Re: [Wikimedia-l] Featuring the edit tab in Vector (by making it red)

2013-01-10 Thread Jérémie Roquet
Hi everyone,

2013/1/9 Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il:
 I believe that Polish and French had special designs for it in the
 past, but they appear to be regular now.

On the French Wikipedia, It has been bold, white on blue, then green,
then we removed everything in 2009¹.

 How effective was it? I don't know.

That's the whole problem, we didn't know either: if it had any impact,
it wasn't obvious. What was sure, however, is that is wasn't pretty :)

Best regards,

¹ 
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Sondage/Retrait_de_la_couleur_du_bouton_%C2%AB_Modifier_%C2%BB

-- 
Jérémie

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: Big data benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

2013-01-10 Thread Andreas Kolbe
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.comwrote:

 David Gerard, 09/01/2013 00:32:

  On 8 January 2013 23:27, Kim Bruningk...@bruning.xs4all.nl  wrote:

  I think that the requirements for a wiki (open, welcoming, anyone can
 edit,
 eventualism) are always going to be at tension vs the requirements for an
 encyclopedia (reliable, good sourcing, etc).
 Right now, en.wikipedia rules are more complex and potentially more
 strict than nupedia ever was, and we're running on inertia.



 I understand the decline is similar in other wikis - that this is not
 at all just an en:wp problem.

 How are the numbers for the other Wikipedias? How are the numbers for
 the non-Wikipedias?


 The main pattern, ie a turning point in 2007, is the same in all projects,
 and almost in all language versions of them:
 http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/**PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.**htmhttp://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.htm
 http://stats.wikimedia.org/**wiktionary/EN/**PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.*
 *htmhttp://stats.wikimedia.org/wiktionary/EN/PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.htm
 http://stats.wikimedia.org/**wikiquote/EN/**PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.**
 htmhttp://stats.wikimedia.org/wikiquote/EN/PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.htm
 http://stats.wikimedia.org/**wikisource/EN/**PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.*
 *htmhttp://stats.wikimedia.org/wikisource/EN/PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.htm
 (in order of project size/pageviews; graphs don't include recent data,
 https://bugzilla.wikimedia.**org/42318https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/42318)
 Typically the pattern is the same across all projects in the same
 language. (Almost?) all Russian projects, for instance, are an exception to
 decline.
 This has often made people wonder if the causes are external (Facebook?
 Facebook is also almost non-existing in Russia, right?).

 Nemo




Actually, Nemo, I don't think that is right at all. If you look at the
German, Spanish or French Wikipedia, for example, the German and Spanish
are totally stable, with no decline at all discernible around 2007, while
editor numbers for the French Wikipedia are actually growing:

http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaFR.htm
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaDE.htm
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaES.htm

Summaries and charts for all projects are available here:

http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/Sitemap.htm

These three projects are of a similar age to the English Wikipedia, and
they are definitely not following the same editor retention pattern at all.

I don't know the French and Spanish Wikipedias well, but the German
Wikipedia also generally seems more scholarly than the English one.

Andreas
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: Big data benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

2013-01-10 Thread Richard Symonds
Hi Andreas/Nemo

Which column are you looking at to give you the growth numbers on those
projects?

Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*


On 10 January 2013 16:24, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com
 wrote:

  David Gerard, 09/01/2013 00:32:
 
   On 8 January 2013 23:27, Kim Bruningk...@bruning.xs4all.nl  wrote:
 
   I think that the requirements for a wiki (open, welcoming, anyone can
  edit,
  eventualism) are always going to be at tension vs the requirements for
 an
  encyclopedia (reliable, good sourcing, etc).
  Right now, en.wikipedia rules are more complex and potentially more
  strict than nupedia ever was, and we're running on inertia.
 
 
 
  I understand the decline is similar in other wikis - that this is not
  at all just an en:wp problem.
 
  How are the numbers for the other Wikipedias? How are the numbers for
  the non-Wikipedias?
 
