Re: [Foundation-l] help.wikimedia.org - QA site
Wasn't there a proposal a while back for a Stack Exchange [1] site like this? It seems like the ideal software for it. Although IMO if MediaWiki discussions are too confusing for new users, we should be concentrating on fixing that (*cough* LiquidThreads *cough*) rather than going to a different platform. Peter [1] http://stackexchange.com/ On 6 April 2012 21:58, Mono monom...@gmail.com wrote: Possibly, but maybe more trouble that it's worth. On Friday, April 6, 2012, Gregory Varnum wrote: Is there a more wiki like version of that platform available - or would development of such a platform be feasible and of interest to our volunteer developers? -greg On Apr 6, 2012, at 4:30 PM, Mono monom...@gmail.com javascript:; wrote: Take a look at toolserver.org/~mono/qua On Friday, April 6, 2012, Gregory Varnum wrote: Some modifications and requested info has been added to: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ask.wikimedia.org_(Q%26A_site) -greg aka varnent On Apr 6, 2012, at 2:52 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.comjavascript:;javascript:; wrote: Great! Could you two please revise the current dormant proposal at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiAnswers And note that one of the active uses of the site would be a channel dedicated to QA about using the Wikimedia projects and MediaWiki? I think it is simpler and easier to say let's start a QA site, and focus on building a help channel there. As long as the site is up and maintained, you could answer other questions there as well. The WP:RefDesk has never been an ideal formal for answering questions or, more importantly, for aggregating and organizing answers over time so that it develops into a permanent reference resource. SJ On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Gregory Varnum gregory.var...@gmail.com javascript:;javascript:; wrote: I would be interested in helping with this project from a third-party wiki and MediaWiki developer perspective. -greg aka varnent On Apr 6, 2012, at 2:26 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.comjavascript:; javascript:; wrote: On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 3:45 AM, Jan Kučera kozuc...@gmail.comjavascript:; javascript:; wrote: Hi there, new projects suck, because there are (close to) none asked some time ago already with few positive replies bug was already filled at https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=29923 is there someone who can help move on? It looks like a good idea to me. Do you have any experience running one of those sites? As with any new project, a set of people signed up to help administer it / be initial contributors and editosr would be useful. So I think it's still valuable to create a page about it on meta as a 'new project' even though we haven't cleaned up the new project process there recently. SJ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Samuel Klein identi.ca:sj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Sent from my iPad ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Sent from my iPad ___ 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] Blink tag jokes are now obsolete.
On 11 January 2012 04:48, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: This is not a criticism of WM-DE: We used that language last year, and I felt much of the criticism of it was unreasonable, especially yours. I find it interesting, though, in the context of the discussion that's happening on Meta right now regarding funds dissemination. It is also worth noting that we didn't use either choice of words this year in the WMF campaign in response to the concerns from last year. From the standpoint of creating a balanced, community-friendly campaign that's respectful and responsive, decentralizing decision-making about the shape of the campaign to the geographic level is IMO likely to do the opposite: It will create more pressure (because it's a more competitive environment) between fundraising entities to maximize revenue and push the limits, while reducing visibility of (and associated accountability for) specific choices like the above among the wider Wikimedia community. Yes, very symptomatic of the organiosational malaise. Folks up on high just not giving up on the idea that they know best, and trying to finagle a way to make their way against a very solid community view. To be perfectly honest we need to set red lines for the foundation, beyond which the community will not follow,but will fork, with the full force of the intent. Learn to listen, foundation, don't try to sell things. You aren't put into your positions to sell things to the community. You are their servants. Get it? I'm confused. Erik just pointed out an example (the use of urgent in the fundraising banners) where the Foundation changed its actions explicitly based on concerns expressed by the community. So I'm not sure how it follows as Folks up on high just not giving up on the idea that they know best Conversely the fader banners were highly effective and prompted few if any complaints in 2010, so it seemed reasonable to use them again. I'm sure the concerns raised this time around will be taken into consideration for next year. Pete / the wub ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Blanking a Wikipedia, a very bad idea
Using a geotargeted CentralNotice would be clever, but I believe it would be trivial to get around by disabling Javascript. Currently it.wikipedia is using JS to redirect to their message, but beyond that all page contents are also being hidden with CSS (yes, you can bypass that too, but it's probably beyond the skill of most readers). Pete / the wub On 5 October 2011 15:10, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote: This may have been answered by Kaldari already but... Wouldn't it have been a better solution to block ALL wikimedia projects in any language, if the user geolocates to Italy? It's my understanding that this law does not differentiate (so, the English wikipedia faces the same risks as Italian wikipedia so long as you are in Rome). This way, it.wp readers worldwide (except italy) could continue to browse/edit if they chose, but say an Albanian reading it.wp would not have the same issue. I don't even know if that is technically possible, or if that is what Kaldari was referring to above. Or maybe the community considered and rejected it. Just throwing it out there. Also, we have a Sicilian Wikipedia, don't we? Is that still up? What about the Latin Wikipedia? Dan Rosenthal On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.comwrote: 2011/10/5 M. Williamson node...@gmail.com: Editors aren't the only people who use Wikipedia. About that point it's worth noting that in Facebook several autonomous supporting groups have appeared, the most numerous has 215.000 followers and it's now still growing with a 1000 likes/hour rate. Cristian ___ 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] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter
