Re: [Wikimedia-l] evaluation of electronics articles
I know you are all assuming while reading this thread that the situation is much better in humanities subjects such as biographies of 17th-century artists, but strangely, you could say that it's about the same, because the emphasis (through the centuries) there is often based on opinions formed through study of the largest collectors with published catalogs. I agree with Anders: one of the most important focuses on our editorial work is in getting a complete covering in as many subjects as possible, so let's develop (semi) automatic generation of articles from official databases. If you deliver a Wikipedia page to a google search that is as *specific* as possible, then the people who have the grains of knowledge you need are more likely to become editors and contribute to them. 2013/5/29, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com: ...and engineering (theory ok to good, practical often very weak). And varies across fields radically... On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ruwrote: On 28.05.2013 19:40, phoebe ayers wrote: I ran across this paragraph in the preface to O'Reilly's new book Encyclopedia of Electronic Components. [1] I'm not sure that I've ever seen an evaluation of Wikipedia's electronics coverage before, but to me this sounds like a pretty good description of a lot of our engineering articles (at least in English)... Wikipedia’s coverage of electronics is impressive but inconsistent. Some entries are elementary, while others are extremely technical. Some are shallow, while others are deep. Some are well organized, while others run off into obscure topics that may have interested one of the contributors but are of little practical value to most readers. Many topics are distributed over multiple entries, forcing you to hunt through several URLs. Overall, Wikipedia tends to be good if you want theory, but not-so-good if you want hands-on practicality. -- phoebe 1. http://shop.oreilly.com/**product/0636920026105.dohttp://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920026105.do Very accurate description of the state of articles at least in natural and technical sciences in the English Wikipedia. Cheers Yaroslav __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gmail.com ___ 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] Hacking Brussels: 1st EU Policy Monitoring Report (May)
Hello, everybody! Sorry for crossposting if you are on advocacy-advisors (if you aren't, join the party!), but we'd like to encourage comments or questions on this on a wider scale, so I believe it makes good sense if we also post it here the first few times. Dimi The portal for this group is: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_Policy * * *tl;dr* The first monitoring report on EU Policy strives to give a brief overview over current legislative debates in Brussels that might be of interest to the Wikimedia movement. We have five topics: 1. Collective Rights Management and Online Use 2. EU-US Trade Agreement 3. Stakeholder Dialogue on Copyright 4. EU Data Protection 5. Network Neutrality *#CRM* *Collective Rights Management and Online Use of Music Works * *What’s going on?* The European Commission’s directive proposal *on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online uses in the internal market *[1]* *has entered the next stage of the legislative process by being submitted to the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. The reform aims to tweak the current legislation by making collecting societies more transparent and ensuring cross-border compatibility of licenses on the internal market, especially when it comes to online use of works. *Why should we care?* The directive intends, although vaguely, to introduce non-commercial uses (read: Creative Commons licenses) as an option for creators in the collective management system. As the Commission proposal is anything but clear on this, there is currently a push and pull within the Parliament as to how far this should go. Industry proponents argue for a “minimum harmonisation approach”, which means that no exact measures will be specified. At the same time, the Parliament’s Culture Committee says that authors should be given the right to remove some of their works from the collective management system and publish them under a free license. Currently collecting societies in the EU don’t allow their clients to make parts of their work generally available (e.g. One song of an album to be released under a CC license). In Germany, there is simultaneously a strong effort to build up a non-exclusive collecting society.[2] *Game plan?* The first reading in the Parliament is forecasted for the 19.11.2013. The four non-leading committees have already published their draft opinions. Until then the lead committee (Legal Affairs - Rapporteur Marielle Gallo, EPP) will publish its report and amendment proposals can still be tabled. There is also a mandatory consultation with the Economic and Social Committee. - - *#IPRTTIP* *Intellectual Property Regulation in EU-US Trade Agreement* *What’s going on?* Both the EU and the US have expressed their intent to include an IPR chapter in TTIP, though its final scope will be subject of negotiations. *Why should we care?* Remember ACTA? We cannot be generally for or against this motion yet, since the content is not even discussed yet. We do however, as many other stakeholders, have an interest that the negotiations are public and transparent so that “surprise packages” (such as a more rigorous liability regime for providers) can be avoided. *Game plan?