Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia creator Jimmy Walker - wikileaks
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Jimmy Wales jwa...@wikia-inc.com wrote: I was mentioned in a leaked US diplomatic cable - with my name spelled wrong! http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2008/11/08SANTIAGO1015.html Hilarious. --Jimbo Dy-no-MITE! -- [[User:Ral315]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] FW: Call for input: Strategic planning at Wikimedia Australia
Forwarded on behalf of a non-member. -- Forwarded message -- From: Jutta von Dincklage jutta@cancer.org.au Date: Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 10:14 PM Subject: FW: Call for input: Strategic planning at Wikimedia Australia To: foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org Dear All, Wikimedia Australia’s Strategic Planning group, a sub-committee of the WMAu Committee, is currently working hard to develop a strategic plan for the organisation. We are seeking input from all our members, the friends of WMAu, and community stakeholders. An initial Strategic Planning Subcommittee workshop on the 16th and 17th July will deliberate over these issues including submissions received up to 15th July. ** ** We know that this is short notice, but Wikimedia Australia would welcome your ideas by 15 July 2011 (before our first strategic planning workshop on 16-17 July)! ** ** *How to contribute your ideas and suggestions* **1. **Read our strategic planning pageshttp://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/Strategic_Planning **2. **Submit your suggestions on our Wikimedia Australia's ideascale page http://strategywmau.ideascale.com/ ** ** Wikimedia Australia members can also discuss ideas on our public discussion place http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/Billabong and the private mailing list http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/Mailing_list. ** ** *Timeline: 1 July - 15 July 2011* ** ** We look forward to hearing about your suggestions. ** ** ** ** Best wishes, ** ** Wikimedia Australia Strategic Planning Sub-committee -- [[User:Ral315]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Fwd: wikiEducation: The Classroom Wikipedia
Forwarded to the list on behalf of a non-member. -- Forwarded message -- From: Jacob Franklin jake.frankl...@gmail.com Date: Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 7:39 PM Subject: wikiEducation: The Classroom Wikipedia To: foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org Dear WikiMedia, In recent weeks I have been reading about the work of your foundation and all of the wikipages you have created. The scope of your organization is vast, along with the amount of people who use its tools. I believe that this incredible reach gives you a wonderful opportunity to positively affect the lives of many people. My name is Jake Franklin and I am an educator. I graduated from Colby College with a degree in Philosophy in 2008. Since then I have been teaching English in Shenyang, China and studying Chinese. Next year I am planning to return to the US to go to graduate school for a Masters in Educational Policy or International Education. I am extremely passionate about improving the educational opportunities, tools, and resources for all students. I believe that giving all students access to quality education both enriches their educational experience and provides them with a strong foundation to build towards a better future. It is because of this dedication to the enrichment of education that I wish to develop a relationship with your foundation. I have an idea that I am passionate about and dedicated to and am writing this email to introduce it to you. The basic idea is to create a version of wikipedia that is exclusively written and edited by students. It is called wikiEducation. There is one site for each grade level, and teachers can sign up their classes to be writers and editors. The site grows through students submitting their work as wikiEducation articles, which are then edited by other students. By pairing collective responsibility and a published presence, wikiEducation gives both writers and editors a sense of achievement, a feeling of responsibility and a relationship with each other that would be absent without this tool. Moreover giving students ownership of the information on the site motivates them to develop more intimate and long-lasting relationships with the material. I think the idea would work best if implemented through the Wikimedia Foundation and therefore have come to you first. I think that you have the people and experience to build the site in the best possible way. I would like to work with you to bring this idea to fruition. I don’t have the technical know-how to build a website but I do have the desire, drive and experience to bridge the gap between the technical aspects of website building and the creation of an effective teaching tool. WikiEducation’s success depends on teacher use. I can work with the teachers and the builders to create a highly functional website that teachers will enjoy using. The detailed business plan includes; a more detailed description of the site, information about the site’s special features, market analysis, and potential problems along with suggested solutions. Please let me know whom I should send the plan to, and how I can continue to play a role in its creation. Sincerely, Jake Franklin Email: jake.frankl...@gmail.com Skype: jakefranklin2 -- [[User:Ral315]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] en.wp HACKED?
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not sure what kind of on-wiki discussions you might expect to see, Sage. I think he might have been going with Chris' assertation that every page was affected, which doesn't appear to be true - the template's transcluded on just under 1,000 pages. My guess is that all of the pages Chris saw were affected, but the vast majority of articles weren't, meaning that it's not anything new. I recognize that this is probably a touchy issue given the controversy on the English Wikipedia over flagged revisions (which I thankfully wasn't a part of), but maybe flipping flagged revisions on for everything in the template namespace would help the cause. Certainly most edits to templates are fine, but when it comes to truly malicious vandalism (as opposed to newbie test edits, and young kids screwing around) templates are both the most affected, and the most visible. As-is, a number of highly visible templates are fully protected, so this would be a step down in many cases and a step up for many others. -- [[User:Ral315]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Stalking on Wikipedia
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 2:07 AM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.comwrote: I would like to request that Dror be moderated on Foundation-L. This is not an appropriate use of Foundation-L, Dror has one of the more extensive sockpuppetry histories of any Wikipedia abuse case ( https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Drork/Archive ) and is using identical phrasing in comments here as the IP editor who is now IP range blocked, which aligns with prior comments he has historically made. He has in private email responded to my question as to whether he is the IP editor by demanding to know what connection I have with Supreme Deliciousness. I'm not sure moderation is appropriate at this point. We try to keep dialogue relatively open on foundation-l (possibly to our detriment, but I feel that it's important to have a place somewhere within Wikimedia where open dialogue can be raised, even amongst unpopular users). That said, to me, I don't see any stalking whatsoever. It is common when investigating sockpuppets to send evidence privately to other trusted users, so that the (suspected) sockpuppeteer does not change their habits to avoid detection. I don't see any other evidence presented to substantiate the claim that someone is stalking Dror. If there is no stalking, then this is not a foundation issue. -- [[User:Ral315]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Please Block This Guy
Done. -- [[User:Ral315]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] CentralNotice use
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 1:41 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Philippe Beaudette wrote: Factually incorrect: it displayed to every reader for only 3 days. It then switched (as was always planned) to logged in users only. Planned where and by whom? MZMcBride The Board Elections committee. We felt that it was important to display the notice to logged-out readers for a short time, because there are many people (myself included) who consider themselves part of the Wikimedia community, but do not log in regularly. -- [[User:Ral315]] ___ 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 Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 7:53 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: I have a problem with this admin comprehending what exactly Vandalism means. In what way is the initial version vandalism. If I cared enough I would suggest that re-training might be appropriate here. W The third incarnation of the article (the one that was labeled vandalism) was labeled as a hoax under CSD G3 by an IP editor. It looks like the admin meant to delete it as a hoax, but picked the wrong option from the drop-down box -- G3 covers both vandalism and hoaxes, and there are separate deletion summaries for each. As for whether it's a hoax, obviously it wasn't a hoax; that said, most of the article is written almost like a fictional story, and it could have come across as a hoax or something similar, particularly on first glance. Also, it was a copyvio, exactly like the second version that was deleted. So to me, it looks like the admin made the right call, but the reason given for deleting it was incorrect. -- [[User:Ral315]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Showing the difference between the sexes
Rather than implementing MediaWiki code that could be controversial, there's
probably an easier solution that requires no code:
- Add a pseudo-namespace (such as the WP: prefix on Wikipedia, WN: on
Wikinews, etc.) that forwards from Benutzerin to Benutzer (and the relevant
User talk namespaces). This would mean that either Benutzer or Benutzerin
would successfully link to one's user pages.