On 17 September 2011 15:06, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: David Gerard wrote: On 17 September 2011 10:16, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 7:11 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: We need people to try the technical basics of a fork, i.e. taking an en:wp dump, an images dump, .. Is there an images dump? If there isn't, there should be. (I'm now trying to work out how to get the images without using up all my bandwidth allowances ever.) It's easy enough to get a VPS with unlimited bandwidth. It's a few terabytes of data, though, depending on what you're talking about. Thumbnails, current images, older versions of images, deleted images, math renderings, etc. The sanest solution probably involves mailing a hard drive to someone and then having them mail it back. MZMcBride ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l Of course if you're only thinking about forking Wikipedia, rather than Commons, you can just use InstantCommons [1]. For English Wikipedia you'd still have a lot of fair use to copy, but German and many other languages wouldn't have that problem. That said, there really ought to be an image dump available too. Pete / the wub [1] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/InstantCommons ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] SEOs :((((
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-08-01/In_the_news is already the 5th result when I Google that title, without any SEO effort whatsoever :-) Pete / the wub On 1 August 2011 21:52, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote: How about a Wikipedia: namespace essay with the same title? Am sure we could get it some inbound links : On Monday, August 1, 2011, Mono mium monom...@gmail.com wrote: One moment please... I'm writing a how-to guide for sinking that website to the bottom. It involves many of their own techniques. I'll post it soon. On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote: The responses so far are encouraging! ;-) 2011/8/1 Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com Someone just pointed me this link : http://webmasterformat.com/blog/destroy-wikipedia-serp-ranking Fails at step 13 when the site owners with a clue about how Wikipedia works spot a scumbag and laugh at them. ;-) Chris ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- _ Mobile Number in Namibia +264 81 445 1308 Número de Telemóvel na Namíbia +264 81 445 1308 I am away from Johannesburg - you cannot contact me on my South African numbers Estou fora de Joanesburgo - não poderá entrar em contacto comigo através dos meus números sul-africanos Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant ___ ___ 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] They do make or break reputations
On 11 July 2011 04:26, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Most of us have agendas, and this is the only major outlet most of us have access to. As a sort of aside-- everyone comes with agendas, and sometimes people act neutrally, sometimes people act like advocates for their agenda. I've always wondered if we couldn't peel off' the people who advocate by inviting them to participate in Something Else-- some designated advocate/argument/debate project. Something by advocates for advocates of advocates. Some people genuinely like to argue, and unfortunately, one of the best venues for argument are WP article edit summaries and talk pages. Right now, we only have neutral-style projects... this gives 'advocates' no one specific place to advocate their agendas, and this invites them to just 'advocate' in what should be neutral space. If we had some roped off Advocacy and Argument zone, that _might_ peel away the good faith people who want to make sure their point of view is heard, but are willing to honestly label their point of view as biased or non-neutral. It won't stop edit wars, but it might reduce their frequency and intensity. Alec You can always make Wikinfo a sister project. Fred See also http://opinion.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page. Not sure if there are other projects in a similar vein. Pete / the wub ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] It Is not Us
On 28 June 2011 08:35, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, I have read the replies that are against social networking functionality. In my opinion you are all missing the point. Our projects are crowd sourced projects and we do not support collaboration, we do not support special projects. We need to. Yeah! Special projects with a narrower focus would be great, how about giving them a catchy name like WikiProjects. Maybe we could give every article a talk page for users to collaborate on. Heck, let's go mad and give users their own talk pages too! Now if only there was some protocol for real time chats we could use... Social networking in our context will not be a Facebook, a Twitter or an IRC. It will have the parts that we need and it will support our activities. Thanks, I'm all for improving the interface around these things, but exactly what functionality are you asking for that we don't already have? Pete / the wub On 27 June 2011 18:24, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi. Wikipedia should be more like a social network. It provides us with the opportunity to reach out to people when we want to crowd source some activity. We have a problem in retaining people particular newbies. When we show a social side to our work on open content (not only encyclopaedic content) we stand a better chance we are likely to do better. Thanks, GerardM That's an interesting theory. Wikipedia is sort of the epitome of a social enterprise, and all of the good and the bad in the project can be traced to its social nature. Trying to make it more like a social network can only be interpreted as making it more like some other social network, perhaps by integrating purely social mechanisms a la Facebook. Of course, that could either help or hinder, with no way to know for sure in advance; perhaps encouraging more social interaction would exacerbate and personalize the disputes and conflicts that drive people away. ___ 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] Global ban - poetlister?