* Some MEPs are currently organising dialogues and meetings to hear about the fears and hopes of the stakeholders. Generally speaking, an involvement of the Parliament in the negotiations would make the process more predictable. Currently a group of digital rights organisations are trying to motivate DG Trade to release the texts, an effort not met warmly within the Commission (and the Parliament Committee on Trade for that matter). A vote on this treaty could happen well before the EP elections in 2014. - - *#Licenses4Europe* *Stakeholder Dialogue on Copyright Reform* *What’s going on?* The European Commission has launched a stakeholder dialogue in four working groups with the intention to discuss current licensing issues and come up with a reform proposal. *Why should we care?* - Although this does not seem to be turning out as the major copyright reform originally claimed, its general intention to address “user-generated content” should make us alert and calls for keeping an eye on the whole process. - After some early signals from the Commission that new Fair Use exceptions be introduced, there has been silence on this issue as none of the current participants want or can bring it up. - Another possibility is that cross-border compatibility of licenses is addressed, which could improve or worsen some of the issues with our content across Europe. - Simultaneously there might be a move towards stronger copyright enforcement and more restrictive use of content online *Game plan?* The working groups will conduct regular meeting
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Hacking Brussels: 1st EU Policy Monitoring Report (May)
Why does this thread start with Hacking Brussels instead of Keep Wikipedia free to read and re-use for all IPs in EU countries? Also you might want to link out to a page explaining zero access, because that sounds like no access 2013/5/29, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov dimitar.parvanov.dimit...@gmail.com: Hello, everybody! Sorry for crossposting if you are on advocacy-advisors (if you aren't, join the party!), but we'd like to encourage comments or questions on this on a wider scale, so I believe it makes good sense if we also post it here the first few times. Dimi The portal for this group is: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_Policy * * *tl;dr* The first monitoring report on EU Policy strives to give a brief overview over current legislative debates in Brussels that might be of interest to the Wikimedia movement. We have five topics: 1. Collective Rights Management and Online Use 2. EU-US Trade Agreement 3. Stakeholder Dialogue on Copyright 4. EU Data Protection 5. Network Neutrality *#CRM* *Collective Rights Management and Online Use of Music Works * *What’s going on?* The European Commission’s directive proposal *on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online uses in the internal market *[1]* *has entered the next stage of the legislative process by being submitted to the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. The reform aims to tweak the current legislation by making collecting societies more transparent and ensuring cross-border compatibility of licenses on the internal market, especially when it comes to online use of works. *Why should we care?* The directive intends, although vaguely, to introduce non-commercial uses (read: Creative Commons licenses) as an option for creators in the collective management system. As the Commission proposal is anything but clear on this, there is currently a push and pull within the Parliament as to how far this should go. Industry proponents argue for a “minimum harmonisation approach”, which means that no exact measures will be specified. At the same time, the Parliament’s Culture Committee says that authors should be given the right to remove some of their works from the collective management system and publish them under a free license. Currently collecting societies in the EU don’t allow their clients to make parts of their work generally available (e.g. One song of an album to be released under a CC license). In Germany, there is simultaneously a strong effort to build up a non-exclusive collecting society.[2] *Game plan?* The first reading in the Parliament is forecasted for the 19.11.2013. The four non-leading committees have already published their draft opinions. Until then the lead committee (Legal Affairs - Rapporteur Marielle Gallo, EPP) will publish its report and amendment proposals can still be tabled. There is also a mandatory consultation with the Economic and Social Committee. - - *#IPRTTIP* *Intellectual Property Regulation in EU-US Trade Agreement* *What’s going on?* Both the EU and the US have expressed their intent to include an IPR chapter in TTIP, though its final scope will be subject of negotiations. *Why should we care?* Remember ACTA? We cannot be generally for or against this motion yet, since the content is not even discussed yet. We do however, as many other stakeholders, have an interest that the negotiations are public and transparent so that “surprise packages” (such as a more rigorous liability regime for providers) can be avoided. *Game plan?