2011/6/3 Jon Harald Søby jhs...@gmail.com:
The only reason I can see for not allowing embedding is that
embedding would be promoting YouTube
Embedding YouTube videos in Wikimedia content would send IP addresses
and other information about Wikimedia users to Google. This is
against Wikimedia's
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 8:59 AM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
You can stop using http://toolserver.org/~kalan/arb10/ if you have
problems with profanity on user's main personal page.
Server admins usually prefer not to do anything in relation to personal
files if it is not a security
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
As admin (but not Toolserver admin), the sense of rules similar to
excuses such as 'the rules didn't say I can't do this' will be
ignored. is obvious to me and it means don't make troubles. Having
a redirect to a
2011/3/20 Jon Harald Søby jhs...@gmail.com:
* Developers who are not server administrators, but who have made a certain
number of commits (what number is sufficient?)
Some things to keep in mind:
* Anyone can create an account to edit. Getting commit access by
itself requires as much effort
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry if I was unclear, I meant that the development community is
somewhat separate: people making modifications for non-Wikimedia
installs, non-Wikimedia extension devs, Wikia devs, etc. Not that I
know how many of
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 7:29 PM, Martin Maurer martinmaure...@gmail.com wrote:
May I ask for an official Yes or No answer from the Foundation, please?
I don't think it's reasonable to demand a yes or no answer to a vague
hypothetical question. The answer might depend on the community's
stated
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net wrote:
The replies to my comment are missing the point. Sure, the developers
themselves need to be able to handle public criticism of their work,
just like wiki editors. But I was responding to Austin's comment in
particular
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Rob Lanphier ro...@wikimedia.org wrote:
As you know, any time you want to compel someone to do something, there's
always the carrot and the stick. One thing I don't like about the way
you've phrased that is that is that you seem to be advocating the stick. Am
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Aryeh Gregor
simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote:
It's not specific to Wikimedia, it's practically universal in
open-source development. To get it to happen, you need pushing from
the top: formally stating it as part of people's job duties (so they
don't feel
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
With all this in mind, here are just a few concrete ideas for closing the gap:
1) Embedding teams funded by WMF into larger, publicly visible
workgroups which include volunteers and which meet regularly e.g. via
IRC;
1 a)
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Benjamin Lees emufarm...@gmail.com wrote:
I really agree with this sentiment, but it seems difficult to get staff to
really be part of the community unless they're _from_ the community. The
developers I've seen discuss their personal opinions on public fora
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote:
Aryeh, I was under the (apparently mistaken?) impression that at
Wikipedia, the community makes the decisions
Not exactly. If the community actually made decisions, Wikipedia
would be a direct democracy, and it's not.
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 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 Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
Who cares if people click them a lot? The space they formally
occupied is filled with nothing now.
Interface clutter is not psychologically free. Empty space is better
than space filled with mostly-useless controls.
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Aryeh Gregor
simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
You can attempt a weighted cost comparison: Num_interwiki_users *
Cost_of_hiding vs Everyone_else * Cost_of_clutter. But even
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 9:50 AM, Amir E. Aharoni
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
IIRC,
when adding a page to the watchlist became AJAX-y two or three years
ago, it was announced to the community some time before it was enabled
- and that was a rather small change.
I don't remember that,
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Amir E. Aharoni
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
The Usability Initiative was announced, but the search box hardly so.
It was only announced in the technical blog and i actually read it and
tried it in the prototype wiki, but as the prototype wiki says
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 5:27 PM, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote:
Solving captcha during registration is mandatory. Can this be replaced with
a sound captcha for visual impairment people?
In theory, yes. Someone needs to provide the code, though. For now,
people who want to sign up and can't
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Aryeh Gregor
simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com simetrical%2bwikil...@gmail.com wrote:
[[Daniel Pearl]] does not contain an image
of him being beheaded (although it's what he's famous
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 2:31 AM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
thousands, yes. Even conservapedia has thousands. But millions?
I have no objection to working for a profit making enterprise. But
when I do, I want my share of the money.
