What about changing it every hour? Then you have sufficient randomness over
time, and no flashy buttons.
-- eia
2009/7/21 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org
2009/7/20 Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com:
Rotating them would seem like a more viable solution than randomised - We
don't want the
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 11:28 PM, Gregory Maxwellgmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 2:15 AM, effe iets
anderseffeietsand...@gmail.com wrote:
What about changing it every hour? Then you have sufficient randomness over
time, and no flashy buttons.
You still have the problem that
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
A related question - I see there was a request to set up a new domain,
strategy.wikimedia.org
What would this new site be for? New single-purpose wikis can flounder
after distracting people with setting up basic
Eugene Eric Kim wrote:
Hi everybody,
We're still in the process of getting up to speed, but I'm anxious to
start interacting with more of you and garnering some feedback as we
prepare to initiate this process. As a way to get to know each other
and talk about the process, Philippe and I
The website link states 21st July - so I assume this evening...
Mike
On 21 Jul 2009, at 10:37, Florence Devouard wrote:
Eugene Eric Kim wrote:
Hi everybody,
We're still in the process of getting up to speed, but I'm anxious to
start interacting with more of you and garnering some feedback
Good eyes, Sj. I have to agree - opening a new wiki for every single
project is a terrible idea, as we've learned from quality.wikimedia.org.
Please try to use Meta for this purpose.
-Mike
On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 02:19 -0400, Samuel Klein wrote:
A related question - I see there was a request to
Is it time to close the advisory board wiki like we just closed
quality.wikimedia.org? Considering the state you describe, I rather
think so (even qualitywiki wasn't so bad). Content could be moved to
foundationwiki or Meta (or both) depending on what it is.
-Mike
On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 17:08
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 17:43, Sage Rossragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
Hold up! This is User:Jerry Avenaim, and he has contributed some of
his low-resolution photographs, and even a higher-resolution one of
Mark Marmon that is a Featured Picture on en-wiki.
Thanks for the info, for I
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu wrote:
Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
it to Commons, or make it insufficiently; 2) why they do not make it ot
the articles. I tried to make the point in the recent thread on the
purpose of Commons, but somehow it did not draw
We should leave quality.wikimedia.org in place as an object lesson to future
wikifounders. When 20 interested editors isn't enough...
And don't forget the grants wiki. It was used briefly, and despite being
private contains very little private info. It should also be moved to meta
and
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com wrote:
And in my opinion uploading a reduced resolution image, like 1-5
Megapixels is completely good and acceptable for our mission. These
are already quite useful resolutions, while they still aren't fit for
mainstream media.
Donate Now Every donation helps us to keep free for everyone.
Donate Now Keep Wikipedia free for everyone.
Is no one else concerned by the use of the word free in the message options
being tested. I wouldn't want these ambigous messages like these on the site
no matter if they beat out the no
on 7/21/09 10:33 AM, Birgitte SB at birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
Donate Now Every donation helps us to keep free for everyone.
Donate Now Keep Wikipedia free for everyone.
Is no one else concerned by the use of the word free in the message options
being tested. I wouldn't want these
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Samuel Kleinmeta...@gmail.com wrote:
* Could you please help update the meta page on the process with your
thoughts and ideas? [[m:Strategic planning 2009]] What's your current
rough timeline for the coming 12 months?
We'll start seeding Meta with what we
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Eugene Eric Kim ee...@blueoxen.comwrote:
We'll start seeding Meta with what we know (and probably quite a bit
of what we don't) today, and I'll look forward to reading other
people's thoughts.
That will be great.
There's a tradeoff between starting with
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Peter Gervaigrin...@gmail.com wrote:
So it seems just what I have guessed: the reporter misinterpreting someone.
The slashdot summary includes the choice quotes that are a bit out of
context, but in the original article it starts off the section with
Avenaim by
I agree with this, and said so at the original discussion--where I
think the consensus was not to use that phrase.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Marc
Riddellmichaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote:
on 7/21/09 10:33 AM,
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 7:42 AM, Eugene Eric Kimee...@blueoxen.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Samuel Kleinmeta...@gmail.com wrote:
* Could you please help update the meta page on the process with your
thoughts and ideas? [[m:Strategic planning 2009]] What's your current
rough
Hi,
I would like to give a little update on the licencing status of the
Hungarian Wikinews as it has come up before on this list.
As some of you may know by following this mailing list that the Hungarian
Wikinews was set up -- probably by accident -- with the WMF licensing
resolution for new
Small wikis need a lot more administrative work per articles than larger
wikis. If there isn't any clear real reason then simply don't make a new
wiki.
John
phoebe ayers wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 7:42 AM, Eugene Eric Kimee...@blueoxen.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Samuel
Hoi.
True but not in the context of the WMF.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/7/21 wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk
Peter Gervai wrote:
Usually I do not get it why people choose NC licenses all the time
while there's usually a low probability to actually _lose_ money by
making it public.
2009/7/21 wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk:
If you have a personal use, want to illustrating an article or blog that
is not Adsense rich, have an academic use, or a small scale fundraising
non-profit fine take what you want. If on the other hand you are share
cropping with Google Ads, using the
Hello,
A different question on the same topic,
However I completely support the change to cc-by-sa-3.0, I'm wondering
if its possible to change the cc-by-2.5 license into a cc-by-sa-3.0
license without having to deal with big problems, when I read the
license I find this:
This License
David Gerard wrote:
2009/7/21 wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk:
If you have a personal use, want to illustrating an article or blog that
is not Adsense rich, have an academic use, or a small scale fundraising
non-profit fine take what you want. If on the other hand you are share
cropping with
wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Explaining this to professional content creators and media companies
leads to exploding heads. Pointing out that giving it all away has
made Wikipedia a top-ten website and must be doing all right from it
isn't enough to convince
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote:
...a properly viral licence will constrain the commercial
publisher with the requirement that any use by him will also render his
new context for that photograph just as available for free use as the
photograph itself.
Ray Saintonge wrote:
wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Explaining this to professional content creators and media companies
leads to exploding heads. Pointing out that giving it all away has
made Wikipedia a top-ten website and must be doing all right from it
isn't
2009/7/21 Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com:
We should leave quality.wikimedia.org in place as an object lesson to future
wikifounders. When 20 interested editors isn't enough...
:-)
I don't think it's comparable. The Quality Portal was an attempt to
drive attention towards some existing
The Canadian government has asked for comments on copyright revision at
http://copyright.econsultation.ca/
It will accept comments until September 13. Amazingly this mostly
coincides with the time when most people interested in liberalized
copyright laws are away touring Europe or planting
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 3:02 PM, wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Explaining this to professional content creators and media companies
leads to exploding heads. Pointing out that giving it all away has
made
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 21:05, wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Peter Gervai wrote:
Usually I do not get it why people choose NC licenses all the time
while there's usually a low probability to actually _lose_ money by
making it public.
This may come as a shock to you but its not about
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I don't think it's comparable. The Quality Portal was an attempt to
drive attention towards some existing technologies and initiatives -
We have a simple and popular mechanism for creating portals. Why not ask
the
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 8:10 AM, Samuel Kleinmeta...@gmail.com wrote:
Cool, and many thanks for sharing your calendar! We should all do that. I
was wondering about versioning - a pity it's not supported. A wiki list and
bugzilla project should work as well. Someone just needs to write the
33 matches
Mail list logo