* Some MEPs are currently organising dialogues and meetings to hear about the fears and hopes of the stakeholders. Generally speaking, an involvement of the Parliament in the negotiations would make the process more predictable. Currently a group of digital rights organisations are trying to motivate DG Trade to release the texts, an effort not met warmly within the Commission (and the Parliament Committee on Trade for that matter). A vote on this treaty could happen well before the EP elections in 2014. - - *#Licenses4Europe* *Stakeholder Dialogue on Copyright Reform* *What’s going on?* The European Commission has launched a stakeholder dialogue in four working groups with the intention to discuss current licensing issues and come up with a reform proposal. *Why should we care?* - Although this does not seem to be turning out as the major copyright reform originally claimed, its general intention to address “user-generated content” should make us alert and calls for keeping an eye on the whole process. - After some early signals from the Commission that new Fair Use exceptions be introduced, there has been silence on this issue as none of the current
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Hacking Brussels: 1st EU Policy Monitoring Report (May)
Hi Jane, Fair points! It says Hacking Brussels, because that will be the title of the presentation in Hong Kong [1] and I wanted to brand it a little already. I realise now that it is out-of-context and misleading and I should have just left it at the Monitoring Report part as to not confuse people. I assumed zero access is already a well known term with products like Wikipedia Zero and 0.facebook.com being available on many markets for years now. But I realise that some people might find it unclear. I will make sure to insert more links in the future to avoid such situations. As for zero access, the definition is free of charge to people who have no internet subscription. Dimi EU Policy portal: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_Policy [1] https://wikimania2013.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/A_Roadmap_to_Brussels:_How_to_monitor_legislative_procedures_the_wiki_way 2013/5/29 Jane Darnell jane...@gmail.com Why does this thread start with Hacking Brussels instead of Keep Wikipedia free to read and re-use for all IPs in EU countries? Also you might want to link out to a page explaining zero access, because that sounds like no access 2013/5/29, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov dimitar.parvanov.dimit...@gmail.com : Hello, everybody! Sorry for crossposting if you are on advocacy-advisors (if you aren't, join the party!), but we'd like to encourage comments or questions on this on a wider scale, so I believe it makes good sense if we also post it here the first few times. Dimi The portal for this group is: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/EU_Policy * * *tl;dr* The first monitoring report on EU Policy strives to give a brief overview over current legislative debates in Brussels that might be of interest to the Wikimedia movement. We have five topics: 1. Collective Rights Management and Online Use 2. EU-US Trade Agreement 3. Stakeholder Dialogue on Copyright 4. EU Data Protection 5. Network Neutrality *#CRM* *Collective Rights Management and Online Use of Music Works * *What’s going on?* The European Commission’s directive proposal *on collective management of copyright and related rights and multi-territorial licensing of rights in musical works for online uses in the internal market *[1]* *has entered the next stage of the legislative process by being submitted to the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. The reform aims to tweak the current legislation by making collecting societies more transparent and ensuring cross-border compatibility of licenses on the internal market, especially when it comes to online use of works. *Why should we care?* The directive intends, although vaguely, to introduce non-commercial uses (read: Creative Commons licenses) as an option for creators in the collective management system. As the Commission proposal is anything but clear on this, there is currently a push and pull within the Parliament as to how far this should go. Industry proponents argue for a “minimum harmonisation approach”, which means that no exact measures will be specified. At the same time, the Parliament’s Culture Committee says that authors should be given the right to remove some of their works from the collective management system and publish them under a free license. Currently collecting societies in the EU don’t allow their clients to make parts of their work generally available (e.g. One song of an album to be released under a CC license). In Germany, there is simultaneously a strong effort to build up a non-exclusive collecting society.[2] *Game plan?* The first reading in the Parliament is forecasted for the 19.11.2013. The four non-leading committees have already published their draft opinions. Until then the lead committee (Legal Affairs - Rapporteur Marielle Gallo, EPP) will publish its report and amendment proposals can still be tabled. There is also a mandatory consultation with the Economic and Social Committee. - - *#IPRTTIP* *Intellectual Property Regulation in EU-US Trade Agreement* *What’s going on?* Both the EU and the US have expressed their intent to include an IPR chapter in TTIP, though its final scope will be subject of negotiations. *Why should we care?* Remember ACTA? We cannot be generally for or against this motion yet, since the content is not even discussed yet. We do however, as many other stakeholders, have an interest that the negotiations are public and transparent so that “surprise packages” (such as a more rigorous liability regime for providers) can be avoided. *Game plan?* Some MEPs are currently organising dialogues and meetings to hear about the fears and hopes of the stakeholders. Generally speaking, an involvement of the Parliament in the negotiations would make the
