2011/9/22 John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Mike Dupont
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:57 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
From Wikimedia's
On 22/09/11 10:12, Andrea Zanni wrote:
when Sue presented us the Strategic Plan and Wikipedia was all over the
pages,
but none of the sister projects.
I have to say, whenever I make a presentation of Wikimedia and mention
sister projects, all I get is blank stares. It really makes sense to
On Wednesday, September 21, 2011, Sage Ross wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 6:35 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com javascript:;
wrote:
Sage Ross once discussed with me the idea of having Wikinews be foremost
a
source of news about the Internet. It could report on news and goings-on
on
2011/9/22 Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs
On 22/09/11 10:12, Andrea Zanni wrote:
when Sue presented us the Strategic Plan and Wikipedia was all over the
pages, but none of the sister projects.
I have to say, whenever I make a presentation of Wikimedia and mention
sister projects, all I
From: Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs
On 22/09/11 10:12, Andrea Zanni wrote:
when Sue presented us the Strategic Plan and Wikipedia was all over the
pages,
but none of the sister projects.
I have to say, whenever I make a presentation of Wikimedia and mention
sister projects, all I
On 22/09/11 14:53, Michael Peel wrote:
From: Nikola Smolenskismole...@eunet.rs
On 22/09/11 10:12, Andrea Zanni wrote:
when Sue presented us the Strategic Plan and Wikipedia was all over the
pages,
but none of the sister projects.
I have to say, whenever I make a presentation of Wikimedia
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 5:02 AM, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
I'm not sure this analysis is correct. A lot of people now don't get news by
going directly to the site but on social media platforms like Twitter and
Facebook. Of course, for that to work, we need to publish stories
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 5:04 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm having a hard time remembering when a WMF led a project that had a
primary stated objective to meet a need of a sister project. It would
be good to compile a list of any WMF projects of this kind. maybe the
WMF can
Steven Walling wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 5:04 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm having a hard time remembering when a WMF led a project that had a
primary stated objective to meet a need of a sister project. It would
be good to compile a list of any WMF projects of this
On Sep 22, 2011 8:48 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Steven Walling wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 5:04 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm having a hard time remembering when a WMF led a project that had a
primary stated objective to meet a need of a sister project.
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 8:47 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Is there a single staffer who's even thinking about any of them as
part of their work? I don't know of any. And, back to the original thought:
are there any Wikimedia initiatives to specifically (or primarily)
improve
any
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Steven Walling
steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
..
Bah. My mistake. Sorry if that sounded confused, I was just reacting to the
idea that there are any staff dedicated solely to English Wikipedia, which
isn't true.
replace 'solely' with 'predominately' and,
Philippe Beaudette wrote:
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 8:47 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Is there a single staffer who's even thinking about any of them as
part of their work? I don't know of any. And, back to the original thought:
are there any Wikimedia initiatives to specifically
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 6:35 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Sage Ross once discussed with me the idea of having Wikinews be foremost a
source of news about the Internet. It could report on news and goings-on on
various Web sites. The idea made the idea of Wikinews almost seem
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Mike Dupont
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:57 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
From Wikimedia's perspective, I think this is one down, several
On 09/12/11 3:45 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
The only other project in a similar situation is
Wikispecies, where any data on species at least conceptually is
welcome in a Wikipedia article on the topic.
This all makes Wikispecies the perfect fork. Its contents largely
overlap the relevant
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:57 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
From Wikimedia's perspective, I think this is one down, several hundred to
go. Wikimedia has made it clear that its singular focus is the English
Wikipedia. All other Wikipedias are peripheral; all other project types are
Hoi,
With the strategic plan it is clear and obvious that the WMF intends to
expand. It is clear that India and Brazil get serious attention. With the
creation of the localisation team there is now substantial attention for
language issues and language technology. This will make the technological
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Mike Dupont
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:57 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
From Wikimedia's perspective, I think this is one down, several hundred to
go.