 
  The main pattern, ie a turning point in 2007, is the same in all
 projects,
  and almost in all language versions of them:
  http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/**PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.**htm
 http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.htm
 
 http://stats.wikimedia.org/**wiktionary/EN/**PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.*
  *htm
 http://stats.wikimedia.org/wiktionary/EN/PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.htm
 
 http://stats.wikimedia.org/**wikiquote/EN/**PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.**
  htm
 http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikiquote/EN/PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.htm
 
 http://stats.wikimedia.org/**wikisource/EN/**PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.*
  *htm
 http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikisource/EN/PlotsPngWikipediansEditsGt5.htm
  (in order of project size/pageviews; graphs don't include recent data,
  https://bugzilla.wikimedia.**org/42318
 https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/42318)
  Typically the pattern is the same across all projects in the same
  language. (Almost?) all Russian projects, for instance, are an exception
 to
  decline.
  This has often made people wonder if the causes are external (Facebook?
  Facebook is also almost non-existing in Russia, right?).
 
  Nemo




 Actually, Nemo, I don't think that is right at all. If you look at the
 German, Spanish or French Wikipedia, for example, the German and Spanish
 are totally stable, with no decline at all discernible around 2007, while
 editor numbers for the French Wikipedia are actually growing:

 http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaFR.htm
 http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaDE.htm
 http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaES.htm

 Summaries and charts for all projects are available here:

 http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/Sitemap.htm

 These three projects are of a similar age to the English Wikipedia, and
 they are definitely not following the same editor retention pattern at all.

 I don't know the French and Spanish Wikipedias well, but the German
 Wikipedia also generally seems more scholarly than the English one.

 Andreas
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: Big data benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

2013-01-10 Thread Andreas Kolbe
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:

 I think that the requirements for a wiki (open, welcoming, anyone can edit,
 eventualism) are always going to be at tension vs the requirements for an
 encyclopedia (reliable, good sourcing, etc).

 Right now, en.wikipedia rules are more complex and potentially more
 strict than nupedia ever was, and we're running on inertia.



Rules may be strict, but in the things that matter they are ineffective.
For the past few days, the media have reported on the Bicholim Conflict
hoax – a Good Article on a war that never happened, and could never have
happened (one of the parties to it, the Maratha Empire, did not even exist
at the time).*

That hoax remained listed as a Good Article for more than five years. The
Good Article reviewing guideline says,

*Ideally, a reviewer will have access to all of the source material, and
sufficient expertise to verify that the article reflects the content of the
sources; this ideal is not often attained.*
*
*
In the wake of the Bicholim conflict story, another contributor was blocked
the other day by George William Herbert, upon review of outstanding claims
of fabrication of sources and quotes. Damaging the integrity of Wikipedia
is not acceptable behavior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive780#False_references_and_BLP_misquotes:_block_user_as_hoaxer.3F

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Legolas2186diff=531375810oldid=531295145

That editor has written or co-written 95 Good Articles, and 7 Featured
Articles, mostly on entertainers like Madonna and Lady Gaga. That included
a Featured Article on Madonna, which was then demoted, with lots of
material removed, after sourcing concerns were raised about the editor's
work. Editors who looked into the concerns say the chap made up sources and
put words into Madonna's mouth, making her say things in Wikipedia which
she had never said, and still getting his articles approved for GA and FA.

The English Wikipedia needs a wake-up call. It offers a playground to
vandals and petty officials, has people arguing interminably about civility
and waffling about the need to assume good faith, while encyclopedic core
skills are lacking, even in what is supposed to be Wikipedia's best work.

Andreas

*For a write-up and links, see
http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/01/09/wikipedias-new-year-begins-with-a-hoax/
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: Big data benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

2013-01-10 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)

Andreas Kolbe, 10/01/2013 17:24:

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:


The main pattern, ie a turning point in 2007, is the same in all projects,
and almost in all language versions of them: [...]


Actually, Nemo, I don't think that is right at all. If you look at the
German, Spanish or French Wikipedia, for example, the German and Spanish
are totally stable, with no decline at all discernible around 2007, while
editor numbers for the French Wikipedia are actually growing:

http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaFR.htm
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaDE.htm
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaES.htm


I said a turning point, i.e. a singularity; mainly, from positive to 
non-positive derivative, whether negative or not. Of course, it's easier 
to see in a graph than in a table.
I don't see French growing: except an outlier in November 2012 for 
active editors, which is not reflected in the very active editors count, 
in the last few months it's at the same level as in January-March 2008, 
4800-5000 active editors.
It's the same in Italian, growth till January-March 2008 and then 
oscillation/stagnation: http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaIT.htm
Anecdotally in WMIT, we've been repeating it.wiki has 500 very active 
editors for a while, and we've stopped updating this figure a long time 
ago. :-)


Of course I'm only playing the stats dilettante here.


