On 27 September 2010 20:36, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
The most important harm which exists now is the fact that free
knowledge activists from Kosovo are not included yet into the
Wikimedia movement. So, until the situation becomes more clear, we
should think how to solve that
On 27 September 2010 15:17, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
A few posts back Peter linked to several philosophy-trained editors
who had left Wikipedia, representing them as examples of the problems
he has identified.
I think it's worth reposting here what one of those editors gave as
his
On 27 September 2010 21:02, Joan Goma jrg...@gmail.com wrote:
We are here to promote Wikimedia projects not to promote Serbia union nor
Kosovo independence.
Very true, but allowing separate Kosovan and Sebian chapters (which is
probably best for the WM movement, since the Serbian chapter
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 13:35, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
So your proposal is basically to make the Kosovan group a recognised
non-chapter group (like we're talking about doing with the Kansai
group) and then upgrade them to chapter status at a later date
if/when it is less
On 28 September 2010 12:40, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 September 2010 21:02, Joan Goma jrg...@gmail.com wrote:
We are here to promote Wikimedia projects not to promote Serbia union nor
Kosovo independence.
Very true, but allowing separate Kosovan and Sebian chapters
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 12:40:30 +0100
From: Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Kosovo Chapter?
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Message-ID:
On 28 September 2010 15:27, Joan Goma jrg...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 September 2010 21:02, Joan Goma jrg...@gmail.com wrote:
We are here to promote Wikimedia projects not to promote Serbia union nor
Kosovo independence.
Very true, but allowing separate Kosovan and Sebian chapters (which is
Hi all,
Sue Gardner, the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, will
be having office hours this Thursday (September 30) at 23:00 UTC
(16:00 PT, 19:00 ET, 01:00 Friday CEST) on IRC in #wikimedia-office.
If you do not have an IRC client, there are two ways you can come chat
using a web
An'n 28.09.2010 13:45, hett David Gerard schreven:
On 28 September 2010 12:40, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 September 2010 21:02, Joan Gomajrg...@gmail.com wrote:
We are here to promote Wikimedia projects not to promote Serbia union nor
Kosovo independence.
Very true,
Hi everyone,
As many of you know, the results of the poll to keep Pending Changes
on through a short development cycle were approved for interim usage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Straw_poll_on_interim_usage
Ongoing use of Pending Changes is contingent upon consensus
Hoi,
Neither New York nor Hong Kong are independent. So this is not an argument.
It is completely beside the point what is the point is that Kosovo is
administratively a separate area. it has its own issues..
Thanks,
GerardM
On 27 September 2010 19:13, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
Rob, without wanting to take any wind out of your sails, please don't start
the next trial so soon. The analysis from the first trial is nowhere near
finished, the community has just started to consider criteria for a new
trial, and following the very abnormal majority rules poll, there needs to
Hi Marcus - thanks for the note. I'll be looking into this right away to see if
we can get the good work of the subtitlers/translators into the whole
presentation of the videos on youtube and Vimeo.
Thanks for the pointer. As soon as we have some progress on this we'll let you
know (but
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 1:45 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 September 2010 12:40, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 September 2010 21:02, Joan Goma jrg...@gmail.com wrote:
We are here to promote Wikimedia projects not to promote Serbia union
nor
Kosovo
Risker,
we've consistently communicated that we'll iteratively update the
Pending Changes codebase with fixes to address known issues, as
documented on:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Pending_Changes_enwiki_trial/Roadmap#November_2010_Release
This is the assumption on which hundreds of people
Erik -
Thank you for confirming that English Wikipedia does not have a choice in
whether or not this tool is deployed on our project.
Just a quick reminder of the words of William Pietri, who was the lead
developer of this project until the day after the first trial took place:
This is, as the
2010/9/28 Risker risker...@gmail.com:
Thank you for confirming that English Wikipedia does not have a choice in
whether or not this tool is deployed on our project.
There have been two massive polls in the English Wikipedia already on
Pending Changes.