Wikimedia has made it clear that its singular focus is the
Samuel Klein wrote:
Not speaking on behalf of the Foundation, but repeating what Erik said
earlier and pointing to our five-year plan, the WMF is prioritizing
community-driven innovation as one of its core targets for support.
Wikimedia has made the English Wikipedia its primary focus. The
Hello Andrew,
These are very fine ideas indeed. I have always found the 'breaking
news' stories on Wikinews to be among its least interesting content,
for all of the reasons you note.
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all, reading this thread with
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Phil Nash phn...@blueyonder.co.uk
wrote:
Sue Gardner wrote:
On 12 September 2011 18:15, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 September 2011 23:45, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
Now: what do we need to do to make Wikinews
1) WikiLove has been enabled on Swedish, Malayalam, Hungarian, Hebrew,
Arabic, and Hindi Wikipedia, as well as Commons, all on request of the
respective project communities.
Uh oh - criticism time...
WikiLove was developed supposedly to address one of the major problems of
English Wikipedia
Erik Moeller, 13/09/2011 03:55:
That's of course a risky project and it may not live up to our
expectations. But it's IMO a smarter bet to make than just picking
(with an unavoidable element of arbitrariness) one of the many
specialized areas in which we currently aren't succeeding and
M. Williamson, 13/09/2011 00:13:
English Wikiquote, which I've always considered to be one of our most
pointless and least useful projects, has a total of 5 users who make more
than 100 edits a month. This is a project in English, our highest-traffic
language, that has been open since 2003.
MZMcBride, 13/09/2011 00:24:
Wikimedia has made its decision and the community has largely sat quiet on
the issue.
Rectius: the Wikimedia Foundation (as you say below). Other Wikimedia
people, groups and organizations don't think so and are even accused not
to have the legitimacy (!) to
From: Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A Wikimedia project has forked
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Message-ID:
cao5b2ftngomenaydq7f4nq8tx3fg0d5fomzwwfoihqyndhn...@mail.gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain
On 13 September 2011 00:04, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Wikimedia indisputably now exists to serve the English Wikipedia. Wikimedia
is quick to call Sue Wikipedia Executive Director, isn't it? Or plaster
Wikipedia founder on every fundraiser-related publication? Out of the last
X
On 12 September 2011 21:02, David Gerard dgerard at gmail.com wrote:
Any comment from the Wikinews contributors who just posted to
foundation-l saying everything was fine and people saying it wasn't
were clueless?
Several Wikinews regulars have made comments about the fork on wikinews-l,
Hi all, reading this thread with much interest. Lots of ideas on this,
in bullet points:
- As a journalism professor, I've followed (and debated) Wikinews
since its very start. I say this not to claim authority, but simply to
say it has been something I've pondered continually for six years now.
I guess it was time for a bold move.
~K
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Tempodivalse r2d2.stra...@verizon.net wrote:
On 12 September 2011 21:02, David Gerard dgerard at gmail.com wrote:
Any comment from the Wikinews contributors who just posted to
foundation-l saying everything was fine
Greetings everyone,
I thought the Wikimedia community should know that a large portion of WIkinews'
contributor base has forked into its own project (http://theopenglobe.org)
after becoming deeply dissatisfied with Wikinews. The new wiki has finished its
creation stage and is about ready to
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 03:50:55PM -0500, Tempodivalse wrote:
Greetings everyone,
I thought the Wikimedia community should know that a large portion of
WIkinews' contributor base has forked into its own project
(http://theopenglobe.org) after becoming deeply dissatisfied with Wikinews.
On 12 September 2011 21:50, Tempodivalse r2d2.stra...@verizon.net wrote:
I thought the Wikimedia community should know that a large portion of
WIkinews' contributor base has forked into its own project
(http://theopenglobe.org) after becoming deeply dissatisfied with Wikinews.
The new wiki
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Tempodivalse r2d2.stra...@verizon.net wrote:
I thought the Wikimedia community should know that a large portion
of WIkinews' contributor base has forked into its own project
(http://theopenglobe.org)
Congratulations to the successful launch of the fork and
Not interested in all the details, but does anyone know how is this
different from wikinews?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_fork#Forking_free_and_open_source_software
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 14:32, Chris Lee theornamental...@gmail.com wrote:
Not interested in all the details, but does anyone know how is this
different from wikinews?