[Wikimedia-l] Protecting the Encylopedia vs Destroying a human
Hello, First of all I was asked to take a look at the following case. I found it very strange how people behave against other people and I would like to write about it and ask opinions. I'm sure this is not only for this user but there are more users like this. I understand that its needed for people to block users when the encyclopedia or the project is in danger, but where do will place the border? I think destroying people or behaving against people like I will describe below is also endangering the project. We should all remember that we are humans and not robots and everybody makes mistakes. Therefor I am sure that there was behavior that was totally wrong, but the way the whole international community decided to handle it was wrong also. First of all we have a policy against socks. In that policy we describe that its not right to edit with two accounts at the same time or working together with 2 accounts to get something done. Secondly its not right to use new accounts to evade blocks. Lastly bot accounts are not seen as socks neither are old and unused accounts. Besides that we have a policy in place that says that people are free to leave the project or abandon a username and continue with a new name. This I guess is for protecting the project and protecting the people that work on it. Now to get to my case. On 3 July on Meta a attack started against a former Dutch Wikipedia user. This attack was mainly started by people of the Dutch Wikipedia. The same people that are willing to destroy this user. (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Abigor) now before you all click away this message hear me out and give me opinions. This is now almost two years ago and a good moment to look back. If I am wrong please point me to that and lets keep a good talk instead of going all don't waste our time. In this case there was a big list of names that where socks and this sockmaster needed to be blocked. But when we look at our policies and on that list we see the following: Abigor (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) - thats meAbiBot (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) No sock its a bot, only did bot editsAbiBot.nl.wiki (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) No sock its a bot, only did bot editsAbibot (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) (renamed to AbiBot[2], self acknowledged)Huib (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) Created on request by meta communety en en.wiki communety, because I sign with Huib while I'm abigor... Its points to my abigor account and its created to protect my own account. Execpt for the rename edits, it didn't edit at all.Huib (old) (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) Did a rename request to get Huib free..Sterkebak (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) old account... on my userpage is a note that I used to use that oneSterkeBak (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) old account... on my userpage is a note that I used to use that oneSterkebot (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) No sock its a bot, only did bot editsSterkeBot (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) (renamed from Sterkebot[3][4] and later renamed to AbiBot[5][6])P.J.L Laurens (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) - Its a account created for my uploads, it has a different userpage on Commons with information about me as photographer. Didn't do any edits just created for the userpage and information. All my uploads are pointed to this one with a link.WikiLinkBot (talk • contribs • block • SULinfo • x-wiki • CA) No sock its a bot. Only editted on nl.wiki to let its userpage be removed, the dutch admins didn't want to remove the page.This list is ctrl C Ctrl V from Meta. Now go to the policy: Abigor is the account of the user. Than we have AbiBot, AbiBot.nl.Wiki and Abibot sterkebot SterkeBot as bot accounts. According to the policy accounts used by a bot without human edits are not socks. Huib and Huib (old) Sterkbak SterkeBak P.J.L Laurens. All those names are old accounts without overlapping edits so according to the policy its not socking. Some accounts doesn't have edits at all but where only there to redirect. WikiLinkBot is intresting cause its now in use by a other user. This user is also the source for the blocking on the Dutch Wikipedia. Abigor would have placed personal attacks against this user and now the user is having that accounts. Very intresting don't you think. Then we get a bunch of accounts: Accounts with only a few edits and no CU results where linked to this users. I strongly believe that we should have proof before pointing something out and say hey it was you. But the account where I want to speak about is Delay. We have the policy that says that you can start right over with a new account. But still a Foundation employee confirms a link between the Delay Account and the Abigor account
[Wikimedia-l] FDC IRC office hours on the LOI in three minutes!
