Hello,
2010/6/4 MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com:
John Vandenberg wrote:
While that is impossible (read: hard), a simple approximation is to
display languages links for the 10 largest corresponding articles in
other languages, and then show a more.. when there are more than 10.
Another option
Hello,
2010/6/4 Platonides platoni...@gmail.com:
James Alexander wrote:
We have a couple threads on this issue but picking the most recent :). It
appears that this has now been changed (
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23497 ) and so once the next
revision is pushed live the
On 06/04/2010 08:24 AM, Michael Peel wrote:
On 2 Jun 2010, at 22:51, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
A tiny benefit to a hundred
million people wouldn't justify making wikipedia very hard to use for
a hundred thousand
Can you justify that the change has now made it very hard for users of those
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 2:24 AM, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote:
On 2 Jun 2010, at 22:51, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
A tiny benefit to a hundred
million people wouldn't justify making wikipedia very hard to use for
a hundred thousand
Can you justify that the change has now made it very
On 4 June 2010 03:40, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
If the interwikis are not displayed in the vector skin, either
Wikisource cant use the vector skin, or Wikisource will need to move
these links into the content of the pages. I've started a discussion
about this on the
On 06/04/2010 09:10 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
As far as the the dynamic hiding goes, I'd like to toss in my voice
against that: Determinism is very important for usability. Guessing
what the user wants is great when it works but terrible when it
doesn't. Computers are often _stupid_ but
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 12:10 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
Sort of tangentially, ... am I really the only one that frequently
uses the Wikipedia inter-language links as a big translating
dictionary? I've found it to be much more useful than automatic
translation engines for
Me three for using the interwiki links as a way of finding the word or
phrase I'm looking for in another language (along with Wiktionary). Not only
do they assist me in finding translations of the words or phrases I am
looking for, they also give me context and relevant material for languages
I'm
Hiding interlanguage links will worse the effect of Google search on some
small language projects.
See this previous thread:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-January/056671.html
Present situation isn’t much better because intrelanguage links are at the
end of a long list
Hoi,
This would be a good idea only when you are allowed to choose the languages
you do want to see.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 3 June 2010 23:30, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 June 2010 19:04, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Yes, we discussed this internally as well as a
Hoi,
When you look where what languages have their biggest audience, you will be
surprised. The notion of most likely languages is either based on such
statistics or it is only guess work. The best performance is when people can
choose the languages involved.
It would make sense to combine this
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi,
When you look where what languages have their biggest audience, you will be
surprised. The notion of most likely languages is either based on such
statistics or it is only guess work. The best performance is
Ryan Kaldari wrote:
If you want to challenge a takedown notice, the proper (and only) course
of action is to file a counter-notice. I had work that I did on Commons
taken down by a bogus DMCA takedown notice several years ago. Instead of
complaining to the Foundation, which would have been
David Gerard wrote:
Yep! You want to write a first draft of a guide? I'm sure the EFF or
someone like that will have something suitable to start with.
We can't have a lawyer employed by the WMF look over it, but we have
lots of lawyers amongst the volunteers.
An important point; we
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Yep! You want to write a first draft of a guide? I'm sure the EFF or
someone like that will have something suitable to start with.
We can't have a lawyer employed by the WMF look over it, but we have
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 11:37, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
The only catch is that by filing the counter-notice you are putting your
money where your mouth is and legally asserting that you have the right
to post the work (so make sure that this is correct or you may end up in
a
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com wrote:
..
So either we wait until people want to spend their private money to
lawyers to define the risk and only accept mostly low risk
counternotices, or to enroll to be crash test dummies. Both highly
unlikely.
Or we can
Hoi,
It works indeed best for logged in users. However the statistics show that
the main public for particular languages is not where you expect them to be.
It is good to be generous in the number of languages that we show in my
opinion.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 4 June 2010 11:18, Andre Engels
2010/6/4 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
Hoi,
It works indeed best for logged in users. However the statistics show that
the main public for particular languages is not where you expect them to
be.
