On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 8:50 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
I can picture a model in which lots of other people write what turn
out to be feeder wikis for Wikipedia. But I can't see what's really in
it for the volunteers on those wikis.
Are you serious? What's in it for them is the
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 8:50 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
I can picture a model in which lots of other people write what turn
out to be feeder wikis for Wikipedia. But I can't see what's really in
it for
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 11:49 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 December 2010 19:19, Daniel R. Tobias d...@tobias.name wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 10:49:28 +, Charles Matthews wrote:
Two or three years ago I was much more in the thick of things, and I
remember telling a
On 14/12/2010 19:40, George Herbert wrote:
I think Charles is describing groupings as of 2 years ago rather than
current. They've changed.
Oh, quite. What I described was history.
Charles
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To
On 11/12/2010 17:21, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 08:17:36 -0500, Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 12:02 AM, Steve Bennettstevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:15 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
Ensure that (administrators|wardens|whatever we
The challenge facing us in 2006 was improving what was in those days
sometimes rather dire but promising content at the same time as we
held the basic shape of the thing together. We had seen a population
explosion in which our registered userbase had suddenly doubled.
It was during that
Oops! arbitrators have led should of course read administrators have led.
Sadly this hasn't been a cost-free change, though I think it was
unavoidable. Adminship was originally seen as a mop-and-bucket
function, but that idea has collapsed in the face of the actual
requirement to have neutral
Trends to watch for the future.
The arbitration committee will continue to benefit from diversity of
membership. It's always been a strength though it has not often been
recognised; it's so easy to depict it as monolithic because its
deliberations are closed. The trend is accelerating.
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 10:49:28 +, Charles Matthews wrote:
Two or three years ago I was much more in the thick of things, and I
remember telling a rather bemused American at dinner at the Alexandria
Wikimania about the four political parties on enWP.
Do you have an online description of
On 12/12/2010 19:19, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 10:49:28 +, Charles Matthews wrote:
Two or three years ago I was much more in the thick of things, and I
remember telling a rather bemused American at dinner at the Alexandria
Wikimania about the four political parties on
On 11/12/2010 04:12, Tony Sidaway wrote:
Four or five years ago I quite confidently pronounced it unlikely that
the success of Wikipedia could be sustained beyond 2010. Once the
novelty wore off, I thought, people would drift away to the next shiny
new thing.
You weren't wrong about that, in
On 11 December 2010 10:49, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
You weren't wrong about that, in the sense that the twittersphere has
attracted (at leas some of) those mostly driven by instant updating.
Leaving an adequate but hardly overmanned reference utility that is
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 08:17:36 -0500, Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 12:02 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:15 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Ensure that (administrators|wardens|whatever we decide to call them) feel
no qualms
about
I know everybody is tired of hearing me bang on about this, but the
whole Featured article edifice has always seemed dubious to me. It
seems to concentrate our limited resources on a tiny number of
articles, and the emphasis has always been more on dotting eyes and
crossing tees than improving
: wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Tony Sidaway
Sent: 11 December 2010 17:37
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] CZ fork: Tendrl
I know everybody is tired of hearing me bang on about this, but the
whole Featured article edifice
On 11 December 2010 17:36, Tony Sidaway tonysida...@gmail.com wrote:
I know everybody is tired of hearing me bang on about this, but the
whole Featured article edifice has always seemed dubious to me. It
seems to concentrate our limited resources on a tiny number of
articles, and the emphasis
On 11 December 2010 17:36, Tony Sidaway tonysida...@gmail.com wrote:
I know everybody is tired of hearing me bang on about this, but the
whole Featured article edifice has always seemed dubious to me. It
seems to concentrate our limited resources on a tiny number of
articles, and the emphasis
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Daniel R. Tobias d...@tobias.name wrote:
On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 08:17:36 -0500, Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 12:02 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:15 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Ensure that
On 11 December 2010 20:55, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Daniel R. Tobias d...@tobias.name wrote:
...if you favor a top-down authoritarian model in which nobody
outside a small ruling clique has any say in things.
You make it sound like a bad thing.
The problem will always be with us; by our basic nature, we cannot
compel people to work on anything except what they want to work on.
The success from the start has been driven by hobbyists, people coming
specifically to write on what interests them and nothing else; the
only way to get a wider
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 13:43, wiki doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
FA tends to concentrate on specialist articles - because it is the only
place a FA writer or two can be left alone to work on it without a hoard on
POV pushers and school kids.
It is a pity we can't find ways of getting
On 11 December 2010 21:41, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem will always be with us; by our basic nature, we cannot
compel people to work on anything except what they want to work on.
The success from the start has been driven by hobbyists, people coming
specifically to
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 4:27 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia is, of course, a miserable failure. How can we duplicate this
failure?
Huh? Why would you want to duplicate a failure?
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
On 11 December 2010 21:50, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
I can picture a model in which lots of other people write what turn
out to be feeder wikis for Wikipedia. But I can't see what's really in
it for the volunteers on those wikis.
To a degree, we have that already - some of our
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Tony Sidaway tonysida...@gmail.com wrote:
Four or five years ago I quite confidently pronounced it unlikely that
the success of Wikipedia could be sustained beyond 2010. Once the
novelty wore off, I thought, people would drift away to the next shiny
new thing.
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 12:02 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:15 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Ensure that (administrators|wardens|whatever we decide to call them) feel no
qualms about kicking out clearly disruptive people.
If it was clear to
On 10/12/2010 05:02, Steve Bennett wrote:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:15 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.basicprogramming.org/larsent/tendrl/index.php/Tendrl:Differences
Everyone uses their own real names.
Meh. You lose good editors that way.
Potential contributors need
On 10 December 2010 20:52, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Hmm. I've just thought of a generalisation about WP, which I haven't
immediately discarded (a freakish circumstance). WP has problems - hoo
boy - but they are the problems of success. When they bring out the
Four or five years ago I quite confidently pronounced it unlikely that
the success of Wikipedia could be sustained beyond 2010. Once the
novelty wore off, I thought, people would drift away to the next shiny
new thing.
By now it seems clear that Wikipedia could last at least another six
months or
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:15 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.basicprogramming.org/larsent/tendrl/index.php/Tendrl:Differences
Everyone uses their own real names.
Meh. You lose good editors that way.
Potential contributors need to create an account to edit, but don't have
On 23/11/2010 11:15, David Gerard wrote:
I meant, of course, a fork of Citizendium. Buh.
The knives seem to be out for the fork of (fork of WP). As you say, if
Tendrl is CC-by-SA it's all good, in terms of spooning content around.
Apart from noting that social dynamics of the uneasy kind is
Thomas Larsen has started a fork of Wikipedia.
http://www.basicprogramming.org/larsent/tendrl/index.php/Welcome!
http://www.basicprogramming.org/larsent/tendrl/index.php/Tendrl:Rules
http://www.basicprogramming.org/larsent/tendrl/index.php/Tendrl:Differences
32 matches
Mail list logo