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Tempodivalse r2d2.stra...@verizon.netwrote:
At least nine users have pledged to support this fork, and several others
(including non-WN Wikimedians) are interested - more than there are active
remaining Wikinews contributors.
Wait, does this mean that
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Kirill Lokshin
kirill.loks...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Tempodivalse r2d2.stra...@verizon.netwrote:
At least nine users have pledged to support this fork, and several others
(including non-WN Wikimedians) are interested - more than there
Tempodivalse wrote:
I thought the Wikimedia community should know that a large portion of
Wikinews' contributor base has forked into its own project
(http://theopenglobe.org) after becoming deeply dissatisfied with Wikinews.
The new wiki has finished its creation stage and is about ready to
I do believe it means exactly that.
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Special:ActiveUsers includes all users with at
least 1 edit in the last 30 days; that seems like a really low threshold
though. I took the liberty of collecting some data based on that page:
- 23 users with at least 30 edits in the
I didn't mean what is a fork, or how to fork etc...
I meant more along the lines of the difference in scope, guidelines. Why did
they break off?
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Jon Davis w...@konsoletek.com wrote:
On 12 September 2011 22:57, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
From Wikimedia's perspective, I think this is one down, several hundred to
go. Wikimedia has made it clear that its singular focus is the English
Wikipedia. All other Wikipedias are peripheral; all other project types are
Sounds interesting. It is certainly true that wikinews was never as
successful as we had hoped. Perhaps this new project will manage more. Good
luck!
On Sep 12, 2011 9:51 PM, Tempodivalse r2d2.stra...@verizon.net wrote:
Greetings everyone,
I thought the Wikimedia community should know that a
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 05:57:37PM -0400, MZMcBride wrote:
Tempodivalse wrote:
It's a great injustice to countless contributors that they receive support
in name only (as one of Wikipedia's sister sites in a handful of
publications), but it's indisputably the reality. A classic example of
It's a tiny bit disappointing that the tone here is oh well, we tried and
failed.
When really it should be cool - now we have a competitor, what do we need
to give WN to help them stay in the market
Tom
___
foundation-l mailing list
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 05:59:34PM -0400, Chris Lee wrote:
I didn't mean what is a fork, or how to fork etc...
I meant more along the lines of the difference in scope, guidelines. Why did
they break off?
For starters, they weren't happy with the server maintenance by WMF. They
couldn't get
It's worth noting that several of the other English language projects suffer
similar levels of inactivity.
English Wikiquote, which I've always considered to be one of our most
pointless and least useful projects, has a total of 5 users who make more
than 100 edits a month. This is a project in
Interesting link, but a bit focused on software. No mention to content
communities.
Wiki[pm]edia suffered other forks previously, like Enciclopedia Libre.
2011/9/12 Jon Davis w...@konsoletek.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_fork#Forking_free_and_open_source_software
On Mon, Sep 12,
On Sep 12, 2011 11:10 PM, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com
wrote:
It's a tiny bit disappointing that the tone here is oh well, we tried and
failed.
When really it should be cool - now we have a competitor, what do we need
to give WN to help them stay in the market
In what way are
I am seeing a lot of lack of support from WMF for these smaller
projects but not being a smaller projects editor I don't know what
specific issues there are.
Can someone up on the situation send out more specifics?
Thank you.
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 3:13 PM, M. Williamson node...@gmail.com
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 03:13:51PM -0700, M. Williamson wrote:
It's worth noting that several of the other English language
projects suffer similar levels of inactivity.
Well yeah, first let them wither on the vine, then declare them useless
when they're almost dead.
Then congratulate
We've failed. Maybe someone else will do better. If they do, our goal will
still be achieved.
Well that's exactly the problem :)
This should be a last gasp kick up the backside.. not a shrug of the
shoulders.
Just saying.