2010/9/28 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Closure
Correct link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Straw_poll
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Straw_poll_on_interim_usage
In both these
Ummm, no, Erik. The objective was to have consensus to KEEP it on, not
consensus to turn it off, and that was always the agreement. There was
never, until the lack of consensus to keep it on became clear, a direct
suggestion that we'd be stuck with it. The only reason the trial was
approved in
2010/9/28 Risker risker...@gmail.com:
Ummm, no, Erik. The objective was to have consensus to KEEP it on, not
consensus to turn it off, and that was always the agreement. There was
never, until the lack of consensus to keep it on became clear, a direct
suggestion that we'd be stuck with it.
Without having formed in opinion either way to what has come out of the trial
or the straw polls, I don't understand why there is such importance placed on
*technically* disabling the feature. If en.WP doesn't want to use it, why
don't they not just move all the articles back to
Ah, so it's not going to be the Sue Gardner office hours, it's going to be
the Pending Changes office hours. Well, I suppose that makes sense.
One very large part of the disconnect, I will note, is that a very
significant proportion of the editors who voted to stop the trial on the
second poll
On 28 September 2010 23:12, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
You're losing the hearts and minds battle here, guys.
There'll be new hearts and minds along in eighteen months.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
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,
Decisions at Wikipedia are not based a vote. The majority support
Pending Changes and insufficient reasons have been put forwards by
those who wish to see it quashed. I would like to thank Erik Moeller
for the difficult discussion he has made. It is impossible to make
everyone happy sometimes.
I
On 28 September 2010 18:58, Ryan Lomonaco wiki.ral...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com
wrote:
We would be better off with more people working
seriously to figure out the best answers to the issues this feature
addresses, plus whatever
LocalWiki looks like a great project.
In a similar vein, Wikimedia NYC has been engaged with local free
culture and community groups on our joint 'NYCwiki' initiative:
http://nycwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://nycwiki.org/wiki/NYCwiki:Community_portal
Thanks,
Richard
(User:Pharos)
Wikimedia NYC
--- On Tue, 9/28/10, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Risker risker...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 5:22 PM
On 28
Brigitte, I owe you and everyone else on this list an apology for bringing
English Wikipedia business here. This post was initially sent to multiple
lists, and it came through only on my Wiki-en-L tab, so I believed I was
replying there, not to Foundation-L.
This is, indeed, a discussion
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Tue, 9/28/10, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Risker risker...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
2010/9/28 Risker risker...@gmail.com:
Yes it is, and it's an important one. Several of us had already been
working on a plan for the second trial, and those of us discussing had
widely agreed that it would be much more likely to be successful if more of
the recommendations on improving the
On 29 September 2010 01:25, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
And how should they know what the consensus is which they should promise to
respect without determining it? They can't very well just turn off an
extension while it is use on hundreds of articles. If the consensus is so
On 9/28/2010 4:41 PM, Risker wrote:
On 28 September 2010 18:58, Ryan Lomonacowiki.ral...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Michael Snowwikipe...@frontier.com wrote:
We would be better off with more people working
seriously to figure out the best answers to the issues this
Hi Michael,
If the community decides it doesn't want to use Pending Changes, but
the feature remains enabled, it will be a constant battle to police
usage of the extension. Why should the extension remain enabled on the
project if its community decides not to use it? That frankly makes no
sense
On 28 September 2010 23:19, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote:
On 9/28/2010 4:41 PM, Risker wrote:
Aside from the point already made regarding the desires of projects
other than the English Wikipedia - I guess I struggle to see what's so
demotivating about the prospect of a feature
2010/9/28 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com:
If the trial said the extension would be turned off, and it didn't get
turned off, then whatever the reason...
As a reminder, there was a post-trial poll with very broad
participation and 65% of support for continued use of PC. Jimmy then
put on his
That we are resorting to discussing multiple polls worries me; it
reminds me of the circumstances which led to the English Wikipedia
arbitration case 'date delinking'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ARBDATE
IMO the English Wikipedia community should be allowed to continue to
review the results
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
2010/9/28 John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com:
IMO, the foundation could look to strengthen its global policies
regarding content where living people are a subject. i.e. worded more
like the non-free content resolution. Then
38 matches
Mail list logo