It is good to be generous in the number of languages that we show in my
opinion.
2010/6/4 Jon Harald Søby jhs...@gmail.com:
When you are monolingual and are already on your
native language Wikipedia there isn't really a lot of use in going to
another language.
What's more, when that language is the one with the largest Wikipedia,
you're likely to find the most
On 4 June 2010 13:00, Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/6/4 Jon Harald Søby jhs...@gmail.com:
When you are monolingual and are already on your
native language Wikipedia there isn't really a lot of use in going to
another language.
What's more, when that language is the one with the
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 10:17 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Can someone from the Foundation confirm whether any testing was done
with people who would actually be affected by the decision to remove
the language links - or only on people who wouldn't care? If only the
latter, then
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Andrew Garrett agarr...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 10:17 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Can someone from the Foundation confirm whether any testing was done
with people who would actually be affected by the decision to remove
the
Andrew Garrett wrote:
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 10:17 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Can someone from the Foundation confirm whether any testing was done
with people who would actually be affected by the decision to remove
the language links - or only on people who wouldn't care?
Ray Saintonge writes:
An important point; we musn't force the WMF lawyer into a conflict of
interest
The issue is only partly conflict of interest, and it often isn't that. It's
primarily that WMF is not insured to give legal advice to community members.
We run an encyclopedia, not a free
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 15:54, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
We run an encyclopedia, not a free legal clinic. (By comparison, when I
worked for EFF, I was actually empowered to give free legal advice to people
who called in for help.)
Couldn't we then use EFF for this specific
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
Is that possible without putting WMF lawyers in a tight spot?
Sometimes. Sometimes not. (The issue is not so much putting lawyers in a
tight spot as it is one of making WMF more vulnerable, e.g., by revealing
defense
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 8:05 AM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote:
Surely having a known defense strategy would beat having no defense
strategy at all, which basically is the situation now.
I'm afraid I must deny that we have no defense strategy.
But why not support the community
Peter Gervai wrote:
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 15:54, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
We run an encyclopedia, not a free legal clinic. (By comparison, when I
worked for EFF, I was actually empowered to give free legal advice to people
who called in for help.)
Couldn't we then
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 1:08 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
The Right Honourable Mr Godwin:
In the world outside this mailing list, the fact that I'm responding to this
extent to these criticisms would itself be taken as proof of transparency,
not disproof.
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 4:37 AM, Joan Goma jrg...@gmail.com wrote:
Hiding interlanguage links will worse the effect of Google search on some
small language projects.
It makes no difference to Google. The links are only hidden with
JavaScript, and Googlebot mostly doesn't use JavaScript, so it
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 12:23 AM, Noein prono...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been watching the dialogues between the WMF and this mailing list
for a while now and most of the conflicts are the same: bad
communication. This is apparently not due to individuals but institutional.
I think you're wrong.
Aryeh, imagine someone links you to an article on physics at
ka.wikipedia. If there were a link that said English, you'd know
what that meant, but if there's just a button that says ენები
(Georgian for Languages), how are you going to know to click that
rather than any of the other words on the
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you're wrong.
Try to get any sense out of the upper echelons of your phone company,
your gas providers, whoever gives you your electricity.
The Wikimedia community is huge. The staff relatively small. It's
That's not good enough. First of all, people who don't speak a
language won't recognize the text see other languages, or even
languages. Could you pick the word ენები out of a page full of
text in a foreign language and understand that clicking it would lead
you to a link to the English version of
Bod Notbod wrote:
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 12:23 AM, Noein prono...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been watching the dialogues between the WMF and this mailing list
for a while now and most of the conflicts are the same: bad
communication. This is apparently not due to individuals but institutional.
On 6/4/10 3:41 AM, Peter Gervai wrote:
Or we can reasonably expect them to ask for real legal advice from (or
paid by) the WMF and_then_ accept the_known_ risk to file a
counter-notice.