- Let users add a template to their user and talk pages that changes the
title of the page from Benutzer to Benutzerin. This could be easily done
using the magic word {{DISPLAYTITLE}} and possibly JavaScript to modify the
user/user talk links at the top of the page.
This has the benefits of not adding more code to MediaWiki, not requiring
users to choose their gender unless they want to, and ensuring that if
someone doesn't know whether I'm male or female, they can get to my user
page without having to guess.
It would obviously be a decision for communities to make, but if there were
consensus to do it, I'm pretty sure that it could easily be done this way.
Any thoughts?
--
[[User:Ral315]]
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Fwd: First Call for Papers WikiSym 2011
Forwarding to the list on behalf of a non-member. -- Forwarded message -- From: Finn Aarup Nielsen f...@imm.dtu.dk Date: Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 12:31 PM Subject: First Call for Papers WikiSym 2011 To: foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org CALL FOR PAPERS - WikiSym 2011 - 7th International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration October 3-5, 2011 | Mountain View, California http://www.wikisym.org/ws2011 The International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration (WikiSym) is the premier conference on open collaboration and related technologies. In 2011, WikiSym celebrates its 7th year of scholarly, technical and community innovation in Mountain View, California at the Microsoft Research Campus in Silicon Valley. Submissions are invited for the following categories, further details are available on the conference website: http://www.wikisym.org/ws2011/submitting:start * Research Papers, Panels, Workshop: April 1 * Posters, Demos: May 13 * Notification of Acceptance: June 17 The conference program will include a peer-reviewed research track, as well as workshops, a doctoral consortium, invited keynotes and panel speakers. Evening social events will follow, because wiki folks know the value of a good party for sparking conversation and collaboration. As always, Open Space, a participant-organized track will also run throughout the conference. Many of the most innovative technology companies in the world have a presence in Mountain View, which makes it an ideal venue for hatching new ideas and thoughtful debate about collaborative computing among technologists, researchers, educators, and activists. Topics appropriate for research submissions include all aspects of the people, tools, contexts, and content that comprise open collaboration systems. For example: * Collaboration tools and processes * Social and cultural aspects of collaboration * Collaboration beyond text: images, video, sound, etc. * Communities and workgroups * Knowledge and information production * New media literacies * Uses and impact of wikis and open resources in specific fields, such as - Education/Open Educational Resources - Law/Intellectual Property - Journalism - Art - Science - Publishing - Business - Entertainment In addition to research and development topics, WikiSym also invites innovative proposals for wiki-style art and performance. Felipe Ortega, Conference Chair University Rey Juan Carlos http://felipeortega.net/ Andrea Forte, Program Chair Drexel University http://www.andreaforte.net/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikitech-l] Big problem to solve: good WYSIWYG on WMF wikis
I think this has been brought up before, but a thought I've had: Apart from the fact that it will require a ton of work in coding, what would keep us from separating templates (and, for that matter, images) from the article text? Article text would exist by itself, and categories, templates, images and metadata would all be kept and edited separately from the article itself, with pointers indicating where the templates and images should go within the article. -- [[User:Ral315]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Fwd: Project Proposal - wiki to monitor the government spending - GovSpendWatch Wiki
Forwarded to the whole list on behalf of a non-member. -- Forwarded message -- From: gps gadgil...@gmail.com Date: Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 9:36 AM Subject: Project Proposal - wiki to monitor the government spending - GovSpendWatch Wiki To: foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org Hello, One of the biggest problems of democratic givernance is that Allocated funds for various causes, initiatives and projects disappear due to corruption, mismanagement or just lie unutilised due to poor or non-existant public oversight. Another aspect is that the public Audit watchdogs in may countries is unable to function independently, and their reports disappear when inconvenient. Many a times the issues come to limelight when irreparable damage has been done, due to media expose or due to increasingly used Right-to-Information provisions, however media moves on to next issue, and there is no permanant vigil over the public expenditure. The same issue is rampant in Asia, Africa and even in developed countries. We need a Global countrywise repository for monitoring, tracking, identifying possible issues in public expenditure. The domain is important enough for Wikimedia, and the support / backing crucial enough for the platform to succeed. Pl. consider this request to start a wiki to monitor the government spending, possibly named as GovSpendWatch-Wiki. Project Proposal has been made @ http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/GovSpendWatchWiki Pl. forward the proposal to foundation-l mail-list for review. regards, prasad gadgil - प्रसाद गाडगीळ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Lead by example
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Virgilio A. P. Machado v...@fct.unl.ptwrote: I forgot at least one of the rules (probably more) of this list, and (almost) always addressed my comments to the person who made the comment. The exchange went well, was mostly good humored, but that's not how things are supposed to happen here. I apologize for so blatantly disrespecting that list rule, and any other one, that I might not be aware at the moment. I appreciate the patience and understanding of all directly involved, and all the readers who had to endure my misbehavior. That said, there's no excuse for the overblowing of my comments and hyperbolic references to personal attacks, by now a concept so overused that it has lost any credibility whatsoever. [...] To call the attention of ALL participants in the discussion to Please focus on the comment, not the person making the comment. is absolutely right and appropriate. To make it in a message addressed to me smacks of personal attack, and since it was made by a list moderator, I would say that is a very serious offense. We all should be aware of our responsibilities. We all have duties and rights here. One wrong, does not justify a worst one. Any moderator that fails to perform his duties appropriately, should take a leave of absence, graciously submitting a request to be relieved of his responsibilities. From them on, an exemplary participation in this list would be the best and only argument to ask to be reinstated as a moderator. Sincerely, Virgilio A. P. Machado This comment slipped by the first time, but I want to bring this up to illustrate a point. Virgilio is referring to an e-mail I sent to him, asking him to cool down in a somewhat heated discussion earlier this week. I sent the e-mail while sleepy and probably could have phrased it better; I also sent the e-mail to Virgilio only, rather than to all the participants, who also could have used a reminder. I've apologized to Virgilio for handling the issue poorly, but this is another example of why it's a bad idea to send an e-mail when not in the right frame of mind! Proof that we all make mistakes. -Ryan -- [[User:Ral315]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Accuracy required