Good morning or afternoon, wherever this finds you, Apologies for the acronym overuse in the subject line. :) This is a reminder that our second IRC office hour focused on the letter of intent as part of the Funds Dissemination Committee process is starting in three minutes! We look forward to seeing you on #wikimedia-office. Katy On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Katy Love kl...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi everyone, As announced earlier, the FDC support team is holding office hours on #wikimedia-office to speak about questions on the Letter of Intent process in a few minutes and again at 15:00 UTC (Wednesday May 29). * Wendesday, May 29 at 0:00 UTC * Wednesday, May 29 at 15:00 UTC We look forward to speaking to you! Katy -- Forwarded message -- From: Katy Love kl...@wikimedia.org Date: Thu, May 16, 2013 at 2:45 PM Subject: FDC Letter of Intent due June 8 IRC office hours To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Dear members of the Wikimedia community, You will have seen an email recently from Patricio Lorente and Jan-Bart de Vreede, the Board Reps to the Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC), about the FDC's new Letter of Intent process. The Letter of Intent (LOI) is the first step in applying for funds from the FDC, as outlined in the FDC Framework. [1] This upcoming year (2013-2014) will be the first time we institute the LOI process. As you heard from them, we anticipate the LOI will be a helpful planning tool for the FDC as well as offering us a chance to begin working with entities in advance of the FDC proposal deadline. We hope it will allow us to work closely with applying entities and to address questions and concerns (and clear up any misunderstandings) significantly before the proposal deadline. Interested entities must submit an Letter of Intent in order to apply for FDC funding. For Round 1 of 2013-2014, the LOI is due on June 8. The LOI asks potential FDC applicants to state their intentions to apply and to include a notional dollar figure (or local currency figure). The Letter of Intent can be created on the FDC portal [2], and a sample is here for your reference [3]. The LOI is non-binding, but it is required in order to be able to submit a proposal for Round 1. In anticipation of the LOI's June 8 deadline, the FDC staff is holding office hours twice to respond to questions. We welcome entities considering applying for Round 1 funding to join us. Our two office hours will be held on #wikimedia-office on: * Wednesday, May 29 at 0:00 UTC * Wednesday, May 29 at 15:00 UTC These two sessions will have the following agenda: 1. Introductions 2. Brief explanation of the FDC 3. Explanation of the purpose of the Letter of Intent and general FDC proposal process 4. QA on the LOI And finally, for your reference, here is the 2013-2014 Round 1 proposal process [4] schedule: - *Letter of Intent deadline for Round 1: 8 June 2013* - Deadline for WMF Staff to post eligibility: 15 July 2013 - Deadline for entities to meet eligibility requirements: 15 September 2013 - Proposal submission deadline: 1 October 2013 - Community review period: 1 October - 31 October 2013 - Staff assessment deadline: 8 November 2013 - FDC recommendation due: 1 December 2013 - Board decision due: 1 January 2014 As always, contact us questions or requests for support: fdcsupp...@wikimedia.org. Warm regards, Katy and the FDC support team [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/Framework_for_the_Creation_and_Initial_Operation_of_the_FDC#Process_overview [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Sample_letter_of_intent [4] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposal_process ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [WikimediaMobile] Wikipedia Zero in Google search result
I don't know if there's a general bug report about canonical URLs co. indexing, but there's one about Google messing up with 301/302 redirects which is spreading quite a bit lately. Erik wrote them to no avail some time ago. https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26115 Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [WikimediaMobile] Wikipedia Zero in Google search result
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 8:10 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: I don't know if there's a general bug report about canonical URLs co. indexing, but there's one about Google messing up with 301/302 redirects which is spreading quite a bit lately. Erik wrote them to no avail some time ago. https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26115 Actually none of the examples in the bug still return the reported results for me. Erik -- Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimania-l] Proposed prohibition of local uploads and deletion of non-free-licence working documents of Wikimedia events
