Finn Rindahl wrote:
> I guess I'm one of the Commons admins "actively working against
> being [just] a service project" for the various other wikimedia
> projects.
This was David Gerard's wording and not mine. Overly general and
harsh descriptions are not productive.
> If there was more acti
I guess I'm one of the Commons admins "actively working against being [just]
a service project" for the various other wikimedia projects. I don't want it
to be regarded as a "completely independent project" though. There's two
reasons why I do that.
1. Wikimedia Commons serves a purpose on it's ow
2008/12/6 Bryan Tong Minh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I can think of two solutions here. One is to simply have more
> multi-project admins. Wikimedia ought to be one big community with a
> commons goal. Unfortunately (but not unsurprisingly) Wikimedia has
> been separated into many different islands se
Hoi.
One thing you CAN do is divorce the text form the templates. When you do not
need to parse the templates, you can show the text in a WYSIWYG way. You can
then either show the template in final form or with an "anchor" that refers
to the source that can be seen elsewhere.
Thanks,
Gerard
2008/12/7 Gerard Meijssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hoi,
> When so many people are turned off by syntax of any kind, it makes sense to
> prevent them to see such syntax. It should be there however for those who do
> not consider it a turn off.
Yeah, that's where WYSIWYG gets tricky - the complicated
Hoi,
When so many people are turned off by syntax of any kind, it makes sense to
prevent them to see such syntax. It should be there however for those who do
not consider it a turn off.
Thanks,
GerardM
2008/12/7 Tim Starling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Brian wrote:
> > Thank you Erik!
> > But I
Brian wrote:
> Thank you Erik!
> But I do not believe the potential scope of these two extensions has been
> appropriately realized by the powers that be, otherwise the technologies
> would have been put to a large scale trial sooner. It is not just about the
> facts contained in template data. Wit
Erik Moeller, 02/12/2008 18:30:
> A brief update - Mike drafted an FAQ which we're going to release very
> soon, and hopefully we'll be able to put together the full proposal
> before the new year.
In it.wiki there are many uncertainties on splitting
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Splitti
i would agree that decentralizing the image upload appears to be the best
process.
From: Lars Aronsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Saturday, December 6, 2008 2:31:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Making Wikimedia Commons le
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 5:53 PM, geni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think we want to bring attention to current events. In terms
> of finding what is blocked trying likely images rather than searching
> the entire wiki is probably the most useful method (found the current
> know issue after 3
2008/12/6 Gregory Maxwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 5:04 AM, Ray Saintonge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Pharos wrote:
>>> "14 articles on famous cows"
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Famous_cattle
>>>
>>> That's still gotta be way more than Britannica.
>>>
>> High
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 11:31 PM, Lars Aronsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> But as soon as it comes to image uploading, an area where the
> elderly have decades of photos to contribute, we're sending our
> beginners off to Wikimedia Commons. Even if the menues and most
> templates are localized
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 5:04 AM, Ray Saintonge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pharos wrote:
>> "14 articles on famous cows"
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Famous_cattle
>>
>> That's still gotta be way more than Britannica.
>>
> Highlighting something like that isn't as outrageous as would
Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> That might be a hell of a incentive to change. Before we talk
> about getting out the torches, I think we should see if we can
> make Commons functional. The incentive of being shuttered makes
> it more relevant to those who are in denial. I have made two
> suggestion
Pharos wrote:
> "14 articles on famous cows"
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Famous_cattle
>
> That's still gotta be way more than Britannica.
>
Highlighting something like that isn't as outrageous as would at first
appear. Adding a "Moo" sound to that would do even more. If it's
ch
Civility much, Mark?
Snark apart, the basic problem with commons isn't the people (although they
don't help), it's the software. MediaWiki is just not terribly well suited to
this sort of thing. Categorisation is problematic. On encyclopedia projects
this isn't the end of the world, because th
on 12/6/08 4:10 PM, David Gerard at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 2008/12/6 Thomas Dalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>> Discussions please. (Not denial that this problem is a problem, thanks.)
>
>> If you want to encourage discussion, don't start by restricting the
>> discussion to only people that ag
on 12/6/08 4:04 PM, Thomas Dalton at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Discussions please. (Not denial that this problem is a problem, thanks.)
>
> If you want to encourage discussion, don't start by restricting the
> discussion to only people that agree with you. You won't get any
> useful results tha
Denying a problem is not necessarily discussion, but an attempt to keep things
as they are. Although I could be wrong.
From: Thomas Dalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Saturday, December 6, 2008 1:04:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Foun
That might be a hell of a incentive to change. Before we talk about getting out
the torches, I think we should see if we can make Commons functional. The
incentive of being shuttered makes it more relevant to those who are in denial.
I have made two suggestions on improvements. One is a training
2008/12/6 David Gerard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/12/6 Thomas Dalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>> Discussions please. (Not denial that this problem is a problem, thanks.)
>
>> If you want to encourage discussion, don't start by restricting the
>> discussion to only people that agree with you. You wo
2008/12/6 Thomas Dalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Discussions please. (Not denial that this problem is a problem, thanks.)
> If you want to encourage discussion, don't start by restricting the
> discussion to only people that agree with you. You won't get any
> useful results that way.
Are you sp
> Discussions please. (Not denial that this problem is a problem, thanks.)
If you want to encourage discussion, don't start by restricting the
discussion to only people that agree with you. You won't get any
useful results that way.
___
foundation-l mai
I speak as a big fan of and participant in Wikimedia Commons.
But: Is it time to deprecate Commons as a WMF service project? It's
clearly failing and the local "community" is actively hostile to
contributors from other wikis.
Commons appears to have forgotten it was created as a service project
f
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 5:56 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Hoi,
> Naoko welcome. Usability is a subject that is also of a particular
> importance to the "down stream" users of MediaWiki. Organisations like
> UNICEF, Kennisnet, Commonwealth of Learning and many others are investing
make it a random selection of 2 items from everything that has been
suggested
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 3:01 AM, Chad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Kul Takanao Wadhwa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
>
> > McDonalds: serves 75 million people a month
> > Wikipedia: 275 mill
Hoi,
Naoko welcome. Usability is a subject that is also of a particular
importance to the "down stream" users of MediaWiki. Organisations like
UNICEF, Kennisnet, Commonwealth of Learning and many others are investing
and have invested in improved usability. I hope you will be interested in
leveragi
27 matches
Mail list logo