FT2, Please let it go - I talked with Virgilio off-list yesterday; it sounds like he didn't mean to stir up a storm, and would rather this thread die. Thanks, Ryan On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 3:23 PM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote: That won't help much. If I understand your email correctly, you want the information in order to protest on pt.wiki - either about your name being used or about being blocked for mentioning other users' names. There are problems with this. 1. The thread started by saying it is inaccurate to use a tag line the only person ruled by an arbcom under a real name (in the title). Cases exist (eg enwiki Arbcom) 2. Each project is independent. What enwiki does may truthfully be different from ruwiki, ptwiki, dewiki. wikis can be very different and their internal decisions on these things can be compared but it is not going to persuade anyone about pt.wiki, if you try and argue about events on some other wiki. 3. Even on a single wiki, treatment may vary within context. For example on enwiki a user may be blocked indefinitely for naming another user's real name, or an arbcom case may even be named after a real name. What is the difference? In the first case the real name was not public, in the second case the real name was also their username. So a lot varies depending on context and community. 4. You may be the only person dealt with under a real name *by pt-arbcom*. But nobody has said you were or weren't. Hope this helps? FT2 On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:37 PM, Virgilio A. P. Machado v...@fct.unl.pt wrote: 1) No real names will be disclosed on this list on account of the request made. 2) No action is asked or expected. These two personal commitments are important before answering an absolutely legitimate request for clarification: why [is] this issue of such [...] importance to the thread-creator. It is very important for this user. Most are now familiar with the use of his real name by the pt.wiki arbcom. http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conselho_de_arbitragem/Casos/2009-09-01_Virg%C3%ADlio_A._P._Machado and http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Discuss%C3%A3o:Conselho_de_arbitragem/Casos/2009-09-01_Virg%C3%ADlio_A._P._Machado That never bothered the user or the foregone decision to filter his edits for infinity, a period that far exceeds his expected natural life. The 53 irregularities that overshadowed the case bothered him a great deal more. What is not so well known is that four months later, while quietly working on a new subpage, after listing the real names of two users, this was used against him and eventually led to him being blocked or banned (depending on the page you look at) for infinity, by the same administrator, bureaucrat, checkuser, and arbcom member (hopefully no title was left out) that led the arbcom in the case using his real name. It is very important for the pt.wiki. The governance of the pt.wiki is in such disrepair that this user felt compelled to gather as much information as possible on a Meta page. Soon, that work was under attack by the same user mentioned above and one of his accomplices, and his now on hold as a user subpage: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Vapmachado/Portuguese_Wikipedia_governance_issues http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vapmachado/Portuguese_Wikipedia_governance_issues This modest work was started in May 4, 2010, well before the following reports on Meta: October 2010 - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Sir_Lestaty_de_Lioncourt/Archive/October/2010 November 2010 - http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conselho_de_arbitragem/Casos/2010-12-01_Poss%C3%ADvel_abuso_em_verifica%C3%A7%C3%B5es http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Discuss%C3%A3o:Conselho_de_arbitragem/Casos/2010-12-01_Poss%C3%ADvel_abuso_em_verifica%C3%A7%C3%B5es http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards'_noticeboardhttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards%27_noticeboard It is very important to the communities at large. Unaware of the existence of this essay (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Kylu/Essay and http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kylu/Essay), this user opened a request for comment on Meta on What is public and non-public personal information? ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Public_or_non-public_personal_information and http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Requests_for_comment/Public_or_non-public_personal_information ) which brought to the fore some of fears, tabus and misconceptions that are quite widespread on Wikimedia projects. It is hoped that the above explanations fully justify the statement that the user was interested in the information requested For reasons of the utmost importance, not only to this user but to the communities at large. as it would provide more evidence of real
Re: [Foundation-l] Moderation (was: should not web server logs (of requests) be published?)
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 1:13 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: I watched that thread spiral out of control and I think the mods did the right thing. Is Will off moderation now? At the moment he remains on moderation, and I'm discussing the matter with Austin and Alexandr. Last year, Will was placed on moderation for similar problematic posts, so personally, I'd like to see that his posts improve before taking him off moderation. -- [[User:Ral315]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] should not web server logs (of requests) be published?
Enough, everyone. I don't think anyone knows what the hell this conversation is about anymore. I certainly don't. WJhonson is on moderation for the time being. -- [[User:Ral315]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Moderation (was: should not web server logs (of requests) be published?)
Spinning off the moderation discussion to its own thread. On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 7:45 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: The phrase you're looking for is, An ounce of prevention is a pound of cure. Either be an active part of this mailing list and moderate as appropriate or give up the damn post already. The current system is clearly and desperately ineffective. I agree that we probably should have stepped up and put a halt to things earlier. For my part, I didn't check my e-mail for the last 36 hours or so; I read the first part of the discussion Sunday night, and checked back a few hours ago. That said, we have lives beyond moderating this list. I would not be opposed to adding another active moderator to help out, but a few months ago, when we actively sought additional moderators, I was seriously underwhelmed by the number of people who volunteered. On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 7:47 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: Yes I agree. It's pointless to actually allow people to speak freely, when you can easily silence your critics by stuffing a sock in their mouth. We have a fundamental disagreement, then, as to the point of moderation. To me, moderation is not to stuff a sock in anyone's mouth, it's to improve the quality of discussion by adding a gate-keeper for those users who need one. While Will has made quality posts to the list, he's also made posts that have hurt discussion, both in the last few days and previously. Note that his comments in that thread led the discussion quickly off the topic of releasing server logs (which was an interesting discussion, in my opinion) into a few different meta-discussions, and the original subject was forgotten altogether. I'm happy to approve posts from Will that are on-topic, but until he shows the ability to avoid these random posts that devolve perfectly good discussions, I think moderation is the best option. I'll share with everyone the reasoning I gave Will as to why he is on moderation (portion in brackets edited from my original message for the purpose of clarity): Will, I've placed you on moderation. Over the course of 48 hours you posted in that discussion 16 times, moving from a few well-argued comments [1, 2] to more argumentative comments [3] to bizarrely arguing that someone else is not a reliable source for a mailing list discussion [4, 5, 6, 7] to continuing to criticize what you perceived as a poor choice of words after Russell had already explained his meaning [8, 9, 10]. I do not believe you are trolling, but I believe you are assuming bad faith in others, and you are missing the big picture. When you do so, you make comments that are perceived by many as trolls, but that are also off-topic, and often bordering on personal attacks against others. As such, I believe moderation is appropriate. 1. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-November/062702.html 2. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-November/062708.html 3. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-November/062711.html 4. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-November/062715.html 5. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-November/062721.html 6. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-November/062735.html 7. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-November/062739.html 8. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-November/062750.html 9. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-November/062752.html 10. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-November/062766.html There are a few other things that I want to emphasize: - There were one or two other posters who exhibited similar behavior, to some extent baiting Will. That said, Will was by far the most prolific poster there, and was generally the one raising the heat of the discussion throughout. He's also had similar issues in the past. I did not feel moderation was appropriate in the cases of other users, but those users who were involved should be much more civil in the future, and those with a history of incivil or off-topic comments will be subject to moderation if the behavior continues. - Non-moderators should feel free to take a more active role in cooling down discussions. Moderators can't watch the list 24/7, and just one post imploring a few heated participants to think before they hit send can be very helpful. - Most importantly, I want to also emphasize that I'm speaking on behalf of myself only, and not on behalf of the other list moderators. -- [[User:Ral315]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Moderation (was: Liu Xiaobo)