On 3 June 2011 09:17, Scott MacDonald doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote: What does it take for a global ban? Do you remember Poetlister? Aka Cato, aka Runcorn, aka Quillercouch, aka British Civil servant with various anti-social problems. Multiple sockpuppeting, manipulation, lies, harassment, identity theft, acquiring checkuser and crat status on various projects. Banned from en.wp, banned from commons, banned even from wikisource. The same user is now opening editing on Wikiversity: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Poetlister I'm genuinely shocked. I know projects value their independence, but really? Can this user simply wander round projects wreaking havoc? It seems that the only person evil enough to get globally banned is Greg Kohs - and as annoying as he is, he does not reach this level of fuckedup. Even old Greg is not banned everywhere anymore - see http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=Thekohser His account was globally locked at one point on word of Jimbo, but it was decided that this was out of order and that individual projects should be free to decide for themselves. A few (including en.wikinews) have unblocked him after some discussion. I am somewhat shocked at Poetlister though, that was a truly monumental case of deception and abuse, probably the worst ever seen on our projects. But if the Wikiversity community wants to let him continue editing, I suppose it's their funeral. Pete / the wub ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Stalking on Wikipedia
Dror, this is not about anti- or pro- whoever camps. But you have made a serious allegation on a public and archived mailing list. It's only fair that Supreme Deliciousness is informed and allowed a right of reply. Pete / the wub On 22 May 2011 14:40, Dror Kamir dqa...@bezeqint.net wrote: Tom, since you did not respect my last message here, you force me to react. There seem to be anti-Dror and pro-Dror camps here, and I don't like this idea at all. The issue is not entirely personal, even though I am personally attacked here by certain people based on their mere speculations. And yet, the issue is much wider, and it relates to violation of privacy policy and misconduct on behalf of certain admins on en-wp, which amounts to unethical actions (and I am careful not to suggest a worse scenario). Supreme Deliciousness is not a side to this discussion. The problem is not the mouse but rather the hole in which he dwells. Naturally, SD would deny he did anything wrong. The problem is that certain users go hand-in-hand with him, accept his accusations against me, and against people allegedly associated with me, without any substantial evidence, hence damaging not only me personally but other people as well. Now certain admins also hold private information about me, obtained unlawfully or unethically, without notifying me, without warning SD for his unacceptable conduct and without showing any willingness to address the problem seriously. Dror K בתאריך 22/05/11 13:54, ציטוט Thomas Morton: Has anyone notified SD about this discussion? Pretty much essential given the allegations made by Dror K (which are clearly unfounded, but may be damaging). Tom ___ 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] Plea for candidates: WMF Movement Communications Manager
On 16 April 2011 01:48, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote: It might be easier if you look at it as a numerical scale where native speaker is a quality level at or near the top, and someone who speaks none of or only a handful of words in the language is at the bottom. From Jay's clarification: Perhaps a more clear way to write this sentence would have simply been to state that we're looking for a candidate who can speak English as well as another language at the 'native speaker' level - that is, someone who is bilingual. The way I read this is that they want you to have two languages at the native speaker quality level. Or in other words, if an average native English speaker can speak at a 4 out of 5 point scale (hypothetically assume that a full 5 would be reserved for someone like a university English professor or something), then they're asking that you speak both English and one other language at at least 4 out of 5 points. In fact we have something very similar on the projects, in the commonly used Babel system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Babel So it appears the requirements for this position are en-5 (professional level of English) and xx-4 or greater (near-native level of another language). However I did interpret the current wording as a native speaker in the same way as Sarah at first, until it was clarified on this list. Perhaps it should be changed on the job openings page. Pete / the wub ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Missing Wikipedians: An Essay
On 18 February 2011 23:24, aude aude.w...@gmail.com wrote: Heather Ford, a former Wikimedia advisory board member and researcher/writer in South Africa has written an essay, The Missing Wikipedians about systematic bias on English Wikipedia (especially) against new users and topics pertinent to Africa and other diverse places/people. As an example, she cites the English Wikipedia article [[Makmende]] and the deletion request made, biting the newbie. http://hblog.org/2011/02/16/the-missing-wikipedians/ Please read and discuss. What might we do to help make Wikipedia a more welcoming place for newbies and for such diverse topics? Cheers, Katie (@aude) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l There's some interesting points in that essay, and no one can deny that there are systemic biases in Wikipedia. But this particular example is portrayed absolutely incorrectly. Deletion log for Makmende: * 00:37, 24 March 2010 Flyguy649 (talk | contribs) deleted “Makmende” ? (CSD G3: Pure Vandalism) * 22:53, 23 March 2010 Malik Shabazz (talk | contribs) deleted “Makmende” ? (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement (CSDH)) * 18:30, 23 March 2010 JoJan (talk | contribs) deleted “Makmende” ? (G1: Patent nonsense, meaningless, or incomprehensible) The entire content of the first version to be deleted? Makmende. Kenyan Superhero. Spawned. Not born. Amphibious. Breaths underwater. And the second was indeed a copyvio of the very page it linked as a reference (http://liwani.com/?p=167), which provides no clues as to the memeness and also looks rather spammy. The third was an exact recreation of the second. All of these deletions occurred before the Wall Street Journal blog post was made. Soon after this Ethan Zuckerman finds the deleted page, deletion log and the WSJ entry. He posts to his own blog about it. [1] Just a few seconds after his post a new page is created, with significantly more context and a link to the WSJ entry. [2] This undergoes rapid improvement. From the essay: Wikipedia editors claimed that the article needed to be deleted because there existed ‘no reliable sources, and no claims of notability’. No. One editor did, taking a later version to AfD with this reasoning. [3] The decision was unanimously to keep, and the article underwent further improvement during the AfD. [4] From the essay: The article was deleted once again, prompting Ethan Zuckerman to write a blog post... Despite coming later in the essay, presumably this refers to the third deletion. As I've pointed out this was exactly the same as the second, and came before the WSJ post. Honestly, I think this is an example of Wikipedia working pretty well. The only problem was perhaps a misleading third deletion summary. Pete / the wub [1] http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2010/03/24/makmendes-so-huge-he-cant-fit-in-wikipedia/ [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Makmendeoldid=351782499 [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Makmende [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Makmendeaction=historysubmitdiff=352988064oldid=351864233 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Fwd: [Wikitech-l] Planned 1.17 deployment on February 8]
1.17 has just been rolled out again, but there still seem to be load
issues: see http://ganglia.wikimedia.org/?r=days=descendingc=
Pete / the wub
On 8 February 2011 16:46, Bartol Flint winter...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know what you mean Stephanie. Wikipedia is still not working for me
right? anyone else having issue?