Summaries and charts for all projects are available here:

http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/Sitemap.htm

These three projects are of a similar age to the English Wikipedia, and
they are definitely not following the same editor retention pattern at all.


You're using the editor retention term quite incorrectly by the way: 
those tables show only total active editors, old or new, not how many of 
the new editors are still active, nor how many really new editor we had.


Richard Symonds, 10/01/2013 17:37:
 Which column are you looking at to give you the growth numbers on those
 projects?

I think I've replied already. :-)
New editors is not reliable because one edit is enough, number of 
edits or (new) articles have too much bot noise, database size/words is 
often useful but even more often not available for WikiStats performance 
limitations.


Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: Big data benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

2013-01-10 Thread Andreas Kolbe
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Richard Symonds 
richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:

 Hi Andreas/Nemo

 Which column are you looking at to give you the growth numbers on those
 projects?



I am mostly looking at the column for editors making more than 100 edits a
month, as that is where the decline in the English Wikipedia has been most
pronounced, from 4804 in March 2007 to 3137 in November 2012. It's when
core editors leave in droves that you start to worry.

For comparison, the figures for March 2007 and November 2012 for the four
projects I mentioned are:

EN: 4804, 3137
FR: 676, 800
ES: 430, 486
DE: 1093, 1004

Andreas
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: Big data benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

2013-01-10 Thread Yaroslav M. Blanter

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 16:24:12 +, Andreas Kolbe wrote:

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
nemow...@gmail.comwrote:


David Gerard, 09/01/2013 00:32:


This has often made people wonder if the causes are external 
(Facebook?

Facebook is also almost non-existing in Russia, right?).

Nemo





No, incorrect. Facebook exists in Russia and is somehow popular, though 
it is not the most popular social medium.


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: Big data benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

2013-01-10 Thread Andreas Kolbe
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:

 Here are the French charts:
 http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaFR.htm
 Here are the English ones:
 http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htm


I've fixed the link to the English charts: I accidentally gave the French
link twice in my earlier mail. My apologies for the inconvenience.

Andreas
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: Big data benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

2013-01-10 Thread Yann Forget
Hello,

I agree totally with Tim's assessments of the situation, and it is
quite the same on the French WP, and that's why I stopped editing
there.
Some people like power more than anything else (well, that's not
surprising, because it is quite the same IRL), including the growth of
the project.

Happy New Year to all,

Yann

2013/1/4 Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org:
 On 03/01/13 22:46, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
 Editor retention programmes have some data there. Check wp:wer on en.wiki.
 how the data for the other projects match up I don't know.

 Yes, that page describes the problem in detail. But the suggestions
 they offer under how you can help are along the same lines as
 policies that have been in place on Wikipedia since 2002 or earlier.
 It's been tried, it didn't work.

 The problem is, some people want to feel powerful more than they want
 Wikipedia to grow. Or even if they want Wikipedia to grow on a
 cerebral level, exercising power over another user is immediately
 pleasurable, and they don't have sufficient impulse control to stop
 themselves from doing it.

 It should be obvious that what is missing is discipline. An
 arbitration committee with expanded scope, with full-time members
 funded by the WMF (at arm's length for legal reasons), could go a long
 way towards solving the problem. Some users will be reformed when
 their technical power is threatened (be that editing or admin access),
 others will just leave as soon as their reputation is at stake.

 There is risk, because the editor population will probably be reduced
 in the short term, and it's hard to know if it will ever recover. I
 don't know if there is anyone with the power to save Wikipedia who
 also has the required courage.

 -- Tim Starling


 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: Big data benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

2013-01-10 Thread Yaroslav M. Blanter

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 18:59:28 +0100, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:

Yaroslav M. Blanter, 10/01/2013 18:11:

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 16:24:12 +, Andreas Kolbe wrote:

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
nemow...@gmail.comwrote:

No, incorrect. Facebook exists in Russia and is somehow popular, 
though

it is not the most popular social medium.