On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 1:44 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: I agree that Peter's post exaggerates the problem the English Wikipedia sometimes has with groupthink and an entrenched, self-perpetuating bureaucracy. The comparison is unfair to Liu Xiaobo's history and work. Still, it's ironic that the first response to his somewhat inflammatory remarks was to moderate him (in other words, require the approval of an apparatchik before his words can be publicly seen.) I'm not Peter's biggest fan... but his recent participation on this list has been civil and thoughtful, and maybe a warning that Wikimedians are sensitive to unfavorable comparisons would have been sufficient. The comparison was offensive not because it cast Wikimedia in a bad light, but because it equated being imprisoned for your comments with being blocked from a website for your comments. That cheapens Liu Xiaobo's work. That said, this was meant as a temporary measure to keep the discussion civil, and it's done so. After discussing the matter with Austin, we've removed him from moderation. I want to reiterate something I said about a year ago - one of the changes we decided to make after discussion had gotten so bad that Brion placed the entire list on emergency moderation: When appropriate, we will be using moderation more often, for short periods of time when we feel doing so will allow cooler heads to prevail. The idea behind moderation has never been punitive, but it's often been treated as such by many, and as a result, we have not used it as often as we could have. Going forward, our intent is that being placed on moderation should not be viewed as a slight, or as a punishment, but as a way to retain civility within a discussion. While discussion has been a lot more civil over the last 11 months, and we haven't needed to do this that often, I think it's a useful tool for letting discussion cool down. I hope that people will not see this as punitive, or as a way to stifle speech -- because that's surely not our intent. -- [[User:Ral315]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Liu Xiaobo
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Noein prono...@gmail.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I think it is not fair to censor Peter and then still talk about him and what he said. One or the other can be justified (and should be), but not both at the same time. While Peter's intent surely was not to offend, his comments were inarticulate, and his comparison is offensive. As such, moderation is appropriate. That said, if he has something civil to add to this or any other conversation - including responses to others in this thread - his comments will of course be approved in short order. That said, I think this conversation is going nowhere fast. If there are widespread cases of Wikimedia users being treated unfairly within a community, let them come forward. But in doing so, let's try to avoid hyperbole. -- [[User:Ral315]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] New list moderator
I'd like to welcome a new list moderator, AlexandrDmitri, to join myself and Austin Hair. Alexandr is an administrator on the English Wikipedia and English Wikinews, and serves as an arbitration clerk on the English Wikipedia. Please welcome him to the list. Thanks, Ryan Lomonaco (Ral315) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: And even with it just being put forward as a second trial, the support for continuing dropped 10% in two weeks. You're losing the hearts and minds battle here, guys. Risker/Anne I haven't followed the discussion at all, but I have two statistical quibbles: First, characterizing a drop from 65 to 59% as a 10% drop is misleading - while (65-59)/65 is 10%, it's really a 6% drop. Second, A drop from 65% to 59% is not very statistically significant. It could very easily be explained if more of the people who voted against the first time came back for the second vote. But even if both polls are a representative sample of the English Wikipedia as a whole, both polls will have a margin of error of a few percent. Again, this is just a statistical quibble, and I don't really have an opinion on the plan as a whole. -- [[User:Ral315]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Applications for list moderator position
A reminder: Anyone interested in serving as a list moderator, please send an e-mail to foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org, no later than 23:59 UTC on September 23rd. Please include the following information: - Wikimedia username - Projects you are active on - Any roles you serve in on those projects (e.g. administrator, WikiProject coordinator, mediator, etc.) - Anything else that might be useful - info about yourself, etc. Again, please send your submissions no later than 23:59 UTC on September 23rd. Thanks, Austin Hair, list moderator Ryan Lomonaco, list moderator ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Applications for list moderator position
We're looking to add one more list moderator for foundation-l. On foundation-l, the main role of a moderator is to approve posts made by moderated users and users who are not subscribed to the list. Occasionally, a list moderator has to step in and control discussion when it gets out-of-hand, but, thank goodness, that is generally a rare occurrence here. Anyone interested in serving as a list moderator, please send an e-mail to foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org, no later than 23:59 UTC on September 23rd. Please include the following information: - Wikimedia username - Projects you are active on - Any roles you serve in on those projects (e.g. administrator, WikiProject coordinator, mediator, etc.) - Anything else that might be useful - info about yourself, etc. Again, please send your submissions no later than 23:59 UTC on September 23rd. Thanks, Austin Hair, list moderator Ryan Lomonaco, list moderator ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ru-Wikiversuty
Forwarded to the list on behalf of a non-member (Mstislavl). In reality the Border Control Philosophy has nothing to do with criticism of the project or administration. This is a Rissian version of what Jimbo said after blocking some trolls in the English Wikiversity: Strong community does not come from an «anything goes» attitude — but from rallying around a set of principles that define the mission in such a way that productive work can be accomplished. And the Russian Wikiversity Story is indeed a replica but a replica of English Wikiversity's one. People who can not effectively push their agenda in Wikipedia because of the strong community there migrate to the Wikiveristy where they can do whatever they want and the big part of that is attacking admins on Wikipedia. Sergey J who blocked Yaroslav also issued a number of arbitrary warnings to the active Russian Wikipedia contributors (not all of tehm admins) for their actions in Wikipedia, and they have no idea about these. This is clearly a cross-project issue because the same trolls pop up on meta and in a thousand of other places wasting everybody's time. Victoria (Mstislavl) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against copyleft
As Andrew pointed out, this discussion has spiraled entirely outside the scope of this list. Discussions on the effects of copyright law with regard to Wikimedia and its projects are welcome. General discussions on copyright law and piracy that have little to do with Wikimedia should be taken elsewhere. -- [[User:Ral315]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] The problem with Wikipedia...