The Wikimedia Foundation cannot simultaneously act as an impartial (and
therefore non-liable) host
Mark Williamson wrote:
That's not good enough. First of all, people who don't speak a
language won't recognize the text see other languages, or even
languages. Could you pick the word ენები out of a page full of
text in a foreign language and understand that clicking it would lead
you to a
On 4 June 2010 19:58, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps a suitable compromise can be devised, but in the meantime, the
only appropriate solution is to display the interwiki links by
default. It's unfortunate that this fix was reverted, let alone in
the name of usability.
Nathan writes:
When the WMF makes a
decision to intervene in the projects, full and informative
communication isn't just a nice-if-you-can-get-it side benefit of
dealing with a small company - it's essential to maintaining the
fabric of a massively participatory and cooperative endeavor.
I
Wow, we get it. *No one* likes the hidden interwiki language link. Bottom
line, the only people who may be annoyed(though I doubt really any are,
and this was rather a decision to simply neaten the overall look of the en
site) by the long list of languages are the regular users! Those people who
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote:
Aryeh, imagine someone links you to an article on physics at
ka.wikipedia.
Why would anyone link me to an article on ka.wikipedia? That's not a
reasonable thing to imagine. I don't think I know anyone who speaks
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
I think if you look at what we did with regard to the Gallimard takedowns --
1) Consulting with French legal experts before taking any action
2) Compelling Gallimard to narrow and specify their takedown demands
3)
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Aryeh Gregor
simetrical+wikil...@gmail.comsimetrical%2bwikil...@gmail.com
wrote:
In the absence of further data, the only real argument I saw for
restoring the interlanguage links by default is to show how
international Wikipedia is and raise awareness about
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
You can argue, and have argued, that participants should know
this already or can easily discover the relevant information with some
digging. But why not spare them the effort? It's fully possible that
the folks most interested
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 9:39 PM, Aryeh Gregor
simetrical+wikil...@gmail.comsimetrical%2bwikil...@gmail.com
wrote:
Why would anyone link me to an article on ka.wikipedia? That's not a
reasonable thing to imagine. I don't think I know anyone who speaks
Georgian, and if I do, they wouldn't have
Aryeh Gregor wrote:
Users don't explicitly complain about small things.
At the English Wikipedia, this is not so. If we had a bike shed,
there would be daily complaints about its color.
They especially don't complain about things like clutter, because the
negative effect that has is barely
Hello,
2010/6/5 Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com:
Nathan writes:
When the WMF makes a
decision to intervene in the projects, full and informative
communication isn't just a nice-if-you-can-get-it side benefit of
dealing with a small company - it's essential to maintaining the
fabric of a
Peter Gervai wrote:
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 11:37, Ray Saintonge wrote:
The only catch is that by filing the counter-notice you are putting your
money where your mouth is and legally asserting that you have the right
to post the work (so make sure that this is correct or you may end up in
Aryeh Gregor wrote:
Now, mind you, I don't necessary support getting rid of the
interlanguage links. I'm mostly objecting to the reasoning being
brought forward for that point, which seems to be mostly:
* Some unknown number of users might somehow end up at a wiki they
don't understand and
The Usability team discussed this issue at length this afternoon. We
listened closely to the feedback and have come up with solution which we
hope will work for everyone. It's not a perfect solution, but we think
it's a reasonable compromise.
First, some background on the problem we're
A minimalist design is a good goal to strive for. As many people do mot use
them, it may be a good cleanup of the interface. Howver, for its
afficionados the developers might create an option in the user preferences
to show all interwiki links directly instead of hiding them. Personally I
find
Howie,
Thanks for your detailed message. I appreciate your efforts of trying
to listen to the feedback from the community. However, even after
listening to the discussion in the office today, and after reading
your message, I still fail to understand the logic behind these
decisions. I'm going to
[replying here and at
http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Opinion_Language_Links]
Howie Fung wrote:
First, some background on the problem we're addressing and the design
principle that we used. Every situation is unique, but in the case of
the interwikilinks, we believe the sheer number of
54 matches
Mail list logo