Crossed to Wikimedia-l, see Deryck's e-mail below. On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Deryck Chan deryckc...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Wikimania community, There are currently two discussions on Meta which will have a fundamental impact on the technical logistics of all future Wikimania bids. As many of you would know, working documents of Wikimania bids, such as letters of support and venue information, are conventionally uploaded to Meta locally because they don't come with a Commons-compatible free licence. However, currently there's no explicit exemption doctrine policy on Meta, so two discussions are ongoing, with the aim of deleting all Wikimania-related non-free files which have been uploaded in the past years[1], and to ban future uploads of non-free media to Meta including Wikimedia events' working documents[2]. [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Requests_for_deletion#All_files_in_Category:Unfree_Wikimania_bid_media_files [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Babel#Restrict_or_abolish_local_file_uploading_to_Meta-Wiki Since this would mean future Wikimania bids may not include copies of third-party working documents on Meta, these proposals will change the logistics of Wikimania bids completely. I therefore urge all of you to scrutinise the proposed changes and comment as appropriate. Deryck WM2013 local team PS. To those of you who also run chapters: the proposed changes will mean that chapter financial statements may not be uploaded to / will be deleted from WMF-hosted wikis since they're have an implicit no-derivative requirement. ___ Wikimania-l mailing list wikimani...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] New designs for account creation and login rolling out gradually to all projects
Hi Steven, Just wanted to tell you (because I haven't run into you to say it, and because people here may be interested) that last Saturday I helped some new people at the San Francisco editathon register on the enWP, and the new registration process was much easier for them than it was the last time I helped people register, pre-this system. And, the Getting Started stuff is great: the people I helped all immediately went to the typo-fixing queue, and seemed to find it reasonably understandable and easy to use. I know you know this from the testing data: now you know it from anecdata too :-) Thanks, Sue On May 28, 2013 8:05 PM, Steven Walling swall...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi everyone, Per our blog post last month,[1] we've been testing redesigns for account creation and login across the projects. We've been doing so on an opt-in basis, but we've dealt with any major bugs and translations are complete for quite a few languages. Starting tomorrow and barring any last minute hiccups, we're going to start rolling out the new designs. Right now we're limiting it to about 30 projects, including the following... - Wikipedia in 21 languages, including English, German, French, Italian, Polish, Dutch, Chinese, Hebrew, Arabic, Korean, Czech, Swedish, and others. - In English: Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikispecies, Wikinews, Wiktionary, and Wikiquote. - Wikimedia Commons - Wikidata - Meta - MediaWiki .org There are still local customizations that will need to be made in many of these, but they are the kind of thing that doesn't require a developer to do, just edits to the wiki. Look for announcements soon on your local Village Pump equivalent for more info, or check out our testing documentation.[2] I'll be around to help any of these wikis that don't have an admin handy to make requested changes. The remaining projects we have held off on because there are localizations still to be completed (on translatewiki) or there are problems with localizations already finished. Since the work of localizations is never 100% complete however, we are putting out a hard *deadline of June 5th*, after which we'll be turning on the forms for all projects, in all languages. If you're interested in learning more about which wikis in particular need help, please email me off-list or get in touch via my user talk page anywhere. Please speak up if you have any questions. You can still try these new forms on any Wikimedia project via the method mentioned in the two links below... 1. http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/04/25/try-new-login-accountcreation/ 2. mediawiki.org/wiki/Account_creation_user_experience/Testing -- Steven Walling https://wikimediafoundation.org/ P.S. Sorry if there are odd linebreaks in this message. Has anyone figured out how to avoid this in Gmail? ___ 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] Protecting the Encylopedia vs Destroying a human