Forwarded per request. -- Forwarded message -- From: Joseph Reagle joseph.2...@reagle.org Date: Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 6:45 PM Subject: Fwd: Re: [Foundation-l] The problem with Wikipedia... To: foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org On Thursday, June 17, 2010, phoebe ayers wrote: Actually, the other way around, as others have stated. Now that you mention it, I've seen that quote attributed to Gareth Owen before, so that may actually be the origin of it. I think it's quite a bit older than 2006 though. A wonderful question and one I've been interested in since I think such aphorisms have an interesting normative power (e.g., some others include [a]). Of course scholars, at least, like it so much because it shows that the theory is incomplete and hence is grist for their mills, i.e., new theory! :-) I can't provide a provenance any more specific than already noted (i.e., appearing on Gareth Owen's user page) and I always found it ironically apt that such a prominent statement about Wikipedia is attributed to an anonymous. (If anyone knows Owen, please ask!) However, here's a bit of a time-line, I think it certainly spread as a meme in wider circles thanks to Cohen at the NYT. 20060120: Gareth Owen's user page [1]. 20060321: Raul654's adds it to his laws [2]. 20070423: Noam Cohen reference in NYT [3]. 20070501: Quoted in Wikizine [4]. 20070613: Sage Ross refers to it as old hat a few months later in response to popular Britannica blog entry [5]. 20080106: Cohen references it again [6]. [a]: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/archived_content/people/reagle/inet-quotations-19990709.html [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gareth_Owenoldid=35978744 [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Raul654/Raul%27s_lawsoldid=44834502 [3]: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/23/technology/23link.html [4]: http://en.wikizine.org/2007/05/year-2007-week-18-number-69.html [5]: http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2007/06/authority-of-a-new-kind/ [6]: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/books/06cohenintro.html ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Gmail - List messages flagged as spam
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. Thanks, Ryan -- [[User:Ral315]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Usability: page weight
Forwarded. -- Forwarded message -- From: Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com Date: Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 6:57 AM Subject: Usability: page weight To: foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org Hello, While we are talking about usability issues, I would like to mention an issue which was not mentioned up to now : page weight. I am now surfing most of time with a 3G key with a bandwidth of 16 KB/s maximum, and often less. My experience of Wikimedia sites compared with the other websites I am using regularly, GMail and Facebook, shows that these load much faster than Wikimedia pages, even if the page is mostly empty. It seems that these sites use some fancy caching for that. Page weight is a major hurdle for working on any Wikimedia sites affecting users who do not enjoy a broadband connection. And I believe that small wikis with non-European languages are more affected than others (a study would be interesting here). For improving outreach of Wikimedia outside of the Western world, improving the page weight should be a priority. What can be done? Regards, Yann ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Fwd: change of registered TMs in Persian wikipedia
Forwarded on behalf of a non-list-member. The question pertains to translation of trademarks within articles; to my knowledge, there's nothing wrong with us doing so, and I think this is done in many Wikipedias. But I'll defer to the list on this question. -- Forwarded message -- From: Amir sarabadani ladsgr...@gmail.com Date: Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:58 PM Subject: change of registered TMs in Persian wikipedia To: foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org Hello, I'm one of Persian wikipedia users.for making pages same name of trademarks (e.g. films ,games.etc.) we have several choices: 1-we use same name and same alphabetical with trademark(e.g. Google--Google) 2-we same name but Persian Script(e.g. Call of duty--کال آو دیوتی/KAL AV DIUTI/) 3-we translate it(Prince of Persian--شاهزاده ایرانی /SHAHZADE IRANI means Prince of Persia) Users of Persian wikipedia (with consequence) use third way usually but I think change of trademarks is crime and maybe create legal problem for the Foundation Please tell us what we do or maybe i think wrong please tell me. Thanks and best wishes -- Amir ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikitech-l] Visual impairment
Create an account is helpful, but it's a shame we make visually impaired editors jump through another hoop. I would be interested in seeing an audio captcha option. Does such a thing already exist in open source form? [Sorry if this is a top post - on my phone right now] On 5/15/10, K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au wrote: On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote: In theory, yes. Someone needs to provide the code, though. For now, people who want to sign up and can't solve a captcha can request that an admin make an account for them, like people whose IP addresses are blocked. I think enwiki has a toolserver project dedicated to that. The en.wikipedia project for that resides at [[WP:ACC]](1), The toolserver system from memory is a request type system (although that may of changed since I last looked), where as the actual accounts are created on site using the [[Special:CreateAccount]](2) special page, there is a limit for that system so that a user may only create so many accounts per hour, but we do (or did) have a override for that (1). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ACC (2). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:UserLogin/signup -Peachey ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- [[User:Ral315]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [OT] Am I the only one...
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 7:50 PM, K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au wrote: I do to, depending on how they are applied, for example I would much prefer on a case by case basis compared to everyone, since a few people are bring active and decent discussion where as some people are just trolling/omg censorship is bad type stuff. -Peachey The issue hasn't come up yet, but I would approach things on a case-by-case basis - for example, I wouldn't moderate a Wikimedia staff member who posted more than 30 times because they were answering questions from other list members. Also, if someone is moderated for hitting the limit, I would approve posts beyond their initial 30 posts if I think that the post is useful, and adds to the discussion. If anyone has any questions about the post limit, please feel free to talk to either myself or Austin, on-list or privately. -- [[User:Ral315]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [OT] Am I the only one...
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Aphaia aph...@gmail.com wrote: Is there any option to tell them commons has its own mailing list instead of adding it to the foundation-l? I think Austin touched upon this as well, but, yes, I would remind everyone that discussions are occurring now on Meta, Commons and the English Wikipedia, as well as their respective mailing lists. Aspects of this discussion specific to certain projects are probably better suited to those projects. -- [[User:Ral315]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Post limits (was: Flagged Protection update for April 29)
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Can anyone remind me what the per day and per month post limits are, and confirm that someone is still keeping track? We've established in the past that a collegial atmosphere is desired by the people who post to and read this list. Some have never agreed, but that is why some have previously been moderated. Limits and moderation have been the only tools effective against those who can't find the energy to be nice; reason has never worked, though it has been deployed at each opportunity. Let's use the tools at hand, and avoid sidetracking useful discussion with meta problems. 30 posts per month. No one has come close to hitting the limit in at least a few months. We didn't go with a per-day limit because there are times when posting 6 or 7 times in a day is fine - for example, when we've got a few constructive threads going at once. When it becomes problematic is when you're doing a back-and-forth that's getting heated. And I guess what I would say to that is, if you're posting in a thread that's becoming a little heated, particularly one that you've posted in already, maybe you should hold off on sending your e-mail for a few hours. Then, you can decide whether you really want to send that e-mail - with the added benefit of giving others time to cool down as well. But I don't think you could set a per-day limit that would be effective without being restrictive. As for moderation, I think that we've tried to apply a light touch, particularly given that the atmosphere has seemed to improve over the last few months. That said, if moderation is necessary, then we'll do so. -- [[User:Ral315]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Productive output of English Wikiversity
Forwarded on behalf of a non-list-member. -Ryan -- Forwarded message -- From: darklama darkl...@gmail.com Date: Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 1:45 PM Subject: Productive output of English Wikiversity To: foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org, wikiversit...@lists.wikimedia.org Tue Apr 6 2010 at 9:37 PM, David Gerard wrote What useful projects have been produced by en.wv or are in an advanced state of production? That is, what has it to show for itself? - d. What does Wikiversity have to show for itself? I think use of Wikiversity by Universities, Colleges, and Schools is one way one to judge what Wikiversity has to show for itself. Here are 15 that I just quickly found: * Political Ideologies - Northern Arizona University. * Computer Architecture Lab - Vienna University of Technology * Social psychology - University of Canberra * Christian Leadership - Agape World Fellowship School * Environmental Ethics - Northern Arizona University. * Woman in literature - Borough of Manhattan Community College * Introduction to Computers - Mount Royal College. * Vital Ideation - Olin College of Engineering * Peak oil, energy and society - The Meeting School. * Design for the Environment - University of Toronto. * Introduction to Art History - Westminster Schools. * Instructional Design - Indiana University Bloomington. * Media literacy - Temple University's School of Communication and Theater. * Composing free and open online educational resources - University of Art and Design Helsink. * Going naked - Openism and freedom in academia - University of Canberra. -- darklama ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Fwd: Living Person Task Force update: Policy writing