Thanks for the information! The en.wiki articles are not super-clear
about it.
Are its competitors less able to (allegedly) convert the web
population in a mass of dumbs, or of otherwise draining all their
mental energies? :p

Nemo



In my view, the main competitor, Vkontakte 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vkontakte) is even better in conversion of 
their audience into a mass of dumbs. I do not have an account there 
though, (not that I use my facebook too much).


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: Big data benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

2013-01-10 Thread Yaroslav M. Blanter

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 23:34:46 +0530, Yann Forget wrote:

Hello,

I agree totally with Tim's assessments of the situation, and it is
quite the same on the French WP, and that's why I stopped editing
there.

Happy New Year to all,

Yann



Welcome to the club. I retired from Russian Wikipedia about two years 
ago.


Cheers
Yaroslav

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: Big data benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

2013-01-10 Thread Andreas Kolbe
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.comwrote:

 Andreas Kolbe, 10/01/2013 19:21:

  Open these two pages:
 
  http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/**ChartsWikipediaFR.htmhttp://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaFR.htm
  http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/**ChartsWikipediaEN.htmhttp://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htm
 
  Each has four bar charts with yellow bars. Ignore the top two charts.
 Focus
  on the third and fourth charts with yellow bars.
 
  Random fluctuations aside, the ones for French show a consistent upward
  trend.

 They don't.



Are you willing to concede that they look *markedly* different from the
English ones, and don't show a clear downward trend starting in 2007, as
the English ones do? :))

Andreas
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Wikimedia engineering December 2012 report

2013-01-10 Thread Guillaume Paumier
Hi,

The report covering Wikimedia engineering activities in December 2012 is
now available.

Wiki version:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_engineering_report/2012/December
Blog version:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/01/10/engineering-december-2012-report/

We're also proposing a shorter, simpler and translatable version of this
report that does not assume specialized technical knowledge:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_engineering_report/2012/December/summary

Below is the full HTML text of the report, as previously requested.

As always, feedback is appreciated about the usefulness of the report and
its summary, and on how to improve them.




Major news in December include:

   - The launch of an alpha, opt-in version of the
VisualEditorhttps://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/12/12/try-out-the-alpha-version-of-the-visualeditor/to
the English Wikipedia, a project more
   complex than it
appearshttps://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/12/07/inventing-as-we-go-building-a-visual-editor-for-mediawiki/
   ;
   - A research
studyhttps://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/12/20/article-feedback-new-research-and-next-steps/on
the use of the Article Feedback feature;
   - New metrics for the MediaWiki
communityhttps://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/12/10/introducing-mediawiki-community-metrics/
   ;
   - The start of the Outreach Program for
Womenhttps://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/12/11/welcome-to-floss-outreach-program-for-women-interns/
   ;
   - Continued work to improve the
workflowhttps://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/12/12/translation-interface-makeover-in-progress/and
   
interfacehttps://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/12/31/translation-editor-growing-snazzier/for
translators.

*Note: We're also proposing a shorter, simpler and translatable version of
this 
reporthttps://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_engineering_report/2012/December/summarythat
does not assume specialized technical knowledge.
*
Personnel Work with us https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Work_with_us

Are you looking to work for Wikimedia? We have a lot of hiring coming up,
and we really love talking to active community members about these roles.

   - Software Engineer - Visual
Editorhttp://hire.jobvite.com/Jobvite/Job.aspx?j=otYPWfwW
   - Software Engineer - Editor
Engagementhttp://hire.jobvite.com/Jobvite/Job.aspx?j=ovvXWfwD
   - Software Engineer
(Partners)http://hire.jobvite.com/Jobvite/Job.aspx?j=oX2hWfwW
   - Software Engineer
(Apps)http://hire.jobvite.com/Jobvite/Job.aspx?j=oqU0Wfw0
   - Software Developer General
(Mobile)http://hire.jobvite.com/Jobvite/Job.aspx?j=o4cKWfwG
   - Git and Gerrit software development
(Contract)http://hire.jobvite.com/Jobvite/Job.aspx?j=o4gIWfwI
   - Release Manager http://hire.jobvite.com/Jobvite/Job.aspx?j=oZrQWfwW
   - Software Engineer -
Multimediahttp://hire.jobvite.com/Jobvite/Job.aspx?j=oj40Wfw3
   - Software Engineer
(Search)http://hire.jobvite.com/Jobvite/Job.aspx?j=ogk1Wfwh
   - Product Manager
(Mobile)http://hire.jobvite.com/Jobvite/Job.aspx?j=oGWJWfw1
   - Director of User
Experiencehttp://hire.jobvite.com/Jobvite/Job.aspx?j=otv0WfwE
   - Visual Designer http://hire.jobvite.com/Jobvite/Job.aspx?j=oomJWfw9
   - Operations Engineerhttp://hire.jobvite.com/Jobvite/Job.aspx?j=ocLCWfwf
   - Operations Engineer/Database
Administratorhttp://hire.jobvite.com/Jobvite/Job.aspx?j=obMOWfwr
   - Site Reliability
Engineerhttp://hire.jobvite.com/Jobvite/Job.aspx?j=o7k2Wfw9