--
Bartol Flint
Student
Erasmus University Rotterdam
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Stephanie Daugherty
sdaughe...@gmail.comwrote:
As far as I'm aware, as a long standing matter of practice, WMF sites
run the latest stable or development Mediawiki, as a matter of eating
our own dog food. That implies that the notice was merely a courtesy
because the change was expected to cause downtime, rather than a point
of discussion. My understanding is barring technical problems caused
by an upgrade, individual projects have about the same chances to
switch their project to Microsoft Sharepoint as they do to hold back
an upgrade. This may seem unusual because everything else revolves
around discussion, but the developers and sysadmins need consistency
to be able to support as many projects as WMF hosts - otherwise they'd
probably be looking at having 2-3 devs for each project in each
language, which is simply unfeasible even with WMF's resources.
-Stephanie
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi,
What would more notice achieve ?
The process of installing release 1.17 is important. It did not succeed
for
now but I hope it will be tried again when feasible. There are
improvements
in 1.17 where people have been waiting for for a long time.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 8 February 2011 15:58, Bartol Flint winter...@gmail.com wrote:
Did this something to have do with the downtime today. I saw different
language project were not working at the same time. Some page still
don't
look right. the box are broken and tools are not working.
More notice earlier please. Thank you.
--
Bartol Flint
Student
Erasmus University Rotterdam
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 2:42 AM, Guillaume Paumier
gpaum...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Concerns have been raised that this needed wider distribution. Please
note that it will happen in about 10 hours from now.
Message transféré
De: Rob Lanphier ro...@wikimedia.org
Reply-to: Wikimedia developers wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org
À: Wikimedia developers wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org
Sujet: [Wikitech-l] Planned 1.17 deployment on February 8
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 18:45:30 -0800
Hi everyone,
Just repeating something I just posted to
http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2011/02/planned-1-17-deployment/
The engineering team is busy working on the deployment of the 1.17
branch
of
MediaWiki[1]. We plan to roll this out next week to all languages and
projects, Tuesday, February 8, with work starting at 07:00 UTC (which
is
11pm on Monday, February 7 for San Francisco).
If all goes well, you should only notice the improvement. If it
doesn’t
go
well, that’s because there’s something we missed, and that’s where
we’d
love
your help. Please help us test this release! We have a test instance
of
the
software we plan to deploy available at
http://prototype.wikimedia.org/.
If
you find issues, please report them in Bugzilla:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Bugzilla
There are many, many little fixes and improvements that have gone into
1.17
(see the draft release notes[2] for an exhaustive list) . There isn’t
much
that’s visible to users of the site, but one under the hood
improvement
that
should result in some speed improvements: Resource Loader[3].
Resource
Loader optimizes the use of JavaScript in MediaWiki, speeding up
delivery
of
JavaScript by compressing it sometimes, and cutting down on the amount
of
unused JavaScript that gets delivered to the browser in the first
place.
Much of the work in this development cycle has been centered on
ensuring
compatibility with the new system. Since it makes such a large shift
in
the
way that JavaScript is delivered to the browser, it’s also an
operational
aspect we’ll be keeping a close eye on, as load shifts between servers
in
our infrastructure.
Note that this isn’t a release for download, yet. On and after
February
8,
the “latest” version of MediaWiki will still be 1.16 as listed on
mediawiki.org. We plan to update this to 1.17 sometime after the
deployment
of the 1.17 branch, after we’ve had time to run it in production for a
while
and fix the issues we’re likely to find.
So please, help us test this release, and if you find bugs, please
report
them in Bugzilla. Thanks!
Rob
[1] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_roadmap/1.17
[2]
Re: [Foundation-l] [Fwd: [Wikitech-l] Planned 1.17 deployment on February 8]
Latest word is that 1.17 deployment is postponed until at least tomorrow, whilst the remaining issues are tackled. http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2011/02/1-17-deployment-postponed/ Pete / the wub On 8 February 2011 17:35, Guillaume Paumier gpaum...@wikimedia.org wrote: Le mardi 08 février 2011 à 22:48 +0530, Bartol Flint a écrit : Now I see this on the main page : Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem. This is probably temporary and should be fixed soon. Please try again in a few minutes. Yes. The second attempt was aborted as well, because of other issues. Is there someplace I can follow what the status is - like on twitter?? A public status dashboard is available at http://status.wikimedia.org Technical details are automatically pushed to identi.ca and twitter: http://identi.ca/wikimediatech http://twitter.com/wikimediatech -- Guillaume Paumier Product manager - Wikimedia Foundation Support free knowledge: http://donate.wikimedia.org ___ 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] BBC 5 Live Investigates on Books LLC, Sunday night 9pm UTC
On 28 January 2011 13:56, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 28 January 2011 13:28, SlimVirgin slimvir...@gmail.com wrote: I think there's a sense of annoyance among writers whose work is being copied that the books are so expensive -- sometimes around $50 for a 10,000-word article -- and that the ads for them on Amazon don't make clear enough that they're on Wikipedia for free. The ones I'm thinking of, Alphascript Publishing, give the names of three editors as though they might have written or edited the material, when in fact it's lifted word for word. Also, as you said, we've seen editors try to use them as sources, not realizing they're in a hall of mirrors. Yeah. The problem is there's no direct action we can really take without hampering the good reasons for reuse of our material. Or just scaring people off. I think the best we can do is raise awareness. This will do that, slightly. - d. From March 1st it might be worth contacting the UK Advertising Standards Authority, as their remit is being extended then: http://asa.org.uk/Regulation-Explained/Online-remit.aspx Amazon product descriptions almost certainly fall under non-paid-for space online under [the marketer's] control. So a misleading description ought to lead to action. But the issue here is the misleading *lack* of any description. It could be an interesting conundrum for the ASA! Pete / the wub ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] H2G2 to be disposed of