Forwarded per request. -- Forwarded message -- From: Keegan Paul kgnp...@gmail.com Date: Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 4:45 PM Subject: Living Person Task Force update: Policy writing To: English Wikipedia wikie...@lists.wikimedia.org, foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org Hello, everyone! The Living people task force is churning along. The recommendations draft is just about ready to move into finalized writing in a couple weeks http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People/Drafting_pages/Recommendations_to_the_Board_of_Trustees/Draft_2. We're letting that rest for a bit for greater discussion, and moving on the the policy drafting. More information can be found here: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Task_force/Living_People#Moving_into_policy_writing_4302 . Participation is always welcome, there will be an informal discussion in the #wikimedia-strategy room on the freenode IRC network on Monday, March 15, at 3:00 UTC. This will be publically logged and the logs will be posted onto the strategy page. Thanks to those who have continued to express opinions and thoughts on this process, and I look forward to your participation! ~Keegan -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Fwd: Next IRC hours for the Living People Task Force
Forwarded as per request. -Ryan -- Forwarded message -- From: Keegan Paul kgnp...@gmail.com Date: Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 1:49 PM Subject: Next IRC hours for the Living People Task Force To: English Wikipedia wikie...@lists.wikimedia.org, foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org Hello, all. The next IRC hours will begin at 4:00 UTC, Monday, March 8. The discussion will be publicly logged and posted. You can find the agenda here: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People/IRC_Agendas If you haven't been paying attention to the task force, you can find more information http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_Peoplehttp://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People/IRC_Agendas. Everyone is invited and encouraged to participate in this effort to create a functional strategy to dealing with living people on a global scale. Hope to see you all on the wiki! ~Keegan -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan -- [[User:Ral315]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Discussion about proposal for multilingual Wikibooks
Forwarded as per request. -Ryan -- Forwarded message -- From: darklama darkl...@gmail.com Date: Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 11:35 AM Subject: Discussion about proposal for multilingual Wikibooks To: foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org Pharos wrote: A multilingual Wikibooks would be valuable to the extent that it would focus on smaller languages which don't have their own language project yet. This makes perhaps more sense with Wikibooks than other projects because each book is relatively autonomous and of significant educational value in its own right, and even if someone were to donate a textbook in a rather obscure language I don't think that we should turn such a gift away. Thanks, Pharos Exactly, we shouldn't turn people and textbooks away. I think this project can help with that. People willing to translate textbooks have been turned away at times too. I think this project can help with that as well. Some instruction manuals and how-to guides include multiple translations as a single work. We shouldn't turn away people willing to provide free alternatives here either. These books are autonomous too. I know some people are concerned that Multilingual Wikibooks' focus overlaps too much with existing projects. I think this can be managed by turning away: * Source text previously published by an author. Thats Wikisource. * Translations of source text. Thats Old Wikisource * Original writing that is within the scope of an existing Wikibooks project and it is not intended to become an autonomous work in two or more languages. This applies to finished translations as well. * Research not previously published. Thats Wikiversity. Thanks, darklama ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Living People Task Force is launching Monday
Forwarded/cross-posted from WikiEN-l on behalf of Keegan, a non-member. --- Hello, all. The Living People task force begins work Monday with part one, board recommendations and proposal. This will run for two months, with the second half beginning in April on community focus. This is a global project, and we highly encourage active global participation in discussion. More information can be found here: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Task_force/Living_People. We hope to see you all there, and everyone have a good weekend. ~Keegan -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] WikiMobile - use of Wikipedia name in commerce
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Gregory Kohs thekoh...@gmail.com wrote: Pardon me if this has been asked before, but I am curious to learn whether Bonfire Media paid any sort of licensing fee to the Wikimedia Foundation in order to use the Wikipedia brand name in commerce on its WikiMobile app? Looking at their website, I see that they use the word Wikipedia to describe the articles they have, but are careful not to phrase it as if they're involved with us. And while their logo is similar to Wikipedia's by design, it's definitely different. It wouldn't surprise me if they do have a licensing agreement with the Foundation, but it's certainly possible that they're merely using the content legally and skirting legal boundaries when it comes to the trademarks. -- [[User:Ral315]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] An update on localisation in MediaWiki (2009)
Forwarded to the list on behalf of Siebrand Mazeland. On 31 December 2007 and 1 January 2008 I sent an e-mail to which this is a follow up[1,2]. First things first, because not everyone reads e-mails completely: * MediaWiki localisation (that is the translation of English source messages to other languages) depends on you! If you speak a language other than English, care about your language in MediaWiki and Wikimedia and like translating, go to http://translatewiki.net, register a user and start contributing translations for MediaWiki and MediaWiki extensions. When your localisation is complete, keep coming back regularly to re-complete it and do quality control. Thank you in advance for all your contributions and effort. * The i18n and L10n area of MediaWiki requires continuous efforts. If this area of FOSS has your interest: we need your help. Please offer your development skills to further MediaWiki's i18n, L10n and translation capabilities[3,4]. All statistics are based on MediaWiki 1.16 alpha, SVN version r60527 (31 December 2009). Comparisons are to MediaWiki 1.14 alpha, SVN version r45277 (1 January 2009). See http://translatewiki.net/wiki/MediaWiki_2009 for a wiki version of this message. ==Introduction== * Localisation or L10n - the process of adapting the software to be as familiar as possible to a specific locale (topic of this message) * Internationalisation or i18n - the process of ensuring that an application is capable of adapting to local requirements (out of scope of this message) MediaWiki has a user interface definition for 362 languages (up from 348). Of those languages at least 39 language codes are duplicates and/or serve a purpose for usability[5]. Reporting on them, however, is not relevant. So MediaWiki in its current state supports 323 languages (up from 322). MediaWiki has 346 core language files (up from 326), of which 27 are redirects from the duplicates/usability group or just empty[6]. So MediaWiki has an active in-product localisation for 308 languages (up from 299). The MediaWiki core product has several areas that can be localised: * regular messages that can and should be localised (2,369 - up 9% from 2,168) * optional messages that can be localised, which is mostly used for languages not using a Latin script (187 - up 8% from 173) * ignored messages that should not be localised (152 - up 2% from 149) * namespace names and namespace aliases (17 - no change) * magic words (142 - up 8% from 132) * special page names (88 - up 2% from 86) * other (directionality, date formats, separators, book store lists, link trail, and others) Localisation of MediaWiki revolves around all of the above. Reporting is done on the regular messages only. MediaWiki is more than just the core product. On http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:All_extensions 1500 extensions (up 25% from 1200) have some kind of documentation. This analysis only takes the code currently present in svn.wikimedia.org/svnroot/mediawiki/trunk into account. The source code repository contains give or take 445 extensions (up 25% from 370). Most extensions in the MediaWiki Subversion repository now use the reference implementation for i18n. Currently 8,200 messages for MediaWiki extensions can be localised in a consistent way (up 37% from 6,000). ==MediaWiki localisation in practice== MediaWiki localisation has moved further to a centralised collaborative process in translatewiki.net in the past year. Where in 2008 some wikis were still translating in their own MediaWiki: namespace, the introduction of the LocalisationUpdate extension[7], especially in the Wikimedia Foundation wikis, has taken away the last hurdle for local translation against centralised translation: instant gratification. Translations that are committed to Subversion can be added to wikis without requiring software updates, as often as desirable. Little to no translations are submitted through the Bugzilla ticketing system or directly by SVN committers. Exceptions are the localisations of Hebrew, Cantonese, Simplified Chinese, Traditional Chinese, Classical Chinese and Persian, that are still actively maintained in SVN, next to regular contributors from the centralised system. ==The past, the present and the future== MediaWiki localisation has always been a volunteer effort, and expect that it will remain so. 2009 brought a successful Google Summer of Code project, executed by Niklas Laxstrom [8,9] and the Wikimedia Foundation is supporting the localisation that takes place at translatewiki.net[10]. Not only MediaWiki, but all Open Source projects that are supported there[11] benefit from these developments. We want to keep using the Translate extension technology and expand on it, as well as nourish our translator base of nearly 2,000 translators by providing them with better tooling and more projects in 2010. Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland[12], the Dutch Wikimedia Chapter has granted 2,000 Euro to Stichting Open Progress[13] for the
Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist
Geni's referring to a fundraiser sitenotice with a picture of Craig Newmark, and the text Craig of Craigslist urges you to support Wikipedia. Why? On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:09 PM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: care to give some context to your question? [[witty lama]] wittylama.com/blog Peace, love metadata On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:50 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: I see we have taken to advertising craigslist. Would anyone care to explain why? -- 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 -- [[User:Ral315]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Housekeeping: One user on moderation today
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:17 AM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.p...@yahoo.comwrote: I really hated the idea of posting limits at first, but must commend the list mods for implementing it. Now that there is a specific cost to replies, I have scaled back on the amount of emails I have sent and prioritized based on discussion. Another possibility would be imposing a throttle on replies to threads, e.g. 5 per thread per day. That's something that I think might have merit, although it's one of those things that's tough to set as a hard-and-fast rule because of time zone differences. -- [[User:Ral315]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Housekeeping: One user on moderation today
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.netwrote: Ryan Lomonaco wrote: On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:17 AM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.p...@yahoo.com wrote: Another possibility would be imposing a throttle on replies to threads, e.g. 5 per thread per day. That's something that I think might have merit, although it's one of those things that's tough to set as a hard-and-fast rule because of time zone differences. I think the better approach is what the moderators have occasionally done in the past, which is to kill a specific thread. And the rest of us can call out those threads as being worthless, as several people have done, or ignore them (Thomas Dalton is right about that at least). But I expect throttling threads would be counterproductive. The beneficial effect of the current moderation is that it creates space for a more inclusive discussion, by restraining post-early-and-often behavior. A per-thread throttle would create an incentive to encourage that behavior, by privileging those who are quickest to respond. --Michael Snow My reading of it was X replies per person per day in each thread. I agree with you that there should not be a set limit per thread as a whole. -- [[User:Ral315]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Follow up: Fan History joining the WMF family
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Laura, It seems unlikely if only based on We have no notability requirement. Essentially, you've forked, chosen an incompatible core policy. I don't see how that would be an issue. Notability is not a foundation policy, it's a community guideline that was enacted by editors of the English Wikipedia. Other projects within the WMF family would not necessarily be subject to the same standards, in the same way that the Spanish Wikipedia does not allow fair use images while the English Wikipedia does. -- [[User:Ral315]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Housekeeping: One user on moderation today
Per the new posting limits http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-November/056032.html, each user is limited to 30 posts per month, after which they are put on moderation. Anthony has reached 30 posts. He has been placed on moderation for about the next 19 hours or so (until about Midnight UTC, or whenever one of us happens to be at a computer around that time). Continued input on these policies, either publicly or privately, is always welcome. Thanks, Ryan Lomonaco ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Everything okay?
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Dennis During dcdur...@gmail.com wrote: I'm guessing that the habit has been broken. It will probably come back. I think you're right, particularly given that foundation-l was closed for nearly a week. Participants have been posting to other lists, or keeping discussion on Meta or Wikipedia instead. That said, I would hope that no one is scared of posting here, and if you are, I hope you'll contact either myself or Austin and tell us why. -- [[User:Ral315]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Foundation-l open for business, with changes
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote: Good idea. Is the number of posts from any one contributor easy to keep track of? Erik Zachte has some stats here that seem to update fairly regularly: http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/foundation-l.html You can also see all messages, sorted by user, here: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-November/author.html -- [[User:Ral315]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Foundation-l open for business, with changes
After reviewing the comments of foundation-l participants over the last few days, we've come up with a few changes that we hope will ultimately improve the tenor and scope of discussions. To start, we're placing two participants on temporary moderation: Thomas Dalton and WJhonson. The conversations that have been most problematic recently were those that involved one or both users. We do not intend to place them or any other users on permanent moderation at this time, however. When appropriate, we will be using moderation more often, for short periods of time when we feel doing so will allow cooler heads to prevail. The idea behind moderation has never been punitive, but it's often been treated as such by many, and as a result, we have not used it as often as we could have. Going forward, our intent is that being placed on moderation should not be viewed as a slight, or as a punishment, but as a way to retain civility within a discussion. Second, we're adding a soft post limit that, for the time being, will kick in at 30 posts per month. At that point, we will, at our discretion, place members on moderation for the remainder of the month, and will approve posts only where we feel they are useful and add significantly to the discussion. With these changes, our goal is not to stifle anyone, but to avoid the situation where a few voices dominate the conversation, and the arguments, often off-topic, that have inhibited important discussions recently. We do not feel, for example, that specific users need to be permanently moderated; however, all users, including prolific posters, should bear in mind that should their posts become off-topic, overly argumentative, or uncivil, they may be moderated temporarily. We leave open the possibility that other changes may be useful in the future, so ideas for improvement going forward are always welcome, either at the Meta page http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Improving_Foundation-l or via e-mail, at foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org. As of this post, the list is now unmoderated. We welcome your thoughts on this issue. Sincerely, Austin Hair Ryan Lomonaco ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] List moderation - update
Right now the list remains on moderation, and will remain so for the time being. Our goal is to reach a consensus on what changes to make over the next few days. Since the list was put on moderation this weekend, we've heard from members of the community regarding various issues with the list, who have given various potential solutions. From those, we have posted a straw poll on the Meta discussion page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Improving_Foundation-l#Moving_forward Among the options we're considering, based on suggestions from community members, include: - Imposing a monthly, weekly and/or daily post limit. - Establishing rules and consistently enforcing them. - Moderating the most prolific and most problematic posters. - Replacing the list with a web forum or newsgroup - Creating a new announcements list and keeping foundation-l as-is. These options have both positives and negatives Previous efforts to make changes to the list have not been taken seriously by all, and have not received much discussion. We want to make it clear that in order for this list to be useful to many members of the community yet again, changes must be made, and they must be made immediately. We welcome any comments that may be fruitful in this regard. Discussion on this topic should not be posted to foundation-l; all comments should be directed to the Meta discussion page, or, if preferred, privately to us at foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org. We do not intend to unmoderate the list only for topics to devolve into the same inane arguments that have at times occurred. Our hope is that we can find a good solution that addresses the issues in a complete and fair manner. Sincerely, Austin Hair Ryan Lomonaco ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Fwd: Have you dealt with this Systemic Secretive Checkuser Abuse yet? If so, how?
