Re: [Foundation-l] Making wikimediafoundation.org more open to contributions
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 aaron.adrign...@gmail.com wrote: Erik Moeller 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 discussion hub, subsuming both WMF and Meta, and possibly other backstage wikis). Perhaps have Meta: Strategy:, Outreach: Usability:, Tech:, and Wikimania*: namespaces to replace the separated sites in existence today. The main space could cover wikimediafoundation.org content. Wikimedia: for meta-wiki discussion. Or any variation on that. At the least, there is no need to keep creating new wikis for Wikimania if you properly tag content for the year it applies to. -- Aaron Adrignola Here, here, for the namespace solution! Yes! Phoebe Ayers writes; My solution to the challenge of combining everything would be to have a global edit sprint -- meta-cleanup-and-merge editing party weekend! This sounds like a perfect topic for a barnraising. Sam. -- Samuel Klein identi.ca:sj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Making wikimediafoundation.org more open to contributions
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 little thing is a *bad* idea. Not that I have anything new to add, but this is one of those threads where it's nice to see a long string of +1's. I wrote an essay a few months ago based on that principle: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Not_my_wiki -Sage ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Making wikimediafoundation.org more open to contributions
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 meta or mediawiki.org in the first place, for example. A wiki for every little thing is a *bad* idea. Not that I have anything new to add, but this is one of those threads where it's nice to see a long string of +1's. Although, as Erik pointed out, the opportunity to blithely deploy useful new extensions, as on Strategy Wiki, may count as a good reason. I wrote an essay a few months ago based on that principle: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Not_my_wiki +1 ;-) - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Making wikimediafoundation.org more open to contributions
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 a Brand. and it IS a brand whether you are ideologically opposed to that term or not... as the case may be. 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 information in a world where information is key.. To just side line this idea is sort sighted. On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.comwrote: 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? What do you think?! The principle is that everything is free. You can donate to the Wikimedia Foundation, but the Foundation has a core belief in not advertising or requiring subscription. -- ~Keegan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Making wikimediafoundation.org more open to contributions
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 extension) how to mirror the content between meta and the separate wiki. This keeps everything together, and would improve the long term participation and visibility. As far as the development and planning being largely English only, it's a matter more so of convenience and practicality to have a common language for the development and inter-project collaboration, and this is largely a healthy thing - it's unfortunate. but in this case we have to choose between having a common language for this purpose and excluding non-English speakers or collaborating in native tongues and fragmenting the WMF community as a whole. Translations should happen - and this is an area where we need ambassadors to make sure that non-English communities are reached not only with messages of outreach, but also kept informed and given opportunities to participate in their native language by insuring that meaningful comments get translated back and included in the conversation. Where it's beneficial just for visibility of a particular area, such as outreach, how hard would it be technologically to engineer extensions to give a namespace-restricted view of the outreach content on Meta - in other words, if we had an Outreach namespace, and http://outreach.wikimedia.org/just pulled it's entire content from this namespace - any links outside the namespace get translated to interwiki links when viewed on Outreach, and Outreach:Main Page on Meta becomes the main page on outreach. This solves the best interests of both consolidation and centralization, as well as the positive benefits of having it's own wiki. On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 12:13 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: 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 reasons for WMF to spin up separate sites have varied, but to try to put it as simply as possible, a dedicated wiki, in all technical and social respects, focuses collaborative activity, which can enhance productivity and reduce barriers to participation. In the case of e.g. StrategyWiki, it also allowed us to try some radical changes (like using LQT on all pages, or receiving hundreds of proposals as new page creations) without disrupting some surrounding context. I have absolutely no regrets about our decision to launch StrategyWiki, for example -- I think it was the right decision, with exactly the expected benefits. Meta itself has grown organically to support various community activities and interests that had no other place to go. It has never been significantly constrained by its mission statement. The What Meta is not page only enumerates two examples of unacceptable use: 1. A disposal site for uncorrectable articles from the different Wikipedias, and it is not a hosting service for personal essays of all types. 2. A place to describe the MediaWiki software. Its information architecture, in spite of many revisions, has never kept up with this organic growth, making Meta a very confusing and intimidating place for many, especially when one wants to explore or use the place beyond some specific reason to go there (vote in an election, nominate a URL for the spam blacklist, write a translation). So, let's take the example of OutreachWiki as a simple case study to describe the differences between the two wikis. 1) The wiki's main page and sidebar are optimized for its stated purpose; 2) As a new user, you receive a welcome message that's specifically about ways you can support public outreach ( http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Welcome ) 3) All special pages remain useful to track relevant activity or content without applying further constraints; 4) Userboxes and user profiles can be optimized for the stated purpose (e.g. http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Languages_and_skills ) 5) There's very little that's confusing or intimidating -- the content is clean, simple, and organized. 6) If the OutreachWiki community wants to activate some site-wide extension, it can do so, focusing only on its own needs. On the other hand: 1) Activity is very low; 2) The wiki is largely in English; 3) Meta has a long tradition of hosting outreach-related content, and many pages still reside there or are created there. 4) The existence of yet-another-wiki brings tons of baggage and frustration (more dispersed change-tracking for users who want to keep up with all activity, more creation of meta/user page/template structures,
Re: [Foundation-l] Making wikimediafoundation.org more open to contributions
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 information in a world where information is key.. Except for the ads, it's an excellent idea. Transparent, online access to accounts and a permanently donating community. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Making wikimediafoundation.org more open to contributions
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 etc) a sense of it self! Also there is more and more media u-tube etc and wiki has a strong position to protect! As the increasing threat from the internet governments feel to be real. Wiki is in a position to be at the forefront of a positive change in a global community. It already is. Such a scheme will also be a litmus test of the global support for Wiki and the freedom it represents. People are a force to be reckoned with On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 6:02 PM, 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 opinion. Creates a virtual community striving for information in a world where information is key.. Except for the ads, it's an excellent idea. Transparent, online access to accounts and a permanently donating community. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Making wikimediafoundation.org more open to contributions
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 the business modal (free and accessible) but it will give the wiki community (all people that use and contribute etc) a sense of it self! Also there is more and more media u-tube etc and wiki has a strong position to protect! As the increasing threat from the internet governments feel to be real. Wiki is in a position to be at the forefront of a positive change in a global community. It already is. Such a scheme will also be a litmus test of the global support for Wiki and the freedom it represents. People are a force to be reckoned with On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 6:02 PM, 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 opinion. Creates a virtual community striving for information in a world where information is key.. Except for the ads, it's an excellent idea. Transparent, online access to accounts and a permanently donating community. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] inquiry about paid prject support by WMF
All mention that this is supported by the have been removed and Swatjester is looking into this. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dynamics_of_Online_Interactions_and_Behavior On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 5:37 AM, Pedro Sanchez pdsanc...@gmail.com wrote: I just found http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Dynamics_of_Online_Interactions_and_Behavior and it repeats a lot it's supported by the Foundation where can I learn more about it, since it says participants will earn money? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] inquiry about paid prject support by WMF
Yeah, I was confused about the page as well, so I got in touch with the research team. They're going to build out their page a bit better first, it'll explain more what they mean. -Dan On Jan 31, 2011, at 12:58 AM, John Vandenberg wrote: All mention that this is supported by the have been removed and Swatjester is looking into this. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dynamics_of_Online_Interactions_and_Behavior On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 5:37 AM, Pedro Sanchez pdsanc...@gmail.com wrote: I just found http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Dynamics_of_Online_Interactions_and_Behavior and it repeats a lot it's supported by the Foundation where can I learn more about it, since it says participants will earn money? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