Tom
___
foundation-l
On 12 September 2011 23:17, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 12, 2011 11:10 PM, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com
wrote:
It's a tiny bit disappointing that the tone here is oh well, we tried and
failed.
When really it should be cool - now we have a competitor,
I can't speak for the entire Wikinews community, but a lot of it was the
lack of technical assistance. There was one major item which Wikinews
_really_ need to be even remotely useful and it was very difficult to get
any help at all. Eventually the community wrote the extension themselves
but
David Gerard wrote:
On 12 September 2011 22:57, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
From Wikimedia's perspective, I think this is one down, several hundred to
go. Wikimedia has made it clear that its singular focus is the English
Wikipedia. All other Wikipedias are peripheral; all other
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:08:10PM +0100, David Gerard wrote:
Considering Wikinews was started and pushed heavily by Erik Moller
(early on he was personally bailing people up at wikimeets to get
them to contribute to it), I suggest your analysis is on
crack^W^W^Whypothesises too much cause
David Gerard wrote:
Wikinews is still recoverable. But what it's been doing so far clearly
failed. What can they do that would work? Open it up further?
Sage Ross once discussed with me the idea of having Wikinews be foremost a
source of news about the Internet. It could report on news and
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Tempodivalse r2d2.stra...@verizon.net wrote:
I thought the Wikimedia community should know that a large portion of
WIkinews' contributor base has forked into its own project
(http://theopenglobe.org) after becoming deeply dissatisfied with Wikinews.
The new
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 03:50:55PM -0500, Tempodivalse wrote:
Greetings everyone,
I thought the Wikimedia community should know that a large
portion of WIkinews' contributor base has forked into its own
project (http://theopenglobe.org) after becoming deeply
dissatisfied with Wikinews. The
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 03:50:55PM -0500, Tempodivalse wrote:
Greetings everyone,
Heya Tempodivalse,
I understand that a lot of this fork is due to personality
conflicts, rather than with WMF itself? That's be a bit of a
phew to know WMF weren't the folks causing the trouble.
How can we help
Samuel Klein wrote:
MZM, you are confused in this thread - Wikimedia doesn't exist to serve
EN:WP, or to serve its most popular *current* project, it exists to support
the global dissemination of all sorts of knowledge, and collaboration to
create that knowledge.
You're on the Board still,
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 8:24 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Wikimedia has made its decision and the community has largely sat quiet on
the issue. Wikimedia has made it clear in promotional materials, donation
drives, and nearly anywhere else that its focus is the English Wikipedia.
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 7:04 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Wikimedia indisputably now exists to serve the English Wikipedia. Wikimedia
is quick to call Sue Wikipedia Executive Director, isn't it? Or plaster
Wikipedia founder on every fundraiser-related publication?
Thanks for
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
But let's take other completed extensions as examples.
1) WikiLove has been enabled on Swedish, Malayalam, Hungarian, Hebrew,
Arabic, and Hindi Wikipedia, as well as Commons, all on request of the
respective project
Erik Moeller wrote:
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 3:24 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
The current reality is that nearly any
project besides the English Wikipedia has almost no technical support.
That's a misunderstanding of what's happening.
I would characterize WMF's prioritization
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I would characterize WMF's prioritization as an A rising tide lifts
all boats policy. Improvements are generally conceived to be widely
usable, both in Wikimedia projects and even outside the Wikimedia
environment, and to
On 12 September 2011 23:45, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
Now: what do we need to do to make Wikinews better and more useful?
What are the costs and technical or other work involved?
Very little. Mostly wikinews is misstargeted. Yet another website
rewriting AP reports is never going to
On 12 September 2011 18:15, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 September 2011 23:45, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
Now: what do we need to do to make Wikinews better and more useful?
What are the costs and technical or other work involved?
Very little. Mostly wikinews is
Sue Gardner wrote:
On 12 September 2011 18:15, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 September 2011 23:45, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
Now: what do we need to do to make Wikinews better and more useful?
What are the costs and technical or other work involved?
Very little. Mostly
70 matches
Mail list logo