I imagine Wikia has millions of articles, all
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:48 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
You're a developer. Write something for logged-in users to block
images in local or Commons categories they don't want to see. You're
the target market, after all.
I'd be happy to do any software development if that were
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 4:22 PM, The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com wrote:
Hooray for letting American prurience and Larry Sanger's oddities shape the
project.
Wikimedia's goal is to bring knowledge to everyone on Earth, not just
Europeans. Europe is at the extreme left on the global social
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
It's a big deal already, and by the time it becomes an even bigger
deal, it will be too late to act. The global climate takes decades to
respond to changes in forcing factors. Even if we stopped all
greenhouse gas
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 1:50 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'm not appealing to the PR benefits here, or to the way this action
would promote the climate change cause in general. I'm just saying
that as an organisation composed of rational, moral people, Wikimedia
has as much
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
While the major program spending that Wikimedia performs should be
defined by its mission, I think small spending decisions, relating to
day-to-day operations, can be made without recourse to our mission.
For
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Gregory Maxwellgmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
Nitpicking, but the number of possible unique ballots is much greater
than the factorial because of equality, and equality must be preserved
in order produce the election calculations. The formula mostly easily
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Cox, Seritaserita@bridgespan.org wrote:
Google's new search engine, Caffeine, is supposedly kicking Wikipedia
entries further down results page. Thoughts? Comments?
So what? Wikipedia's goal isn't to get high search rankings. It's to
be a useful resource
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Thomas Daltonthomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/22 Pavlo Shevelo pavlo.shev...@gmail.com:
There should not be any real problem to link wikimedia.org.uk directly
to Wikimedia UK chapter wiki (wherever it's hosted).
It depends on how the WMF has everything
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Brianbrian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
It's a shame they couldn't get all vendors to agree to ship both ogg and
h264 codecs.
No, it's not. H.264 is patented and you need to pay licensing fees to
use it. It's not an open standard and should not be used on the web
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Brianbrian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
A compromise is a win-win.
Compromising is not a good idea per se. It's only a good idea if it
advances your goals more than refusing to compromises. Some
compromises are bad and should not be accepted. If you put enough
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 10:06 PM, Robert Rohderaro...@gmail.com wrote:
(For the record, I'm referring to
the earliest history of ParserFunctions. I'm not sure about the
history of #expr and some of the later bits.)
#expr was present since the first commit (r13505).
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 2:14 AM, John at Darkstarvac...@jeb.no wrote:
Its not that it won't be perfect, it simply will not work.
It will in most cases if you don't mind some false positives. False
positives would be acceptable if it's just a warning page that the
admin could click through.
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Michael Snowwikipe...@verizon.net wrote:
As I understand it, nobody is arguing that it's considered acceptable at
this point.
Peter Gervai seemed to argue exactly that, unless I badly misread him:
someone from outside seriously interfere with other project
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Tisza Gergőgti...@gmail.com wrote:
I do argue that it is not in violation of the privacy policy (whether the
people
here find it acceptable is another question).
It may be within the letter of the privacy policy. I think that's
entirely arguable, since the
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 6:01 AM, Neil Harrisuse...@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
Surely this is something which should be possible to block at the
MediaWiki level, by suppressing the generation of any HTML that loads
any indirect resources (scripts, iframes, images, etc.) whatsoever other
than from
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
Your really didn't address my question. Why do you think WMF resources are
best used to create and support a mirror for people who are disgusted by
sexuality rather than making easier for third-parties to create
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
I think this email really shows a misunderstanding of Wikipedia is not
censored is about; so I am starting a new thread to discuss the issue.
Well, for my part, I think the entire Wikipedia is not censored
policy
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
Well you now snipped it all, but someone suggested creating mirror under a
different domain name for schools. I replied to that saying how I thought
resources were best spent. Then you replied to me.
If you weren't
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 11:58 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
Quite frankly the advice that you should only use five subjects makes no
sense. The appeal to Nielsen's authority is not going to work on me or
anyone else who understands why the scientific method exists.
