Re: [Foundation-l] It Is not Us

2011-06-26 Thread Peter Gervai
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 16:03, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: The web itself is passé http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-facebook-vs-the-rest-of-the-web-2011-6 Actually, we missed the boat, but that ship sailed long ago. That is funny, I like statistics. Like, how can

[Foundation-l] Wikipedia dumps downloader

2011-06-26 Thread emijrp
Hi all; Can you imagine a day when Wikipedia is added to this list?[1] WikiTeam have developed a script[2] to download all the Wikipedia dumps (and her sister projects) from dumps.wikimedia.org. It sorts in folders and checks md5sum. It only works on Linux (it uses wget). You will need about

Re: [Foundation-l] It Is not Us

2011-06-26 Thread Thomas Dalton
What lovely abuse of statistics! By showing them indexed to the same scale, it makes it impossible to draw the conclusion they try and draw. You need to know the *absolute* increase in facebook usage and the *absolute* increase or decline in total internet usage. If their numbers are correct,

Re: [Foundation-l] Closing projects policy now official

2011-06-26 Thread Robin Pepermans
I had put a notice on [[meta:Wikimedia Forum]] and a notice on the [[Proposals for closing projects]] page. Several users supported the policy proposal, and some gave feedback so we could improve the text. Apart from the meeting report, I think we didn't send a separate e-mail to foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] It Is not Us

2011-06-26 Thread Chris Keating
Facebook, and Twitter, big with Black folk, gives people something they can relate to. Wikipedia is as dry as reading, or writing, an encyclopedia. In a sense they ate our lunch, but millions of Facebook-like user pages can hardly be justified as a basis for charitable donations. Are you

Re: [Foundation-l] It Is not Us

2011-06-26 Thread Thomas Dalton
On 26 June 2011 17:46, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Facebook, and Twitter, big with Black folk, gives people something they can relate to. Wikipedia is as dry as reading, or writing, an encyclopedia. In a sense they ate our lunch, but millions of Facebook-like user pages can

[Foundation-l] Black market science

2011-06-26 Thread David Gerard
http://chronicle.com/article/Academic-Publisher-Steps-Up/128031/ People are exchanging and selling access to the databases to get the damn science. This is why we need to keep pushing the free content and open access message. You cannot do science in a system with these effects. - d.

Re: [Foundation-l] Black market science

2011-06-26 Thread geni
On 26 June 2011 21:12, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: http://chronicle.com/article/Academic-Publisher-Steps-Up/128031/ People are exchanging and selling access to the databases to get the damn science. This is why we need to keep pushing the free content and open access message.

Re: [Foundation-l] Languages and numbers

2011-06-26 Thread M. Williamson
Some of these actually already have Wikipedias: Meadow Mari Yakut (aka Sakha) Lak Balkar (aka Karachay-Balkar) Yiddish, Eastern (= standard Yiddish, Western Yiddish is the one we are missing but it has much fewer speakers; according to Ethnologue there are only 5,400 around the world) In

Re: [Foundation-l] Black market science

2011-06-26 Thread Tom Morris
On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 22:03, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote: I don't know much about the situation in the humanities though. There's a nice little undercurrent of paper exchange - some legitimate (asking the author for copies, getting PDFs from author websites, getting stuff from university

Re: [Foundation-l] Closing projects policy now official

2011-06-26 Thread Samuel Klein
Also, I do not understand why the *language* committee has a role in this in the first place. Is closing projects often about whether or not it actually is a language (the expertise field of langcom)? Most close requests are for projects that would not have been created under the current

Re: [Foundation-l] Black market science

2011-06-26 Thread David Richfield
The system of charging readers for distribution of scientific information is fundamentally flawed. Wikipedia demonstrates that it is cheap to host data. Reviewers don't get paid. Companies pay plenty to advertise in journals. Why do I have to pay $50 to read someone's research?