On 25 January 2011 08:50, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 January 2011 07:11, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs wrote: It is a question however if per http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/help/entry_faqs#copyright and http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms/#4 In certain circumstance the BBC may also share your contribution with trusted third parties*. would allow for such a release. Very doubtful indeed. Wikipedia might, conceivably, be considered a trusted third party, but there is no way the rest of world would and we can't accept content that is licensed to Wikipedia only. It would be nice if the Foundation could help out h2g2, possibly with funding to help get set up independent of the BBC. It's such a historic predecessor to Wikipedia, it just feels like the right thing to do. Unfortunately because it isn't under a free licence, this would probably fall outside our mission. We should reach out to any researchers who choose to leave though, and we already have a fairly good introduction page for them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:H2g2 As that page says h2g2 researchers retain copyright to their own entries, so if they want to relicense individual ones for use on wiki projects, that's fine. Pete / the wub ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Old Wikipedia backups discovered
That's fantastic news, and just in time for the 10th anniversary too, when I'm sure the early days of Wikipedia will be in the limelight. Great find Tim! Would it be at all possible to import these into the current system? I know someone was importing edits from the Nostalgia wiki. It would be wonderful to finally have a complete article history. Pete / the wub On 14 December 2010 15:54, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote: I was looking through some old files in our SourceForge project. I opened a file called wiki.tar.gz, and inside were three complete backups of the text of Wikipedia, from February, March and August 2001! This is exciting, because there is lots of article history in here which was assumed to be lost forever. I've long been interested in Wikipedia's history, and I've tried in the past to locate such backups. I asked various people who might have had one. I had given up hope. The history of particularly old Wikipedia articles, as seen in the present Wikipedia database, is incomplete, due to Usemod's policy of deleting old revisions of pages after about a month. The script which Brion wrote to import the article histories from UseMod to MediaWiki only fetched those revisions which hadn't been purged yet. I didn't want to believe that those revisions had been lost forever, and I even opened the UseMod source code and stared forlornly at the unlink() call. What I (and Brion before) missed is that UseMod appends a record of every change made to two files, called diff_log and rclog. In these two files is a record of every change made to Wikipedia from January 15 to August 17, 2001. I've put the two log files up on the web, at: http://noc.wikimedia.org/~tstarling/wikipedia-logs-2001-08-17.7z The 7-zip archive is only 8.4MB -- much more manageable than today's backups. rclog contains IP addresses. The Usemod software made IP addresses of logged-in users public, so the people who made these edits had no expectation that their IP address would be kept private. That, coupled with the passage of time, makes me think that no harm to user privacy can come from releasing these files. -- Tim Starling ___ 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] Foundation-L Mirrors
Gmane being one example: http://gmane.org/find.php?list=wikimedia Lets you view as a newsgroup or an RSS feed too. Clever stuff. Pete / the wub On 9 December 2010 16:40, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote: I think that this list is re-posted in other newsgroup compilations websites. Also, the tar.gz archives sorted by month are available in the mailing list site. 2010/12/8 wjhon...@aol.com What is the perceived limitation(s) on mirroring this email list ? That is, making copies of it, on other sites. ___ 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] Downtime error message turned into monolingual
On 9 December 2010 23:50, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: KIZU Naoko wrote: I've got an error message in trying to access Japanese Wikipedia. It seems long, but it's not my topic. IIRC the message from server was multilingualized years ago and we have offered the message with links to other lang same messages. The message itself seems not changed from the past, but now it's in English and only without any links to any other language. What happened? Who decided to remove lang links? And what is the idea behind of this removal? Hi. I believe you're referring to this error message: http://ja.wikipedia.org/w/amp;. I remember it being multi-lingual as well. It was also enormous. I'm not sure when or why it was shortened (though my suspicion is that it was shortened because it was enormous). The planning for the message appears to have taken place here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Multilingual_error_messages Are you sure you're not thinking of this message? http://www.doxaliber.it/wp-uploads/images/wikipedia_down_big.jpg I think you still get that one if there's a server problem, but short of getting a plane to Florida and randomly flicking switches I can't confirm that! Obviously it's good because its multilingual, but also because it has a donate link. The 404 error you linked to (http://ja.wikipedia.org/w/amp) could certainly be improved, though as far as I know it's always been like that. Absurd really, how many users who've mistyped an address are going to want a database dump? Pete / the wub ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] some worries about fundraiser and editor appeals boycotting it
This seems limited to messages on individuals' user pages, saying that they personally will be donating to Amical rather than WMF. I don't think the Foundation should step in on this unless the site notice or a community page is being messed with, though some form of clarification from Amical's leadership would be good. In the meantime it might be worth removing the Joan Goma banners from rotation for PR reasons. Separate from the fundraiser, there may be a problem with their use of viquimedia if it hasn't been approved by the Foundation, and action should be taken to sort this out. Pete / the wub On 7 December 2010 06:39, Ernesto García wbiblioteca...@yahoo.com wrote: Seeing http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics I'm quite worried about the onlook.. choosing year to date tab shows a definite deacceleration (and we still need about 4x the current cumulative amount). Therefore I'm particularly concerned about an ongoing campaign on catalan wikipedia asking to NOT donate to wikimedia (and instead give money to their own association). Here is the campaign:http://ca.