Remind me, please, why we are still talking about this.
skype: node.ue
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 4:13 PM, stevertigoo...@spaz.org wrote:
2009/8/8 Stevertjgo o...@spaz.org:
I think those high level discussion can take place either on-wiki or
on existing mailing lists without a problem.
I
phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@... writes:
** Despite the election's importance, turnout is so far pretty
pathetic, esp. from smaller wikis.
Which begs the question: why was the central notice taken down when there is
still a day left?
___
foundation-l
Philippe Beaudette wrote:
On Aug 9, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Things started going wrong when the election committee didn't organize
itself in time.
I should point out, though, that the committee does not organize
itself. It responds to a call from the Board of
On Aug 10, 2009, at 12:15 AM, Tisza Gergő wrote:
Which begs the question: why was the central notice taken down when
there is
still a day left?
It went down earlier than we expected. It's back up, after a brief
outage.
Philippe
___
Earlier today a number of adjustments were made to votes which had
been previously struck in the election for Wikimedia Board of
Trustees. We believe the votes that are still struck are validly
struck; if there is a dispute, any user is encouraged to contact the
Election Committee
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Philippe
Beaudettepbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Earlier today a number of adjustments were made to votes which had
been previously struck in the election for Wikimedia Board of
Trustees. We believe the votes that are still struck are validly
struck; if there
Hoi,
First order of business is learning the results and making sure that the
people most involved know. I can tell you that I am anxious to learn the
result. When it transpires that I have been elected, I would like a moment
to collect my thoughts.
Statistics are relevant and I am sure that what
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 3:34 AM, Philippe
Beaudettepbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Earlier today a number of adjustments were made to votes which had
been previously struck in the election for Wikimedia Board of
Trustees. We believe the votes that are still struck are validly
struck; if there
Presumably the duties of an election committee don't need to terminate with
the end of this election? To the extent that organizing actions can be taken
ahead of the next cycle, perhaps they should be appended as the final
responsibilities of the committee for this cycle. Set up the new pages,
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 3:34 AM, Philippe
Beaudettepbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Earlier today a number of adjustments were made to votes which had
been previously struck in the election for Wikimedia Board of
Hoi,
When a person wants to change his vote he can. When he is entitled to vote
only once, it is anybodies guess which vote to retain. It seems to me best
to decide on an obvious algorithm. I think that the last expressed vote will
do just fine. It certainly fits the people who change their vote
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Rjd0060rjd0060.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 3:34 AM, Philippe
Beaudettepbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Earlier today a number of adjustments were made to votes which
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 4:35 AM, Milos Rancicmill...@gmail.com wrote:
And is there some data about those numbers from last elections?
A page with a large number of stats[1] was linked from the Results[2]
page last year. I think that's what you want. Well, actually, it
gives a lot of
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Casey Brownli...@caseybrown.org wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 4:35 AM, Milos Rancicmill...@gmail.com wrote:
And is there some data about those numbers from last elections?
A page with a large number of stats[1] was linked from the Results[2]
page last year.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
There exists a pre-calculated list of eligible voters used to
authorize access to the polls. Is there any reason that this couldn't
be made public as soon as it is generated?
That particular list file contains non-public information, i.e. an
account email address.
Another interesting point that knol drives home is : Google has a
limited conception of what human collaboration looks like : how to
identify it, how to harness it. Their efforts to support
collaboration are very one-to-one, small-group or single contributor
walled gardens that can be made
Samuel Klein, 10/08/2009 19:15:
Another interesting point that knol drives home is : Google has a
limited conception of what human collaboration looks like
Cf. http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?ViewPoint
«One of the social features of a wiki is that it forces the community
to deal with
As perhaps some people here will recall, I was always skeptical of Knol's
ability to enter the collaborative knowledge space. The reasons discussed
here, including SJ's mentions of the issues of structuring public
collaboration, are no doubt valid, but to me -- and of course it may be said
that
Hoi,
Given that Knol has not done what was expected of it, it can be considered a
failure. However, Google does learn and it is exactly because the Google
engineers are free to spend time on other things that I would hesitate to
characterise Google because of Knol. When you consider Google Wave,
Some weeks ago I had an opportunity to talk with a Google employee
about a number of topics. One of the things we discussed was Knol.
Setting aside the way it may have been marketed in the popular press
at the time, she suggested that Google does not currently see Knol as
a collaborative medium
2009/8/10 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net:
Didn't you ever play Monopoly?
The point is that this is not a zero-sum game. If Knol and Citizendium
and OpenSite get it together and rocket to #1, #2 and #3 websites,
that'll be a fulfilment of our mission:
Imagine a world in which every single
2009/8/10 Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com:
Some weeks ago I had an opportunity to talk with a Google employee
about a number of topics. One of the things we discussed was Knol.
Setting aside the way it may have been marketed in the popular press
at the time, she suggested that Google does not
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:08 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Educational free content production is not competition with us. It's
success for us.
Of course Knol is not in competition with us, and what I wrote should not be
worried about competition. It should be understood as
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.comwrote:
The risk is that something will come about which doesn't share the
bulk of our mission (i.e. isn't free content) but which is a
sufficient replacement for the bulk of the readership.
Greg frames one of my concerns
2009/8/10 Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com:
It's entirely possible for there to be a Gresham's Law with regard to
collaborative encyclopedias, in my view.
Encyclopedia Dramatica is indeed the only way to keep up with 4chan ...
- d.
___
foundation-l
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Mike Godwinmnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 11:08 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
I can give you some models in which Knol, properly structured, could have
replaced us altogether. In some sense that might be a victory for free
It's that time again - Strategic Planning IRC office hours! This
week's office hours will be:
Wednesday from 04:00-05:00 UTC, which is:
Tuesday, 9-10pm PDT
Wednesday, 12am-1am EDT
For more information, go to http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_Office_Hours
Hope to see you there!
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 21:02, Samuel Kleinmeta...@gmail.com wrote:
It's hard to replace an open collaborative process,
On the contrary. I believe most of us cannot concentrate working power
(human resources) to, say, 5 full-fledged knowledge recording
community. Most people tend to have a
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
An interesting concept. It's hard to replace an open collaborative
process, but I think this is a subject worthy of a planning workshop
at Wikimania. The advantage of being open and minimal-overhead is
that we can
--- On Sat, 8/8/09, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
From: Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Policy Interlingual Coordinationn -
WP:NOT
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Saturday, August 8, 2009, 1:31
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 21:48, David Goodmandgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
The number of people available is not limited to the current number.
As well as the current number isn't stable. :-) People come and go,
sink in wikipedia or get wikistress and go away.
There are many potential
Many of us talk/think a lot about how to reduce conflict in our
projects. For those who're interested, I was recently pointed towards
two relevant videos -- I'm posting them here in hopes they might be
useful for others.
So, for whoever's interested, here is:
* Donnie Berkholz's recent talk at
Mark Williamsonnode...@gmail.com wrote:
Remind me, please, why we are still talking about this.
Well, Thomas' idea about a lists-l list for discussing mailing lists and
mailing list issues is new, so there is no issue of still talking about
this when the this you refer to isn't one of the issues
Lars,
I think we agree on what needs to happen. The only thing I am not
sure of is where you would like to see the work take place. I have
raised versions of this issue with the Open Library list, which I copy
again here (along with the people I know who work on that fine project
- hello,
34 matches
Mail list logo