 Announcements

   - Matthew Flaschen joined the Wikimedia Features
engineeringhttps://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Features_engineeringteam
as Features Engineer (
   
announcementhttp://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2012-December/064916.html
   ).
   - Mike Wang joined the Operations team as part time Labs Ops Engineer
   (consultant)
(announcementhttp://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2012-December/064768.html
   ).

 Technical Operations

*Production Site
Switchoverhttp://wikitech.wikimedia.org/view/Eqiad_Migration_Planning
*
The Technical Operations team continued to work on completing the
outstanding migration tasks, and to ready our Ashburn infrastructure for
the big switchover day, i.e., the complete transition from the Tampa
datacenter to the one in Ashburn, on the week of January 22, 2013.In the
past few months, we've transitioned services from the Tampa datacenter to
the one in Ashburn, which now serves most of our traffic (about 90%).
However, application (MediaWiki), memcached and database systems are all
still running exclusively out of Tampa. We have been working to upgrade the
technologies and set up those systems at Ashburn, and we plan to perform
the switchover of those services from Tampa to Ashburn in the coming weeks.
This will provide us some assurance of a hot standby datacenter, should we
encounter an irrecoverable and lengthy outage in one of the main
datacenters.

*Site Infrastructure*
Because December is when the annual Wikimedia fundraiser 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Featuring the edit tab in Vector (by making it red)

2013-01-10 Thread Mono
On vi.wikipedai.org the non mainspaces are green - maybe just a tab like
that?



On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:07 AM, Jérémie Roquet arkano...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi everyone,

 2013/1/9 Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il:
  I believe that Polish and French had special designs for it in the
  past, but they appear to be regular now.

 On the French Wikipedia, It has been bold, white on blue, then green,
 then we removed everything in 2009¹.

  How effective was it? I don't know.

 That's the whole problem, we didn't know either: if it had any impact,
 it wasn't obvious. What was sure, however, is that is wasn't pretty :)

 Best regards,

 ¹
 https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Sondage/Retrait_de_la_couleur_du_bouton_%C2%AB_Modifier_%C2%BB

 --
 Jérémie

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Featuring the edit tab in Vector (by making it red)

2013-01-10 Thread Bence Damokos
The correct link is vi.wikipedia.org

This vi.wikipedAI.org domain should be checked out by Legal at WMF,
though...

Best regards,
Bence


On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 9:51 PM, Mono monom...@gmail.com wrote:

 On vi.wikipedai.org the non mainspaces are green - maybe just a tab like
 that?



 On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 8:07 AM, Jérémie Roquet arkano...@gmail.com
 wrote:

  Hi everyone,
 
  2013/1/9 Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il:
   I believe that Polish and French had special designs for it in the
   past, but they appear to be regular now.
 
  On the French Wikipedia, It has been bold, white on blue, then green,
  then we removed everything in 2009¹.
 
   How effective was it? I don't know.
 
  That's the whole problem, we didn't know either: if it had any impact,
  it wasn't obvious. What was sure, however, is that is wasn't pretty :)
 
  Best regards,
 
  ¹
 
 https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Sondage/Retrait_de_la_couleur_du_bouton_%C2%AB_Modifier_%C2%BB
 
  --
  Jérémie
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation's non-disclosure agreement

2013-01-10 Thread MZMcBride
Salvidrim wrote:
This is the Wikimedia UK version:
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non_Disclosure_Agreement

Also relevant may be this discussion:
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Water_cooler/2012#Comparison_of_UK_NDA_with_W
MF_NDA

Thanks for the links. :-)  I started an index page at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-disclosure_agreements.

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l