mobile device.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com
Date: Mar 28, 2011 1:40 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Message to community about community decline
To: Stephanie Daugherty sdaughe...@gmail.com
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 21:49, Stephanie Daugherty sdaughe
I think that somewhere along the way we lost sight of many of the qualities
that make the wiki model work.
There are certain patterns, which a wiki community needs to follow to be
successful - beyond assume good faith, there are principles such as forgive
and forget that are just as crucial to
I am really not sure how many of them are clean starts and socks. Probably
not a lot, but I also doubt that the number is insignificant. Given privacy
policies and people deliberately covering their tracks when using a new
identity, we probably can only guess at real numbers.
Hazarding a guess I
Sent from my mobile device.
On Mar 20, 2011 12:16 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
I don't think I voted, I seldom vote in any election. The reason is that
I seldom know much about the candidates, and have no reliable way of
finding out much. I could, together with others,
Sent from my mobile device.
On Mar 20, 2011 1:07 PM, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com
wrote:
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
Oops. Wanted to comment that commits are essentially project edits - so
treat them as such.
Sent from my mobile device.
On Mar 20, 2011 1:08 PM, Stephanie Daugherty sdaughe...@gmail.com wrote:
Sent from my mobile device.
On Mar 20, 2011 1:07 PM, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com
wrote
That was sortof the point behind proposed changes - some articles deserve
more scrutiny applied to edits.
However politics pretty much killed the idea on en.
On Mar 14, 2011 6:33 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
Thoughts?
The intention of this proposal, and this thread, is _not_ to
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
Of course we would expect that providers and universities will only be able
to provide a limited number of users with access. But access rights could be
awarded on the basis of merit, say, to users who have written at least
As far as academic journals go most people have some access and don't know
it. Most public libraries subscribe to one or more services, and a library
card is all they need for that access.
Any wmf sponsored access plan needs to keep this in mind and encourage
editors to use access they already
As far as I'm aware, as a long standing matter of practice, WMF sites
run the latest stable or development Mediawiki, as a matter of eating
our own dog food. That implies that the notice was merely a courtesy
because the change was expected to cause downtime, rather than a point
of discussion. My
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
I think it would be more productive to import the usability content into
Meta, close down the usability wiki if it's served it's intended purpose,
and continue the discussion at meta.
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 6:35 AM, K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Amir
I would hope that in the future, the decision to make a separate wiki for
any subproject is not taken as lightly, given the concerns about
fragmenting discussions - it's much easier to track these things when they
are all in one place. :)
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Guillaume Paumier
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 5:48 PM, masti mast...@gmail.com wrote:
why should tht be decided on foundation level? Do you think communities
are so broken that they cannot make their own decisions?
This would be the only reason to start discussing enforcement of such
major changes
I personally
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Matters_related_to_requests_for_adminship
is
probably a good starting point. There's a LOT and I do mean a LOT of
material.
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 8:04 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Stephanie Daugherty
It wouldn't be all that hard. Elements are either inline or block
elements. Inline elements insert into the text flow, while text flows around
block elements. If we make the distinction as simple as that, and disallow
all methods of positioning other than that which is natively available in
wiki
While i generally agree that its too much templates do have their
place. The interface for using a template needs to be easier (see all
the recent wysiwy* traffic), but used right they can even make the
text easier to edit.
The problem therefore is to make sure they are used right, and that
Where there exists a clean elegent technical solution to a social
problem then it wasnt really a social problem to begin with.
Where it comes to something like ws maybe a tool to do an outline
grouping a large multiarticle document into a single coherent one is
whats really needed.
Any solution
Really good points. I still advocate moving the possibility for these
ugly constructs to templates, so that we keep all the magic tricks
we have now, but lose the ability to make an article that is write
only by littering it with code that only the wikigods and the parser
itself could decypher.
Not only is the current markup a barrier to participation, it's a barrier to
development. As I argued on Wikien-l, starting over with a markup that can
be syntacticly validated, preferably one that is XML based would reap huge
rewards in the safety and effectiveness of automated tools - authors of
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 11:43 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2010 16:06, Victor Vasiliev vasi...@gmail.com wrote:
I have thought about WYSIWYG editor for Wikipedia and found it
technically impossible. The main and key problem of WYSIWIG are
templates. You have to
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
Stephanie writes:
Layouts would be a new form of template, designed to apply as a
block-level outline to an article, providing both a framework to build a
particular type of article, and defining the formatting for that
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 6:43 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 December 2010 16:54, Stephanie Daugherty sdaughe...@gmail.com
wrote:
Not only is the current markup a barrier to participation, it's a barrier
to
development. As I argued on Wikien-l, starting over with a markup
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 7:12 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.comwrote:
That is true - We can't do away with Wikitext always been the
intermediate conclusion (in between My god, we need to do something
about this problem and This is hopeless, we give up again).
Perhaps it's time to
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 8:28 PM, Rob Lanphier ro...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Let me riff on what you're saying here (partly just to confirm that I
understand fully what you're saying). It'd be very cool to have the
ability to declare a single article, or probably more helpfully, a
single
25 matches
Mail list logo
