James,
Sorry, you know that answer as well as we all do. Sue has not gone. The
board is still there.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 25 March 2014 01:23, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Gayle,
During the ED transition, who is responsible for insuring that
Foundation advocacy is aligned
Sometimes I have the perception that it is not just not aligned but diverting
more and more as time passes by..
M
Sent from Samsung Mobile
Original message
From: James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com
Date: 25/03/2014 02:23 (GMT+02:00)
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Guys... c'mon...
Austin
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:11 AM, Carlos M. Colina
ma...@wikimedia.org.ve wrote:
Sometimes I have the perception that it is not just not aligned but diverting
more and more as time passes by..
M
Sent from Samsung Mobile
Original message
From:
What, now we cannot have a different perception? Or worse, we are not allowed
to say it on this list?
Sent from Samsung Mobile
Original message
From: Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com
Date: 25/03/2014 10:44 (GMT+02:00)
To: Carlos M. Colina ma...@wikimedia.org.ve,Wikimedia
I agree with Marc.
I edited the brochure for Wikimania 2011 and I spent a lot of time making
the abstracts *shorter*. Unless somebody plans to publish a Wikimania
proceedings book of at least a 100 pages, the abstracts should be *no more*
than 200 words or so. When it is *no less* than 300 words,
The more and more rules is also a concern i experience when discussing
with newbies, but also with more experienced contributors. My main concern
is that the terms of use are reflecting US law and English speaking
countries worries. In this light they should be as slim as necessary for
fulfilling
2014-03-24 8:33 GMT+01:00 Salvador A salvador1...@gmail.com:
As results of that assembly we have a new board which is definitive and
will serve two years, that is, till March 2016.
[...]
Wish us good luck in this new stage as chapter as we hope you have the same
in your projects.
During the last strategy plan, we struggled a lot with article quality.
Specifically, we struggled with how to MEASURE article quality... we don't
have a strong metric for it or a tool to do it. AFT actually played with
that a little bit, as well as it's attempt to engage and convert readers
into
Philippe,
The Public Policy Initiative produced strong validation for the Wikipedia
1.0 approach to assessing article quality. Was Amy Roth's research ever
published, and are there any plans to repeat it with a larger sample size
etc.? I'd say we're closer than you think to having a good way to
I wouldn't know, Pete. But as I recall, it was a manual process, wasn't
it? And therefore quite difficult to scale and/or adapt for some usages?
*Philippe Beaudette * \\ Director, Community Advocacy \\ Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc.
T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 | phili...@wikimedia.org | :
If nothing else, the existing community quality rating system (i.e. FA, GA,
etc.) should be used. It may not be perfect at the individual article
level, but it does scale well.
On Mar 26, 2014 6:36 AM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote:
Philippe,
The Public Policy Initiative produced
Handy link for background: https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Quality
(quite old and outdated now, but still good).
*Philippe Beaudette * \\ Director, Community Advocacy \\ Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc.
T: 1-415-839-6885 x6643 | phili...@wikimedia.org | :
On 03/25/2014 07:45 PM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
If nothing else, the existing community quality rating system (i.e. FA, GA,
etc.) should be used.
That idea needs to be tempered with a strong caveat: at least for
enwiki, those processes tend to be highly politized as they are already.
Hi Sue,
Since you announced your departure, to whom have you
delegated the responsibility of insuring that Foundation
advocacy is aligned with the interests of Foundation volunteers,
if anyone?
Do you support statistical sampling using a method such as at
http://www.allourideas.org/wmfcsdraft
to
Hello all!
Subject is not 100% related to Wikimedia, but definitely important for the
future of projects like ours.
Marco civil da Internet (the Brazilian internet civil rights bill) has just
been approved by the Brazilian
Excellent! \o/
A.
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Oona Castro oonacas...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello all!
Subject is not 100% related to Wikimedia, but definitely important for the
future of projects like ours.
Marco civil da Internet (the Brazilian internet civil rights bill) has just
Anders Wennersten wrote:
The discussion on the proposed amendment is now closed [1) and it is up
to the Board will review the community comments. And with almost 5,000
edits in the discussion - with more than 2,000 editors and 320,000 words
in various languages and with very different opinions on
Which of the two contradictory colorings on
http://infodisiac.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/UniqueActiveEditorsOnSmallProjects-Decline.png
is correct?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
See the graphs for 5+ editors here:
http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikibooks/EN/ChartsWikipediaZZ.htm
http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikiquote/EN/ChartsWikipediaZZ.htm
http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikinews/EN/ChartsWikipediaZZ.htm
It is wikinews that has been loosing contributors since mid 2008, and
new
James, you are confusing everyone.
The WMF does not currently engage in advocacy of that form, except in
support of strong support for a particular position by the community.
If you want to see that change, please discuss it with community
groups or the board, not WMF staff. You are welcome to
Yaho!
On Mar 25, 2014, at 7:11 PM, Oona Castro oonacas...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello all!
Subject is not 100% related to Wikimedia, but definitely important for the
future of projects like ours.
Marco civil da Internet (the Brazilian internet civil rights bill) has just
been approved
21 matches
Mail list logo