Forwarded to the list per request. The message pertains to her initial inquiry of November 2008: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-November/047414.html -- Ral315 -- Forwarded message -- From: dee dee strategicdesign2...@yahoo.com Date: Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 12:25 PM Subject: Re: Have you dealt with this Systemic Secretive Checkuser Abuse yet? If so, how? To: Ryan Lomonaco wiki.ral...@gmail.com Cc: foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org Ryan, It is 2 simple but important issues: the supportive details are all included in this email. Here is the current and past practice in a nutshell as expressed by one of the former Regular contributors: * The vast majority of checkuser requests are, and always have been, performed quietly and without a request at RFCU. Frivolous requests are routinely rejected through these back-channels, and no more information is given than would be given at RFCU. Why is this a problem? b[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]/b small([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])/small 18:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29diff=175094292oldid=175081431 Issue 1: The official and public description of CheckUser lays out a transparent process for justifying when and how it may be used. In practice, it is often used in secret and quick back door process. First issue is the misrepresentation to the public and all contributors as to how and when Checkuser may be used. Issue 2: Whether it is ethical or democratic to be using this back channel process. I suppose another issue is why it has been so difficult to get the Foundation to address the matter. Dee Dee ** http://www.flickr.com/gift/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Improving foundation-l
If there's a legitimate agreement as to what should be done to improve the list, I'd be more than happy to try it out, and I think Austin would be willing to as well. I don't see any agreement on what to do at the moment. There are four potential problems cited on that page. The first three were added by Austin when he started the page, based on some of the complaints that we've heard. The last was added by someone else. Looking at them: Overall volume is too high for many to keep up; people simply give up and unsubscribe, removing their voice from the debate. I'm not sure this is a valid point. From January through September 2009, we've averaged 781 posts per month - the lowest yearly average since 2005. (We averaged 1250 posts a month in 2006, 845 per month in 2007, and 960 per month in 2008). If there is a complaint, perhaps it goes to the content of the posts, not the number itself. A minority of posters dominate the discussion, giving disproportionate attention to their points of view (and substantially increasing traffic). The two most prolific posters through the first nine months of 2009 combined for 970 posts (13.8% of total list traffic). The top ten posters combined for 2,644 posts (37.6% of traffic). I'm open to suggestions as to what to do about this; however, I'm not sure a flat limit is a good idea, because what might be considered too many posts varies wildly depending on what's going on in Wikimedia. For example, in January 2009, there was a lot of traffic for a variety of reasons, most notably discussion over the then-proposed transition to Creative Commons, and the fundraiser. In that month, nine posters sent at least 30 messages (the proposed maximum on Meta). Most notably, Mike Godwin made 35 posts in January - more than he has throughout the rest of the year combined - because the conversations involved his expertise. In April 2009, meanwhile, the top poster only had 22 posts. I will suggest, as an aside, that posters in general focus on quality, not quantity. There is absolutely no need to reply to every other e-mail in a conversation. Another minority argues for the sake of arguing, again inflating the overall volume of the list while contributing little to the debate. It's tough to judge when someone is arguing for the sake or arguing, and when someone has a legitimate concern. Just because a poster is critical (even if they're critical most of the time) doesn't mean that their posts aren't valid. That said, maybe a beating a dead horse guideline would be worth considering - when a lone voice continues to argue a point that everyone else agrees is not valid, then the discussion should be ended. The mailing list's purpose is clouded by allowing far too much off-topic discussion. Foundation-l is for discussion of topics directly related to the Foundation - not anything you may wish other people are interested in. I'll be honest - I don't see that much off-topic discussion, looking through recent conversations. There are cases where the conversation has little to do with the original post, or where the poster may not be trying to contribute positively to the discussion, but for the most part, they do relate to Wikimedia. If, however, discussion does go off-topic, I would suggest that everyone, as list members, consider doing the following: - Not replying to off-topic discussion. If one person strays off-topic and no one else does, it's not nearly as big of a deal. - If discussion continues to go off-topic, make an on-topic post, or make a friendly note that the discussion seems to be going off-topic. - If you see a discussion that's straying off-topic, send a direct e-mail to either Austin or myself. Honestly, sometimes I don't notice whether a conversation's going off-topic right away, and letting us know that it is never hurts. On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 5:05 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: Jimmy Wales himself has stated, and I've quoted him in one of my articles that when he ran his own discussion group he allowed people to talk themselves out. There will always be people who unsubscribe, there will always be new subscribers. There is no fix which will address that issue. In general, my opinion has been similar. There will always be people complaining that something is broken, there will always be people saying nothing is broken. True. That said, this should not be taken to mean that there may not be legitimate issues that could potentially be made better. -- [[User:Ral315]] ___ 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 have no opinion on whether the rule should exist, but it is something that deserves to be looked at. There are valid reasons for requiring a minimum recent edit count, of course, but perhaps there are better ways to handle it. The rules did disenfranchise me, for example. It doesn't bother me that I can't vote, but that said, I would've liked to vote if eligible. I am not active on Wikipedia, but I do follow the mailing lists, and have followed the election process. If I really wanted to, I could've racked up 50 edits to get a vote, but that almost seems dirty, I guess, to make edits just to regain eligibility for the election. My thought is that there may be other ways to enfranchise users who are clearly community members, but who for some reason or another are inactive on the projects themselves. What those ways are, I don't know. One thought: If the only, or at least the major reason that we're doing this is to avoid fraud, users with committed identities - encrypted messages on their user page as a way to verify their identity in case an account is stolen - could be re-enfranchised on a case-by-case basis if they can provide the passphrase. On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.comwrote: On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:08 PM, Brianbrian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: The second sentence should read: There is no information in the current heuristic that indicates that editors who are allowed to vote are more or less familiar with the candidates than those who are not. Who says there needs to be? The recent edits criteria reduces the incentive to crack or otherwise collect old unused but qualified accounts. For example, I could setup a free watchlist aggregation service and users would give me their passwords. Over time I could obtain many and then wait for accounts to naturally become inactive, then I could vote with them. It also makes it harder to otherwise obtain votes from accounts whos owners have lost interest in the project and might be willing to part with theirs easily. Recent editing activity also provides more information for analysis in the event that some kind of vote fraud is suspected. A recent edits criteria is justifiable on this kind of process basis alone. 50 edits can easily be made in a couple of hours, even if you're not making trivial changes. If you're not putting that level of effort it seems somewhat doubtful that you're going to read the 0.5 MBytes of text or so needed to completely and carefully review the provided candidate material from scratch. Like all stereotypes it won't hold true for everyone but if it's true on average then it will produce an average improvement, we just need to be careful not to disenfranchise too many. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- [[User:Ral315]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
