Changing the url from meta.wikimedia.org to plain vanilla
wikimedia.org would be one of the last steps, actually.
Thanks,
Richard
(User:Pharos)
See http://www.wikimedia.org/
Fred
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Respectfully disagreed re: change from meta to plain wikimedia.org
It would be of our convenience but other projects specially
non-Wikipedia ones might be weakened their presence. As an invididual
Wikiquotian, I'm afraid of that.
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 3:40 AM, Pharos
On 30 January 2011 18:02, Noein prono...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/01/2011 13:10, koteche mcintosh wrote:
People choose to donate just like before. But on a regular basis. everyone
can see the fund. Everyone is part of the story. this GALVANIZES
support. Shoes governments the POWER of public
On 28 January 2011 20:33, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Such a solution would make it easier to fold separate wikis
(such as a conference wiki) back into Meta when we were done with
them, too.
Why fold them into meta afterwards rather than just use Meta from the
beginning? Isn't
Hoi,
The milk has spilled so it is time to mop up. As we gain more experience, we
learn that having new wikis is often a bad idea in the long run.
We live we learn..
Thanks,
GerardM
On 31 January 2011 14:25, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 January 2011 20:33, phoebe
I would say that (as Erik said) in some cases it's a good idea. I doubt that
we could have done the work we did on Strategy wiki, had it been housed on
meta. Some wikis wish to set different standards for what can be included, and
that's difficult to do if you have an extant wiki that has its
A) This is completely off-topic.
B) It sounds like exactly what we already have. (Recurring donations
are new, but are now an option - with the exception of some Teir 1
chapter countries.)
Really? It is the most pressing topic of our times.
Surely you can see that. And you can see how pissed
Thank you MZM, for making those long-needed changes! That made my day.
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 3:33 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Pharos pharosofalexand...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Aaron Adrignola
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 11:28 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Suggested principle: stuff should go on meta unless there's a very
good reason for it not to. The strategy and usability stuff should
have been on meta or mediawiki.org in the first place, for example. A
wiki for every
On 30 January 2011 16:00, Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 11:28 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Suggested principle: stuff should go on meta unless there's a very
good reason for it not to. The strategy and usability stuff should
have been on
How realistic is that?
Things change and this is completely voluntary. It just means Wiki can
branch out into-film making supporting initiatives and communities in
places where light needs to shine. Gets people motivated. At the moment Wiki
stands for everything!!! People are looking up to it as
I think one thing that would help tremendously would be to decide on a
convention, be it subpages, or pseudo-namespaces, or a combination of the
two for grouping related content on meta and stick to it. When
a separate wiki is needed for technology demonstration, figure out (probably
through an
On 30/01/2011 13:10, koteche mcintosh wrote:
People choose to donate just like before. But on a regular basis. everyone
can see the fund. Everyone is part of the story. this GALVANIZES
support. Shoes governments the POWER of public opinion. Creates a virtual
community striving for
Better put!!!
Except for the ads, it's an excellent idea. Transparent, online access
to accounts and a permanently donating community.
It does not mean that there will be a change in the business modal (free and
accessible) but it will give the wiki community (all people that use and
contribute
NO ADS just KNOWLEDGE!
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 8:35 PM, koteche mcintosh kotechemcint...@gmail.com
wrote:
Better put!!!
Except for the ads, it's an excellent idea. Transparent, online access
to accounts and a permanently donating community.
It does not mean that there will be a change in
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 2:33 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it would do us a lot of good to be able to recombine all of
these topics so when we are looking for a calendar or a presentation
On 29 January 2011 16:20, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Having many wikis is an ongoing source of irritation for many, and it
would be great to resolve this issue. Are there good arguments *for*
having separate sites? Or at least for not recombining them into meta
with a redirect
2011/1/29 phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com:
Having many wikis is an ongoing source of irritation for many, and it
would be great to resolve this issue. Are there good arguments *for*
having separate sites?
Yes, and I think most people generally underestimate the complexity of
the issue. The
Why can't people pay £2 per month and be a member of Wiki-everything!
Better than [pledging.
Have a on line active site that tells you what is going on how much money
there is! Get a members package?
What do you think?!
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 5:13 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 12:46 AM, koteche mcintosh
kotechemcint...@gmail.com wrote:
Why can't people pay £2 per month and be a member of Wiki-everything!
Better than [pledging.
Have a on line active site that tells you what is going on how much money
there is! Get a members package?
I agree that the edit restrictions on the WMF wiki are very
unfortunate and there's still much more that can be done (perhaps one
day leading toward www.wikimedia.org as a single information,
collaboration and discussion hub, subsuming both WMF and Meta, and
possibly other backstage wikis).
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Aaron Adrignola
aaron.adrign...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that the edit restrictions on the WMF wiki are very
unfortunate and there's still much more that can be done (perhaps one
day leading toward www.wikimedia.org as a single information,
collaboration and
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Pharos pharosofalexand...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Aaron Adrignola
aaron.adrign...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that the edit restrictions on the WMF wiki are very
unfortunate and there's still much more that can be done (perhaps one
day
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 2:33 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it would do us a lot of good to be able to recombine all of
these topics so when we are looking for a calendar or a presentation
bank or a list of media or whatever there is ONE place to go, not
five. Such a
2011/1/27 MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com:
In the spirit of being bold, I've taken a number of steps to correct what I
view as deficiencies in the current contribution system, all of which I'll
outline in this e-mail. If anyone has objections to these changes, they're
more than welcome to revert
On Jan 27, 2011, at 7:58 PM, MZMcBride wrote this plus some other stuff:
Hi.
When wikimediafoundation.org was first established (as a fishbowl wiki),
there were concerns expressed about its lack of open editing. For one of the
most prominent wiki and community-based organizations to have
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:34 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
2011/1/27 MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com:
In the spirit of being bold, I've taken a number of steps to correct what
I
view as deficiencies in the current contribution system, all of which
I'll
outline in this e-mail.
Great Work, MZ.
One small point, the buttons on foundation wiki redirect to a the page we
get on FWF page on Meta, the edit page has a newly created header that
includes Wikimedia is not associated with Wikileaks. I think the confusion
with Wikileaks issue is ephemeral and is not as common
I rather welcome these changes. Also I support improvement on Meta
feedback pages: a single page seems a better solution in these days.
Historically the foundation wiki was restricted just for avoiding
spams, as far as I understood. Later we found some users who were
proud of the foundation
29 matches
Mail list logo