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usuari:Martorelloldid=6331799 http://ca.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usuari:Mafosooldid=6410669 http://ca.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usuari:Vriullopoldid=6331931 It basically says I want to donate, but I wont donate to Wikimedia, instead I will donate to Amical. My donation will be appreciated and well used. Sorry Jimbo, but I need to think locally Now who are these users? These are cawiki sysops campaining about not donating in the very worst timing, and in the very worst circumstances (fundarising is getting short). Now.. what is Amical? Amical is NOT a wikimedia chapter. It's an non profit association of wikimedians with aims to becoming a chapter REF1: http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viquip%C3%A8dia:Associaci%C3%B3 And if you follow the external link, you see that for example, Martorell above is member of its board: REF2: http://www.viquimedia.cat/viqui/Junta (notice they present themselves, in domain and logo as viquimedia (localized spelling) and not as Amical (yet they haven't been approved as chaper) Now, these days a banner across wikis from the president of Amical (and appointed president of the non-yet-approved WM:CAT (REF3) Joan Gomà) is replacing Jimbo's in asking for donations REF3: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_in_Catalan/ca#Junta I see a conflict of interests. Amical people (including a board member) is promoting NOT to donate to Wikimedia and instead give to their association, while its president says otherwise. Notwhistanding the use of a WP userpage for propaganda (campaigning for money to a non WM organization), and giving my concern about the fundraising going slower I feel I need to point out this campaign so it is publicly known. ...Now.. why would members of an association whose objective is to support Wikimedia would be torpedoing the fundraiser? Notice the diff dates (mid november). Here's the context: there's a nationalist conflict regarding Catalunya status in Spain (they want to separate). Not directly related, but influenced by this, there has been friction over the past months about the proposals of Wikimedia CAT and Wikimedia ES. WM:CAT gets rejected REF: http://lists.wikimedia.org.ar/pipermail/wikimedia-es/2010-November/002097.html (november 5)Quote:Catalan Group has been rejected by the chapters committee. There is nosuch thing as Wikimedia Catala. Cheers, Delphine And then attacks on Delphine start REF: http://lists.wikimedia.org.ar/pipermail/wikimedia-es/2010-November/002120.html (november 13) Delphine, as always, boicoting the cooperation between Catalans and the rest of the world.Now it seems she is also against cooperation with iberoamerica. Notice Marc Fontevila is User:Mafoso (as signature shows) AlsoREF: http://lists.wikimedia.org.ar/pipermail/wikimedia-es/2010-November/002181.html (nov 16) Next day, the banners boycotting the fundraiser appear on the Amical supporter pages. (Nov 17)Notice the wording about lack of transparencyhttp://ca.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Usuari:Vriullopoldid=6331931 A few day latters, it's crosswiki posted a request on meta with biased wording about transparency againBut it's very soon found that the proposal is ***just another attempt to further the WMCAT agenda***disguised as solving a general problemhttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Chapters._Proposal_to_give_transparency_and_voice_to_the_communitiesOnly catalan sysops have yet spoken pro proposal. Wording was later changed and sections added to present things differently, but original wording can be seen onhttp://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Chapters._Proposal_to_give_transparency_and_voice_to_the_communitiesoldid=2226785if you don't support, you're
Re: [Foundation-l] some worries about fundraiser and editor appeals boycotting it
I believe that the plan is to bring in the thermometer showing how close we are to our target in the later stages of the fundraiser. As you say, hopefully that will boost donations again. At the moment we seem to be doing fine. The personal appeal has proved itself extremely powerful, I think the only reason the Jimbo appeal came so late last year was that no one realised just how effective it could be. It's only natural that response will decrease over time, so that's why there are a variety of messages being trialled to keep up interest. Pete / the wub On 7 December 2010 15:00, Olaf Simons olaf.sim...@pierre-marteau.com wrote: One of the problems is probably the rhythm of the fundraiser. Jimbo stepped in as he would normally do several weeks later. One would till then see the bar running up to the number WMF was trying to reach - and may be decide to actually make WMF reach its target. The present campaign is extremely personalised and it has cancelled the what we need / and what we have question. The reactions on the present campaign are as personal reaching from satire to the odd individual (as now seen) trying to bring his own person into the game. Olaf ___ 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] Fwd: [Backlog] April 2010 Wikimedia Foundation report
* Wikimedia Commons becomes first production site to adopt MediaWiki's new look and feel ... Wikimedia Commons was the first Wikimedia Foundation production wiki to adopt the user experience improvements that resulted from the Wikimedia Usability Initiative. This first deployment helped surface additional issues both related to various browser/platform problems as well as language-specific issues. Blog update: http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2010/04/06/vector-meets-commons/ Erm, what about en.wikinews? Running Vector as the default since October 2009 (https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19865) The blog gets this right, but it should be corrected in the report. Pete / the wub ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Left on the Table
On 6 November 2010 03:43, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 00:53, Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org wrote: An'n 05.11.2010 23:44, hett Fred Bauder schreven: How many billions in potential advertising revenue do we leave on the table each year? Fred According to alexa.com Facebook has a 3-month global pageview share of 4.74010%. Wikipedia has 0.52984%. That's about 1/9th. According to Wikipedia Facebook made US$800 million in revenue in 2009. 