Ruslan Takayev wrote:
> Wikiwand states: "Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license"
> WMF projects are available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license.
> Correct me if I am wrong, but these licenses are not interchangeable and
> therefore the entire Wikiwand site is
From what I understand we are moving to the CC BY-SA 4.0 license ourselves
eventually.
I have been in discussions with the World Health Organization for the last
few years about them licensing more stuff under a CC BY SA license.
The original road block was that the 3.0 license tied them to a
Wikiwand states: "Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license"
WMF projects are available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license.
Correct me if I am wrong, but these licenses are not interchangeable and
therefore the entire Wikiwand site is a copyright violation?
Warm regards,
Ruslan Takayev
Hey Gerard,
I think you might have missed *my* point? Please note that I was nuancing
something that Adam said that caught my eye. I broadly agree with your
(Gerard's) position.
You say: The notion that "people just want the content no matter how great
of awful
the skin is" is awful.
I agree
GerardM,
I liked the way you said it the first time,
> Readers in turn do not need all the tools of editors but we do want to
convert them to editors. It does not follow that they will be enticed to
become one by all the clutter.
> The objective is therefore to invite them in a less cluttered way
Hoi,
I think you have missed the point badly.
Wikiwand is not about the communities and their pride. It is about what the
Wikimedia Foundation stands for. It is sharing the sum of all knowledge.
When we do a piss poor job and let Wikiwand steal the cake we have our
priorities fatally wrong.
The
On 31 March 2016 at 10:27, Anders Wennersten
wrote:
>
> Besides the interface as such, where several have given, for me,
> interesting feedback, I wonder over the funding banner.
>
> Would not a widespread use of Wikiwand mean that readers no longer get the
> "begging"
To second what others have said, I personally love the idea that a reading
interface should include less editor clutter, until it is requested.
There's a task for this, if anyone would like to help push that
investigation forward:
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T106439
There's also some
Thanks Dan.
Besides the interface as such, where several have given, for me,
interesting feedback, I wonder over the funding banner.
Would not a widespread use of Wikiwand mean that readers no longer get
the "begging" banner. And would that not mean a risk of decreasing funding?
Anders
On 30 March 2016 at 23:39, Anders Wennersten
wrote:
> What is WMFs position on Wikiwand [1]?
>
There is no "official WMF position" on Wikiwand. The Wikimedia Foundation
is quite a diverse collection of individuals with a range of different
opinions. :-)
Personally, I
: Thursday, 31 March 2016 5:08 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiwand
Hoi,
When we recognise that an editor has different needs we should provide editors
with different tools. Readers in turn do not need all the tools of editors but
we do want to convert them to editors
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 7:24 PM, James Heilman wrote:
> There output of our mainpage however is horrible
> http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Main_Page
On my LG L Bello 5.0" mobile phone it is worse than on desktop, with
that large language selection box taking over all of the screen
from sharing media onto Wikimedia Commons and hugely ironic that we have
> the problem ourselves in our own metrics.
>
>
> Jonathan / WereSpielChequers
>
>
>
>
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 08:39:46 +0200
> > From: Anders Wennersten <m...@an
ersten <m...@anderswennersten.se>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiwand
> Message-ID: <56fcc632.2090...@anderswennersten.se>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>
> What i
I am fine with Wikiwand especially with their recent improvements. It is
basically a different skin for our content. Not everyone needs to like the
same style.
The gear at the top gives a bunch of ways you can customize the styling as
well. And it does link to use if people want to edit. As an
While this is true, there has been some improvement on Wikipedia. Desktop
browsers now have the Wikiwand "media gallery" as the Media Viewer, and
Wikivoyage (as a test platform) has the interactive maps.
On mobile, things are even better; most of the Wikiwand mobile features are
also in the
Hoi,
If anything they provide us a service. Anything they can do, we can do
integrated. Anything they can do, we can learn from. Anything they prove
works better is often a discussion the others have lost their firm footing.
We are very much stuck in fixed thinking modes. It is why Wikisource is
What is WMFs position on Wikiwand [1]?
is it a complement or a commercial run interface that is better that we
can offer?
Anders
[1] http://www.wikiwand.com/about
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
18 matches
Mail list logo