Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: It is addressed but by a rather complicated and demanding process. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Not really workable for new users who bump up against well-established users who have bad habits, or have learned that nasty behavior pays off in being able to control content. Removing the mediation committee from that process might streamline things a bit. I notice the mediation cabal has closed its doors since the last time I looked. -Chad ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Relationship between Wikimedia and oDesk
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: On 01/08/2014 02:30 AM, MZMcBride wrote: Can anyone explain the relationship between Wikimedia and oDesk? The short of it: oDesk is indeed roughly the same kind of job board as freelancer.com and its ilk. The foundation is simply a client, and uses it only to pay its contractors and (most of)* their non-US workforce; and AFAIK never just contract out from postings. Contractors input work hours, WMF pays oDesk, oDesk sends monies to contractor. The system itself is a little shitty and quite a bit expensive, but considerably less so than it would be to set up legal entities able to directly pay people outside the US as local employees (including the horrible mess that it actually /is/ to have employees in other countries rather than contract out). -- Marc * some staffers instead work for a business entity that /itself/ contracts out to the WMF in which case it works a bit differently because then oDesk is no longer necessary as a middle man. Marc said everything I was going to say. This was my experience with oDesk as a US-based contractor as well. The contracting process was done like the normal hiring process and completely apart from oDesk. oDesk was simply used to input hours and receive payment. -Chad ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:32 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: It is important to note that WMF itself is not in any way neutral on this issue: adding MPEG4 is explicitly listed as a 2014 goal for the Multimedia team. That is, it has already been determined that this is *going to happen*. https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Multimedia/2013-14_Goals#Activities https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=File:Multimedia_Quarterly_Review_12-03-2013.pdfpage=61 It says like MPEG4 And it also says Support New Video and Audio formats based on results of community RfC But I can see how not mentioning the RFC part helps make your point about this being a fait accompli. Which it's not. -Chad ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 7:55 AM, Strainu strain...@gmail.com wrote: 2014/1/16 Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com: As much as I am pushing for MP4 adoption in Wikimedia to help our lagging video efforts, MPEG-4 patent holders/licensors are not helping their case: [snip] I worry more about the no, because that would mean more video content uploaded to commons votes (see Rilke, Turelio). I find it disturbing that we got to a point were we basically *refuse* new contributions. Me too. Anytime I see a but it will enable bad contributions argument for reasons not to do things I get a little sad. Every well-meaning contribution should be valued, IMHO. -Chad ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] My choice for ED
How could you say no to a face like this? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kitty_meowing.jpg Have a good weekend everyone :) -Chad ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.
On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote: I understand the new search is currently being worked on and refined, and will obviously be rolled out across all projects in a timeframe I am not too sure of. Can we get that timeframe/update on where this project is at, and when those working on it expect it to be stable. Once new search is working, the first enhancement to the search should be a clustering feature.[3] Wouldn't such a feature pretty much solve the problem that we currently have with search, and which won't be solved by the out-of-the-box search that is being worked on now. Just for a quick status update on the search project for those who might not be following it. We're currently live on all non-Wikipedias, non-Commons, non-Meta and non-Incubator as the primary search engine and have been for a little while now. The Wikipedias and the 3 misc. projects I mentioned above all have the new search available as a Beta Feature. We've had many thousands of users trying things out and the feedback has been very positive thus far. (shameless plug to please give feedback on [[mw:Talk:Search]] or Bugzilla. Nothing helps us find bugs and get them fixed faster than user feedback) We could probably swap the remaining non-English Wikipedias, Meta and Incubator into having the new search engine as their primary without worrying about performance. Commons too, possibly, but we'd have to keep an eye on things. enwiki we know we can't quite handle yet but we're working on it. Vague timelines suck I know, but trying to get the performance we need out of Elasticsearch is a multifaceted problem and we've been trying to roll this out with the minimal amount of disruption to everyone as possible. -Chad ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons tagging and/versus categorization
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Lane Rasberry l...@bluerasberry.comwrote: The major problem is that labor is wasted because there is no easy way to search intersections of categories. Instead of having a category for 18th century French painters, it would be ideal to just have tags for people in the 18th century French people and painters and let the users remix those tags instead of being forced to look in only that branch. The search engine (new, as well as old) supports category intersection. So actually, searching intersections of categories is very easy. Don't believe me? Here's a totally random category intersection from Commons: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearchprofile=advancedsearch=incategory%3A%22People+in+1992%22+incategory%3A%22Black+and+white+photographs%22fulltext=Searchns0=1ns6=1ns9=1ns100=1ns106=1profile=advanced Finding new ways to expose this data *outside* of the search results page and api.php would be cool/interesting/nice. -Chad ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 7:08 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: I just want to chime in here that I really enjoyed reading Molly and John's recent posts in this thread. Simply fantastic posts. I also loved posts from Thomas, Erik, and Milos in other threads from the past day. I think this month of wikimedia-l has made me more appreciative of some of the wonderful people in the Wikimedia movement and I'm grateful for that. This. And for anyone feeling discouraged about where we are right now, you need only consult https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/ for memories of bumpy times past that ultimately turned out pretty great. (I got curious the other evening... check out June 2007 for Florence's announcement of Sue's arrival to the Wikimedia Foundation and November 2007 and December 2007 for her transition to Executive Director. It's pretty good reading and it made me feel a bit better.) 2007 was...oh man. I was such an immature asshat. How the heck did I never get banned? -Chad ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect user right, Coming to a wiki near you
On Aug 17, 2014 6:49 AM, Richard Farmbrough rich...@farmbrough.co.uk wrote: There are 105 bugs open for Media Viewer. To my mind that is not a product that is ready to be delivered to 500,000,000 users, delivering 52.5 billion bugs! (And that's just the ones we know about!) MediaWiki itself has 4893 open bugs. Guess we need to start over so we can write bug-free software. Except that's not how it works, absolute bug counts are a pretty useless metric. -Chad ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
