Samuel Klein wrote (in two messages):
*A wiki for book metadata, with an entry for every published
work, statistics about its use and siblings, and discussion
about its usefulness as a citation (a collaboration with
OpenLibrary, merging WikiCite ideas)
I could see this happening on
Andrew Gray wrote:
2009/8/1 John Vandenberg:
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
Also...
*A wiki for book metadata, with an entry for every published work,
statistics about its use and siblings, and discussion about its
usefulness as a citation (a collaboration with
I could see this happening on Wikisource.
I mention it as another project because it would eventually involve
importing and organizing freely available metadata on roughly ten
million books, and defining a style guide for helping organizing
citations and comments about each as a source -- very
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 4:28 AM, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote:
Andrew Gray wrote:
2009/8/1 John Vandenberg:
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
Also...
*A wiki for book metadata, with an entry for every published work,
statistics about its use and siblings, and
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 9:09 PM, Erik Moellere...@wikimedia.org wrote:
2009/7/31 Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com:
On critical complex topics, the Foundation could benefit from more
discussion and better planning. Why have we made it so hard to start
new Projects?
I would suggest that we use
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Samuel Kleinmeta...@gmail.com wrote:
Also...
*A wiki for book metadata, with an entry for every published work,
statistics about its use and siblings, and discussion about its
usefulness as a citation (a collaboration with OpenLibrary, merging
WikiCite ideas)
2009/8/1 John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com:
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Samuel Kleinmeta...@gmail.com wrote:
Also...
*A wiki for book metadata, with an entry for every published work,
statistics about its use and siblings, and discussion about its
usefulness as a citation (a collaboration
I was thinking particularly of ... Wikifamily (Rodovid),
If you're thinking of _this_ Rodovid http://en.rodovid.org/ (frontend
is http://rodovid.org/) I would strongly vote for that.
It's really is
useful for significant audiences,
and
implementable in an
elegant way
In fact it's
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 7:52 AM, Ryan Lomonacowiki.ral...@gmail.com wrote:
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
Hello,
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Milos Rancicmill...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that mailing lists posts should be treated as edits.
Thank you; this sentence made my day.
--
Guillaume Paumier
[[m:User:guillom]]
___
foundation-l mailing list
Hoi,
When we have consensus on that one, someone has to count them.. So what
piority do we give it and, what do we bumb down the list ? Alternatively who
is volunteering to write the necessary software anyway and how are we going
to get it operational ??
PS I like the idea grin
Thanks,
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Guillaume Paumierguillom@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Milos Rancicmill...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that mailing lists posts should be treated as edits.
Thank you; this sentence made my day.
Thank you, too. We share our happiness with
Hoi,
When it is agreed that people can vote based on their mail contributions,
the one thing necessary is connecting people to their WMF user. When this
information is available on a user, the global user may be made known as a
voter. In my opinion you do not want to involve people when there is
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Gerard
Meijssengerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi,
When it is agreed that people can vote based on their mail contributions,
the one thing necessary is connecting people to their WMF user. When this
information is available on a user, the global user may be
2009/7/31 Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com:
For me, the analogy is simple: just because you get a driver's license once
doesn't entitle you to drive for the rest of your life.
Unless you actively do something wrong and get disqualified, yes it
does. The analogy works for not letting
Right on. I detect ageism supplementing the recentism.
But seriously folks, if fraud were the issue then confirmed identify would
overcome the problem. The number-of-recent-edits criterion has two effects
that bother me.
1. It effectively puts the vote firmly in the hands of producers not
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 2:40 AM, Milos Rancicmill...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 7:52 AM, Ryan Lomonacowiki.ral...@gmail.com wrote:
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
You know, this comes up every year. And there's always good argument to
both sides but there's never consensus to actually change it. There has
been an election in one form or another since 2004, and except in 2004
where the requirement was having an account that is at least 3 months
old or be
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Kwan Ting Chan k...@ktchan.info wrote:
You know, this comes up every year. And there's always good argument to
both sides but there's never consensus to actually change it. There has been
an election in one form or another since 2004, and except in 2004 where
Philippe Beaudette wrote:
I'm sure that if there is significant response to the edit count
requirement, next year's committee will happily (he said confidently,
with no intent to volunteer for next year's committee) review it then.
LOL, how many have you been on now? :P There's no
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Philippe Beaudette
pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Allow me, please, to reinforce this, wearing my election committee
member hat.
This years' rules were mostly carryovers from last years' rules. When
we started, we looked around, realized that no
Brian wrote:
The WMF is a far cry from the original vision of it as a membership
organization. Also, the board propagates stale laws under the notion of
status quo for which the original consensus is no longer remembered. There
is further no top down effort to ask the community if they have any
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Kwan Ting Chan k...@ktchan.info wrote:
Brian wrote:
I'm going to take particular issue with the last point here.
On 3 June *2008*, right after last year election, Jesse Plamondon-Willard
(Pathoschild), one of last year election committee member, posted on
On Jul 31, 2009, at 1:13 PM, Brian wrote:
There
is further no top down effort to ask the community if they have any
good
ideas, and then ask the community what they think about the best of
those
ideas. That, in my view, is a broken system.
Really? Been to the strategic planning wiki
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Philippe Beaudette
pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Jul 31, 2009, at 1:13 PM, Brian wrote:
There
is further no top down effort to ask the community if they have any
good
ideas, and then ask the community what they think about the best of
those
Dear everyone,
As a reminder, we also discussed suffrage requirements on this list last year:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-April/042105.html
As a response to concerns over the proposed requirement that there be
50 edits between April and June before the election, this
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Philippe
Beaudettepbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Jul 31, 2009, at 1:13 PM, Brian wrote:
There
is further no top down effort to ask the community if they have any
good
ideas, and then ask the community what they think about the best of
those
ideas.
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 4:45 PM, phoebe ayersphoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear everyone,
As a reminder, we also discussed suffrage requirements on this list last year:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-April/042105.html
As a response to concerns over the proposed
2009/7/31 Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com:
On critical complex topics, the Foundation could benefit from more
discussion and better planning. Why have we made it so hard to start
new Projects?
I would suggest that we use the strategy call for proposals to
re-surface some of the most important
2009/8/1 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
* a wiki for the global community of makers to share designs and
prototypes for both functional and entertaining objects, which is
becoming increasingly important as fabbing facilities become
commonplace;
Commons could do this tomorrow if the blender
2009/7/31 geni geni...@gmail.com:
2009/8/1 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
* a wiki for the global community of makers to share designs and
prototypes for both functional and entertaining objects, which is
becoming increasingly important as fabbing facilities become
commonplace;
Commons
The Wikimedia Foundation was originally envisaged as a membership
organization. Per my recollection, everyone who ever edited would become a
member. That didn't happen for legal reasons, however, I believe in the
spirit of it being a membership organization. Unfortunately we now subscribe
to the
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.comwrote:
Recentist? Ignoring the, ahem, fanciful language you've chosen, I'd like to
throw my support behind the voting qualifications wholeheartedly.
For me, the analogy is simple: just because you get a driver's license
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 8:06 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Steven Walling
steven.wall...@gmail.comwrote:
Recentist? Ignoring the, ahem, fanciful language you've chosen, I'd like
to
throw my support behind the voting qualifications
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
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
36 matches
Mail list logo