Experience shows
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Platonides platoni...@gmail.com wrote:
In that futuristic approach I find it more likely that there will be no
paper / printer, but instead everthing will be stored into
computers/PDAs and transfered between them. So in the event of the
catastrophe you'd be only
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
Certainly not large amounts of funds any time soon. If it could be
done for $5k, I'd recommend doing it with WMF funds.
I'm pretty sure buying another server or offering a slightly higher
salary on the next job
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
I disagree. The short term utility is obviously zero, but the long
term utility could be massive. The contents of Wikimedia projects
could play a vital role in rebuilding civilisation - I call that
useful.
Assuming
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
But rebuilding civilisation is probably not the most likely use such
archives would be put to (it's just the most exciting, so the one I
mentioned). The historical and cultural value 1000 years from now of
knowing
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
You make a good point, but that point applies just as well to any
other time capsule plan and people still consider them worthwhile.
I don't. I think they're fairly silly.
However, most information isn't lost
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 8:06 PM, jida...@jidanni.org wrote:
OK, fair enough. I was just hoping there was some list where somebody
still remembered accessibility.
Surely MediaWiki is more accessible than 90% of the web software out there . . .
___
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 6:37 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
Personally (even though I don't have tattoos) I think I
could give details of myself that would be somewhat
difficult to forge on short notice. The index finger of
my right hand sports a completely healed up lack
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 3:49 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
When you declare one version canonical the risk is that you will have
supporters of the losing version(s) becoming irrationally angry.
Which version was canonical is an implementation detail that wouldn't
even be visible
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Private keys can be compromised by anyone with a whim and a few
thousand dollars, either physically by compromise of the device, or
remotely by social engineering or zero-day exploit. Key signing
parties are premised
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@googlemail.com wrote:
I am sceptical about automatic conversion. As you said, it is mainly a
solution for reading, but not for writing, because the source text is in one
specific spelling or character system.
Why couldn't that be
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org wrote:
Harsh critic, isn't it? There are two interpretations possible now: a)
All those critics are dicks. b) You did something that is indeed critizable.
All those critics being you and . . . who else, again?
Part of being on an
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
Accepted by whom? Co-lo a box on the Internet, and ask the Foundation for
permission to create the dump. A single thread downloading articles to a
single server isn't going to impact the project. It probably wouldn't even
be
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
What's your estimate of how long it's going to take to get the next full
history English Wikipedia dump?
I would guess it gets fixed in less than a year, with new dumps every
few weeks after that. If it doesn't happen by then
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org wrote:
That's a true answer, but at the same time as useless as it can be.
If it's indeed only a matter of getting around to it (is it?), then
the fact that they didn't came around to it since April 2008 would
proove my
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Gregory Kohs thekoh...@gmail.com wrote:
It would appear that nobody is concerned about giving the landlord a
leg up on ITS for-profit competitors by supplying them in particular
with a ready feed of intellectual capital in the form of the friendly
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
NB Five hundred dollars does not cut it. A *really *good commercial
programmer may bill you for this amount for a days work.
$500/day isn't so much. Experienced contractors in programming can
bill well upwards of
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:57 AM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu wrote:
Another useful thing: after an article is parsed, write all the
templates it uses and their parameters in the database. Even if at first
it isn't possible to read this data on Wikipedia, Toolserver could do
wonders with
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
Why are so few community-developed mediawiki extensions used by the
Foundation?
Because there's approximately one person (Tim Starling) who reviews
such extensions in practice, and he has limited time. There's
approximately
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 9:04 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
False: Extension Matrix.
See the rest of that paragraph. Anyone who can write code and wants
commit access can get it. The only ones without commit access who
want it are those who can't or won't write code. Most of the
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 7:09 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
Interesting. I realize that the dump is extremely large, but if 7zip is
really the bottleneck then to me the solutions are straightforward:
1. Offer an uncompressed version of the dump for download. Bandwidth is
cheap and
60 matches
Mail list logo