Martijn, I think the main source of the problems here is that we have a users that wants to share the knowledge, share his edits and got locked out and will start doing or trying things so he can edit again. This can be strange behavior. Sure, people will not like it.I am sure that every user can use his temper and doing personal attacks. A personal attack is easy to do, hard to forgot and even harder to forgive. But then there is a discussion between two people from two sides.Copyright violations ARE a problem. But I didn't see any violations in the logs. If there are I strongly believe he should be blocked. Copyright violations can lead to legal costs and people don't donate for that. But again, I don't see logs about that.He is now blocked on the Dutch Wikipedia for what? 4 years? In between he has been a administrator on many projects and a good member of them. So I don't believe that he is unfit to work on a project. People voted him to be administrator, or doing work for the movement by handling mailing-list and blogs. So the question here is why can he work on projects for years without problems and got unfit for the WHOLE community on request by one or two projects. We got 700 projects? Ed ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Protecting the Encylopedia vs Destroying a human
[I am purposefully leaving out the previous content.] There are times and spaces where the most honourable of people fail to get along, and while it is unfortunate and/or as inconvenient as it may be, it is what it is. There are some communities where people are unable to or fail to identify boundaries, and/or fail to be able act within the boundaries expected by a community. That is not to judge either set of parties, it is just about incompatibilities, and separation is a well-founded means of risk management, especially from a little corner of the world that is wiki-editing. Sometimes with separation, and growth and development of the community and the individual, there is the ability for a future reconciliation. Being right is not necessarily helpful, and vice versa. Mailing to such public forum as you did may help you to understand something, however, I am not sure that it is particularly helpful. It is clear that you don't have an understanding of the matter in its history or its context, and rather than learning by the old-fashioned means of trawling through the data, and reflection, jumping up in the centre of a publicly archived, and widely distributed forum shows a level of naivety, and simplicity in the approach. There are simply some acts that should not be undertaken while standing up in front of a group of people. ... or there is the old saying of let sleeping dogs, lie Regards, Billinghurst ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] New designs for account creation and login rolling out gradually to all projects
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Steven Walling swall...@wikimedia.orgwrote: - Wikipedia in 21 languages, including English, German, French, Italian, Polish, Dutch, Chinese, Hebrew, Arabic, Korean, Czech, Swedish, and others. - In English: Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikispecies, Wikinews, Wiktionary, and Wikiquote. - Wikimedia Commons - Wikidata - Meta - MediaWiki .org Just a quick update: we enabled for most of these wikis this afternoon. Sue: thanks for the kind words. I'm glad the combination of the redesign and Getting Started worked out for the editathon! ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Protecting the Encylopedia vs Destroying a human
billinghurst wrote: ... or there is the old saying of let sleeping dogs, lie Heh, you seem to be in Eats, Shoots Leaves territory here. MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] Simple English hits 100k this week
And...urm...I wrote the article that hit 100k. That's not the point, but, just felt the need to preface... http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Announcements#May_29.2C_2013 Simple English is a Wikipedia that is for children and adults learning how to speak English. :) #justsayin Sarah -- *Sarah Stierch* */Museumist and open culture advocate/* Visit sarahstierch.com http://sarahstierch.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
