on LinkedIn?
Hi David,
I do believe that you received recently the letter sent by Wikipedians
group "owner" Klaas Van Buiten
LinkedIn Groups
Group: Wikipedians
Subject: Announcement from Wikipedians
Hi everybody,
We have an overlap with a much larger group called Wikipedia Users Group.
I've seen many of you, including me :-) are yet a member.
If some of you want to keep this one alive as well, I'll respect this.
If not I will delete this group after everybody is accepted in this one:
http://www.linkedin.com/groups?about=&gid=39542&trk=anet_ug_grppro
Posted By Klaas Van Buiten
This letter illustrates the way to consolidate the LinkedIn groups and
I guess is there any other way to do that.
I'm quite surprised that you're sort of suspicious about
http://www.linkedin.com/groups?about=&gid=39542 as the group "owner"
is Jimmy Wales and this name should sound familiar to many of us (his
LinkedIn profile claims "I am the founder of Wikia, Wikipedia and the
Wikimedia Foundation. I currently serve as the Chair Emeritus and
Board Member of the Wikimedia Foundation and Chair of Wikia, Inc.") :)
.
I guess that "running it for “networking,”" is not well phrased
explanation sent sometime by Steven Burda, who is group manager ("the
guy running it" in your wording).
Interestingly that http://www.linkedin.com/groups?about=&gid=39542 is
the group that Wikipedians group should be consolidated with according
to above mentioned Klaas letter.
As to your proposal to create special wiki page to coodinate the
consolidation process it can help
Regards,
Pavlo Shevelo
Kyiv, Ukraine
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 9:47 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> There was a "Wikipedians" group which was apparently started for
> "networking" (which in practice seemed to mean spam blasts), per
>
> http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2009/04/16/wikipedians-on-linkedin/
>
> But there's at least a couple more groups which are sincere and were
> just put together by Wikipedians (i.e. not Foundation-official), e.g.
>
> http://www.linkedin.com/groups?about=&gid=104879
>
> I have no idea about how to consolidate LinkedIn groups, but for the
> moment I suggest it would be an idea to make a wiki page (presumably
> on meta) for these. If there isn't one already. Same on other social
> networks. Anyone?
>
>
> - d.
>
> ___
> 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] Earthquake in Italy
We here in Ukraine share your feelings of deep sorrow. Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Aquila says: “… there are at least one hundred known deaths, some of them children and up to 50,000 people made homeless” Please accept our condolences. Pavlo On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 4:04 PM, m7 wrote: > > 2009/4/6 Milos Rancic : > > May Wikimedians from Italy confirm that they are OK? I've heard that > > at least 50 persons were killed in earthquake in central Italy this > > morning. > > Dear Milos, > > thank you very much for this mail that comes in a moment > of anxiety and deep sorrow. > > I hope that no Wikimedian was directly injuried, our list > http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipediani/Regione > is indeed far from being updated, but noone seems to be from > around L'Aquila. > > -- > Ciao, > M/ > > ___ > 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
