Oliver Keyes wrote:
I would disagree that the scale does not match. I'm not sure how many
people the fundraising banners reach, but I imagine it's a subset of
people who use wikipedia. Almost /all/ of our external links are going
to be linking to somewhere with a non-compliant privacy policy.
A few clarifications inline.
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Victor Grigas vgri...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
On the fundraising team we had used banners to host still images (.jpgs) in
the past. We wanted to make a video we could put into banners but in July
2012 there was no open source HTML5
I'd like to hijack this thread a bit to advertise
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:YouTube_files , for cases
when one sees a freely licensed video on YouTube that ought to be on
Commons too. With WebM available both on YouTube (as one of several
download formats, for many videos) and on
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Victor Grigas vgri...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
In my view, this whole argument would provide reason to:
1.) Only use a third party video option sparingly, as-needed until there
are better open-source video options to use.
2.) Put more resources into open source
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
The fundraising team is very careful about making banners that the editors
don't notice. Trying to check how the banners are doing is like playing hide
and seek, and only a true masochist would do so given how
2013/7/16 Jon Robson jdlrob...@gmail.com:
When a user clicks on a link that is a disambiguation page and then
clicks on a link on that page we log an event that contains
* page user was on before
* page user is on now
If we were to collect this data it would allow us to statistically
* Tomasz W. Kozlowski wrote:
it came to my attention very recently that a link to a YouTube video has
been included in our fundraising banners[1] last year, enabling people
by default to watch a video about Wikipedia loaded through a YouTube
iframe / element.
I am told that there are technical
Dear Victor,
Thank you for the great explanation. I myself have often experienced
problems with the videos on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, especially on a
mobile device. So if youtube makes it (realistically) possible that people
can our videos, I am fine with that. You pointed out rightly
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 7:52 AM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net
wrote:
However, as you correctly write, that banner only served those millions of
our viewers a cached image that was uploaded to donate.wm.org (so it was
cached the usual way) and /only/ if they had clicked the play
On Jul 17, 2013, at 6:50 AM, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 7:52 AM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net
wrote:
However, as you correctly write, that banner only served those millions of
our viewers a cached image that was uploaded to donate.wm.org
On 07/13/2013 01:00 AM, John Vandenberg wrote:
The very first entry on prism-break is TOR, which is blocked on
Wikimedia projects for editing, by explicit blocks and by the TorBlock
extension, which is enabled on all wikis, even Chinese Wikipedia.
That'd be easy to solve were it not for the
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net
wrote:
Victor Grigas wrote:
This was because much of the material surrounding the video was
written in English, and there was a lot of it, so translation would
have been slow, expensive and prone to error.
On Jul 17, 2013, at 8:48 AM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net
wrote:
Victor Grigas wrote:
This was because much of the material surrounding the video was
written in English, and there was a lot of it, so translation would
have been slow, expensive and prone to error.
Bence Damokos wrote:
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1714329?hl=en Note that just
active views will be counted and that it won’t include views from videos
set to autoplay.
The video that was included in the banners was not set to autoplay, so I
can hardly see your point.
Victor Grigas wrote:
This was because much of the material surrounding the video was
written in English, and there was a lot of it, so translation would
have been slow, expensive and prone to error.
That's what community translations are perfect for; they are free (in
terms of licence) and
On 17 July 2013 10:06, David Cuenca dacu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org
wrote:
That'd be easy to solve were it not for the fact that - on enwp at least
- TOR has been (and is being) used almost exclusively for block evasion
and
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
That'd be easy to solve were it not for the fact that - on enwp at least
- TOR has been (and is being) used almost exclusively for block evasion
and vandalism.
Interestingly enough(?), our desire for transparency and
Seb35 skrev 2013-07-17 15:55:
I don’t understand: the results of the Round 2 will be April-May 2014,
is it not for the Fiscal Year 2013-14 the non-core WMF will ask
funding? If so, this would mean funds will already be spent for the
major part and the FDC will have no choice than accept the
Thanks Anders for sharing this update. Out of curiosity, was this already
shared elsewhere?
To comprehend the situation fully, what does this mean for the WMF budget
for 2013/2014? I mean, to put things a little in perspective:
* The annual plan was not shared until some days into the year (Sam
(just for the record, not reflecting at all on Ana's qualities or being
unhappy with the actual decision):
I understand that the board took this decision online on June 19. I'm a
little disappointed it took so long to communicate this to the community:
almost three weeks after the decision, a
Yes, this took longer than planned. By rights all resolutions should
be published within two weeks; thank you for noticing.
We discussed the idea of altering the effective date, but decided it
wasn't worth it. There were no Board votes during the intervening 8
days; and the end of the term is
Briefly:
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Thanks Anders for sharing this update. Out of curiosity, was this already
shared elsewhere?
The details, including the idea that WMF would not get FDC review for
our 2013-14 plan, were news to me.
Currently
22 matches
Mail list logo