1/9th is US$89 million. Of course that's not a realistic number. Just an extremely vague approximation of an theoretically possible value. Wikipedia has the advantage that our content has very defined topics and ads matching the article's topic should be much more relevant and interesting to the user than Facebook's ads. But on the other hand Wikipedia is much more limited and cannot use prominent and intrusive ads, which will limit the possible revenue. And of course Facebook has (again according to Wikipedia) 1700+ employees while Wikimedia has just a small fraction of that. It's hardly possible to create similar revenue as Facebook without additional employees. Even will all their revenue, Facebook is not yet profitable. Thanks for making approximation! I was thinking that WMF and chapters would have much more money with ads. However, ~$100M is not so bigger amount than $20-22M. Besides that, all chapters except WM DE are far from reaching the limits (while WM DE is not so close to reach the limits). Also, organizations should have capacities to spend money, which should be built through the time. In other words, it seems that we definitely don't need ads. No, we don't *need* ads. But think how much we could improve our infrastructure and software with that money. Think how much content we could help to free. And think how much more international we could become. Personally I think the sacrifice we'd make by advertising is too great, but you have to at least admit it's a tempting proposition. Anyway, here's some analysis of this very question done back in 2006. Estimates for annual revenue from adverts ranged from $42 billion to $100 billion, and that's without accounting for our growth since then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-10-30/Wikipedia_valuation Pete / the wub ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Left on the Table
On 6 November 2010 10:56, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Anyway, here's some analysis of this very question done back in 2006. Estimates for annual revenue from adverts ranged from $42 billion to $100 billion, and that's without accounting for our growth since then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-10-30/Wikipedia_valuation Pete / the wub That's capitalized value, but does reflect an estimate of net annual revenue of at least $500 million. Oops! Those are the estimated revenues, but obviously should have been in *millions* not billions! My mistake. Pete / the wub ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] privacy and usability of user talk pages (inc. LiquidThreads)
On 20 October 2010 07:07, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Amir E. Aharoni wrote: This is obvious to someone who has been using Wikipedia for some time, but not so for newbies. I propose changing the new messages notice to something like: You have new messages on your public talk page (last change). I think this is obvious to most people. Perhaps the people who worked on the usability tests previously have insight into this, though. I also think saying public talk page will draw a misleading distinction in users' minds. That is, it suggests that there might be a private talk page (or any privacy on the wiki at all, for that matter). MZMcBride Perhaps a better solution (if this is a common enough problem) would be to edit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Editnotices/Namespace/User_talk to inform/remind people that messages they leave there are public. I just checked and it seems it would stack ok with individuals' custom editnotices for their talk page. Anyone know if it's possible to get a Special:EmailUser link to only show up when usable (like it does in the sidebar toolbox)? Would improve it further. Pete / the wub ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes
On 28 September 2010 23:37, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote: Decisions at Wikipedia are not based a vote. The majority support Pending Changes and insufficient reasons have been put forwards by those who wish to see it quashed. I would like to thank Erik Moeller for the difficult discussion he has made. It is impossible to make everyone happy sometimes. Difficult discussion seems like an appropriate Freudian slip, though it's probably fairer to thank Jimbo for that. Yes, it's well established that decisions aren't based on votes, which is why there's been such a hostile reaction to the forcing of a majority poll. And remember this isn't about quashing pending changes, it's about whether it should be left enabled in its current state. Many very experienced users, including those who were heavily involved in the trial and support pending changes, have raised serious concerns about the usability and effectiveness. There must be some validity to those, or why is the Foundation ploughing more time and resources into further development? Of course one problem with a strictly numerical poll like this, is that those concerns carry as much weight as a plain keep vote with no rationale. Pete / the wub ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for a moratorium on all new software developments
On 6 September 2010 11:33, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote: * The developpers have enabled for every Admin of the French Wikipedia, the possibility to mask (and exert acts of censorship) without needing to be an oversighter (1) Which means that the policy page at [[:fr:Wikipédia:Masqueur d'adresses IP]] (more or less the same as [[:en:Wikipedia:Oversight]]) is a joke. Every single admin has virtually the same power as an oversighter. Um, if you're talking about being able to delete individual revisions, that was a long requested feature. In fact it was achievable before by deleting the entire page, then undeleting every revision except those you wanted gone. This was commonly done where needed, at least on the English Wikipedia, long before the concept of oversighter existed. Now the same thing is done using the RevisionDelete system, introduced in 2009, which I assume is what you are talking about. Its use by admins is different from oversight, because the revision content is still visible to admins, and the presence of a revison is still visible - even to non-admins. Of course if you can demonstrate a consensus on the French Wikipedia to change the user rights setup, and file a bug, I'm sure the developers will act on that. But bear in mind the same thing is possible as long as admins have the ability to delete/undelete. Pete / the wub ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Call for a moratorium on all new software developments
On 6 September 2010 11:33, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote: * We are never shown specifications defining the goals of the planned softwares, which makes me doubt such specifications are ever written. With specifications being written and published, problems could be talked in a proactive way. Also, I don't think it's yet been posted on this list, the technical staff have released the first Engineering Update on their blog: http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2010/09/wmf-engineering/ It contains an overview of all the major infrastructure and coding projects that are underway, and is well worth a look. Hopefully this will be a monthly update in future. Pete / the wub ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Proteopedia
