On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 22:01, En Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote:
think that we should move in the opposite direction, permitting and
possibly
even encouraging people to be social (within reasonable limits) while
working collaboratively on our collective project of Wikipedia.
I agree.
On 21 March 2012 08:41, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
(This is harder than it sounds, but is apparently in progress, in the
coming-some-day Timed Media Handler.)
At that point we can start on serious programs to add video. Every
article on a street should have video of the street, for
On 23 March 2012 20:13, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
Every article on a non extinct animal species is a somewhat viable and
useful goal (and it keeps us one step ahead of web of life)
Goodness yes. My 4yo loves videos of animals, and there's e.g. just
about no fish that can be filmed that
Dear all,
Here a little contribution to the discussion about new organizations
for the Wikimedia movement. As far as I know, at this point there are
not many groups who consider seriously about becoming such a new
organization. Sometimes people mention the Esperanto Wikipedians
because they
There are many good reasons to attract new contributors - from
countering systemic bias to higher quality over time to new forms of
collective wisdom that emerge as people currently overwhelmed with
admin work have time to reflect and find better ways to work.
Technically, we could attract raw
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
..
Technically, we could attract raw contributors with the flick of a
finger: by encouraging editing via sitenotices.
But attracting people who won't contribute well...
That sounds like a great idea for projects where the
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 7:36 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
That sounds like a great idea for projects where the readership and/or
editorship is low. On those projects, it is very likely that a reader
with even a tiny interest in editing can be converted to a good
editor, and
Samuel Klein wrote:
Technically, we could attract raw contributors with the flick of a
finger: by encouraging editing via sitenotices.
But attracting people who won't contribute well, or will have a bad
experience -- or doing so when there is no good way to integrate them
into the project --