On 24 August 2010 12:21, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: Amir E. Aharoni, 24/08/2010 12:22: This is done using Jmol, an LGPL-licensed Java applet, so maybe it can be used in Wikipedia in the future. There's been some discussion here: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Visualization_methods (see related pages and talks). Nemo There's an open bugzilla request to add JMol/Chemical Markup Language support. There was some discussion at the time, but I don't think anyone's currently working on it. https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16491 Pete / the wub ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reflections on the recent debates
On 9 May 2010 09:50, Jimmy Wales jwa...@wikia-inc.com wrote: On 5/8/10 5:38 PM, Mike Godwin wrote: On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 9:24 AM, MZMcBridez...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Most of the egregiously bad deletions were quickly overturned, and Jimmy was the one re-deleting the images. Now that he has agreed to stop, most of the poor deletions have been re-reversed. I doubt Jimmy approves; there's absolutely nothing in his actions over the past few days to suggest that he does. I think you do Jimmy a disservice if you think he did not anticipate precisely this result. And I do approve. This is absurd. You wheel-warred to re-delete numerous images, and had threatened to desysop anyone restoring them. You even said they couldn't be discussed until June! And now you say you approve of the Commons community reversing your bad deletions. This capricious behaviour is driving people from the projects. Pete / the wub ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] On problems in commons
On 9 May 2010 21:29, marcos tal_t...@yahoo.es wrote: I want to write here a couple of reflections: First: Not everything what can be known is worth being known Second: there have to be a few limits in the free knowledge. These limits are the Law and the common sense. Though the common sense is the least common of the senses Third:Even we promote the free knowledge, there is not lde common sense (and I doubt that it is legal) that Commons offers images, for example, the best way of torturing to a person or the schemes to construct a bomb... There are many countries in the world in which the pederasty is a crime, or his religious systems see them as something abominable. We must respect these laws and these beliefs, we like them or not. And it, gentlemen and ladies, is not a censorship. It is called a respect. Fine. I assume we will be deleting everything at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Muhammad then. Pete / the wub ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] On problems in commons
We already remove images of children which are considered to be illegal under US law, and I see no one arguing that we do otherwise. The recent kerfuffle has been over the broader category of sexual images. But if we are take account of all religious and moral sensitivities, where will it end? There are many countries in the world in which the depiction of the prophet Muhammad is a crime, or religious systems see it as something abominable. We must respect these laws and these beliefs, whether we like them or not? Pete / the wub ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Texas Instruments signing key controversy
On 3 March 2010 13:26, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 7:49 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 3 March 2010 12:28, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for your copyfight. There is plenty of reason to exclude this material regardless of the copyright/legal concerns, and plenty of other people hosting it elsewhere. Doubly true where the material is promoted with spammish efforts, like it has been with some of these cryptographic keys. http://enwp.org/WP:09F9 is the previous thinking on this matter. Summary: memespam is a pain in the backside and interferes with doing what we actually do. Thank you for reminding me of this, I generalized it a bit to also cover the TI signing keys. The talk page also has some excellent commentary. I think we can agree that the keys are not appropriate content for Wikipedia. However, they may be useful elsewhere e.g. in a Wikibook on TI programming. Would the Foundation remove them there? Pete / the wub ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn - WP:NOT
2009/8/6 Jade Harold jadehar...@gmail.com Trying to press a en.wp policy(especially one as broad and controversial as WP:NOT) on anyone else is foolish and likely to be resisted. Pete, I disagree with you especially in a case that a local project try to omit key concepts such as Consensus Policy. WP:NOT#DEMO and WP:NOTLAW are generally approved by broad members and these items define well the basic behavior of community decision making and treatment of rules of Wikipedia, based on Consensus. I rather feel it foolish to eliminate these stuff if someone in the local already notice the importance. Yes, there's nothing wrong with saying This policy from en.wp seems sensible, maybe we should have something similar? This is different from slavish imitation. Pete / the wub ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Recommending a Browser for High Quality Ogg Theora Video Support
2009/7/10 geni geni...@gmail.com 2009/7/10 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: 2009/7/9 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com: 2009/7/9 geni geni...@gmail.com: Mention VLC plugin perhaps? Again, you're making suggestions to create an image of pseudo-neutrality. The VLC plugin is notoriously problematic in practice. Your suggestion would be actively misleading. I strongly suggest you read the wikitech-l thread. Here, I'll even do some of your homework for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/extensions/OggHandler/OggPlayer.js?10 - d. I assume you are pointing to the Downpreffed VLC because it crashes my browser all the damn time -- TS comment. Oh so THAT's why Wikipedia insists on loading that damn Java applet, instead of the VLC plugin I installed. Cortado crashes MY browser (and sometimes my whole computer) all the time, to the extent that even as a long-time editor who knows something about these matters, and a fairly tech-proficient user, I now just avoid videos on Wikipedia entirely. That should change now I have FF 3.5 (but I can't test it now because I'm at work with 3.0) Pete / the wub ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Google Wave and Wikimedia projects
2009/5/30 Judson Dunn cohes...@sleepyhead.org: On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 6:58 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/5/30 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com: I don't get it... this is just MSN Messenger on steroids. It's a great idea and if it works it should be really useful, but it isn't world-changing and certainly isn't going to restructure the internet. No, no - it's Google Chat on steroids! With email and groups and uh other stuff! Picasa! And you can save it all as Knols! Of it's word processing on steroids, or forums, or group wikis... The best description I've seen so far was FriendFeed... with benefits :-) Pete / the wub ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
