Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention implies social features

Hi guys, I understand your objections. Surely privacy is a key here. We should make "social" our way, taking in account various aspects of privacy and commerce... The goal definitely is rising the the number of editors... we should do this through all possible ways... as someone wrote here the on

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention implies social features

On 17 April 2012 15:56, Jan Kučera wrote: > Hi guys, > > I understand your objections. Surely privacy is a key here. We should > make "social" our way, taking in account various aspects of privacy > and commerce... > > The goal definitely is rising the the number of editors... we should > do this

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention implies social features

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Thomas Morton wrote: > On 17 April 2012 15:56, Jan Kučera wrote: >> The goal definitely is rising the the number of editors... Yes. > The editor retention program should be looking to bring in quality editors > willing to work primarily on article content. No

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention implies social features

> > >> The goal definitely is rising the the number of editors... > > Yes. > > > The editor retention program should be looking to bring in quality > editors > > willing to work primarily on article content. > > No. Aiming for quality, would only reduce the number of editors. > Quality editors; pe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention implies social features

On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 16:44:48 +0100, Thomas Morton wrote: Whether they also want to > socialise with other editors is somewhat a secondary > consideration/distraction. I disagree. A lot. Of course that is your prerogative. But I think in holding that view you've critically lost sight of the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention implies social features

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Thomas Morton < morton.tho...@googlemail.com> wrote: > But perhaps it would be useful to suggest some specific social features > that you'd want - that might help focus the discussion. > I'm not sure that it makes sense to talk about adding "social features" in t

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention implies social features

On 4/17/12 12:07 PM, Kirill Lokshin wrote: Consider, for example, that Zynga and Facebook have successfully managed to get millions of people to log in at all hours of the night to milk virtualcows and harvest virtual beans (or whatever it is that people actually do in Farmville). Could we do s

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention implies social features

Consider, for example, that Zynga and Facebook have successfully managed to get millions of people to log in at all hours of the night to milk virtualcows and harvest virtual beans (or whatever it is that people actually do in Farmville). Could we do something similar to drive particpation, part

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention implies social features

I believe the Geograph images (the UK landscape pictures of which you speak) may be slightly more than 80,000 images... On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: > Consider, for example, that Zynga and Facebook have successfully managed to >> get millions of people to log in at

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention implies social features

Am 17.04.2012 18:20, schrieb Sarah Stierch: People want some type of validation that goes beyond the mission, whether it's a "prize," an award, etc. Gamification might be a strategy for many things, but I don't think that it is working as a general approach throughout all communities. I doubt

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention implies social features

Hi, A couple of quick comments. You have two way to approch gamification of content/service/product : * Built a game experience on top of the content/service/product * Lauche services/products dedicated to gamification based on your initial product What people are mostly talking about here is th

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Facebook goes turncoat on the "squash internet freedom" battle.

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Mono wrote: > Well, piracy is illegal and piracy stems from file sharing... > > On Monday, April 16, 2012, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > >> First there were SOPA, PIPA, ACTA and OPEN. Now there is going to be >> Yet Another Attempt >> to enact draconian legislati

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Facebook goes turncoat on the "squash internet freedom" battle.

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Todd Allen wrote: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Mono wrote: >> Well, piracy is illegal and piracy stems from file sharing... >> >> On Monday, April 16, 2012, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: >> >>> First there were SOPA, PIPA, ACTA and OPEN. Now there is going

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Facebook goes turncoat on the "squash internet freedom" battle.

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Todd Allen wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Mono wrote: >>> Well, piracy is illegal and piracy stems from file sharing... >>> >>> On Monday, April 16, 2012, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Facebook goes turncoat on the "squash internet freedom" battle.

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Todd Allen wrote: > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen > wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 10:14 PM, Todd Allen wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Mono wrote: Well, piracy is illegal and piracy stems from file sharing...

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Facebook goes turncoat on the "squash internet freedom" battle.

Can you at least tone down the rhetoric. That's probably the main reason few have responded yet. Tom Morton On 17 Apr 2012, at 20:38, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Todd Allen wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen >> wrote: >>> On T

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Facebook goes turncoat on the "squash internet freedom" battle.

On 17 April 2012 20:32, Todd Allen wrote: > Would it be possible to get enough other sites behind another protest? > The last one didn't succeed just because of Wikipedia, it succeeded > because there were so many. I think you're dead wrong there. Wikipedia was the only non-geek site that gave

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Facebook goes turncoat on the "squash internet freedom" battle.

I've been slow to come around to this one myself, but in the last day or so I've realized that it really is the same thing with a new name. They going to keep this up until we get tired, I suppose. So let's not get tired. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wik

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Facebook goes turncoat on the "squash internet freedom" battle.

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Mark Jaroski wrote: > I've been slow to come around to this one myself, but in the last day or so > I've realized that it really is the same thing with a new name. They going > to keep this up until we get tired, I suppose. > > So let's not get tired. There is an

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention implies social features

I generally agree with what you have said, Yaroslav. On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: > Wikilove - fine, as a sign of appreciation (though I personally prefer > appreciation written in plain English). Barnstars - ok. But I do think we have taken the idea of "Wikilove"

[Wikimedia-l] [Commons-l] [Commons-POTY-l] 10th anniversary of Wikimedia Commons

Commons will be celebrating its 10th anniversary on 7 September 2014 and I feel this warrants a special occasion. We have about 1.5 years to prepare if we are going to plan on something. We already have POTY as an annual event so perhaps a "decade" event could be something interesting to consider.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention implies social features

Let's separate the two big issues here - the first is whether we want to encourage large numbers of new editors, and the second issue encompasses all the cool feature ideas we could add to accomplish the first. On attracting new editors and improving editor retention - editor retention explains it

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Commons-l] [Commons-POTY-l] 10th anniversary of Wikimedia Commons

2012/4/17 とある白い猫 : > Commons will be celebrating its 10th anniversary on 7 September 2014 and I > feel this warrants a special occasion. We have about 1.5 years to prepare > if we are going to plan on something. > > We already have POTY as an annual event so perhaps a "decade" event could > be some

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Facebook goes turncoat on the "squash internet freedom" battle.

On 17 April 2012 19:52, David Gerard wrote: > On 17 April 2012 20:32, Todd Allen wrote: > > > Would it be possible to get enough other sites behind another protest? > > The last one didn't succeed just because of Wikipedia, it succeeded > > because there were so many. > > > I think you're dead w

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Facebook goes turncoat on the "squash internet freedom" battle.

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 8:42 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > First there were SOPA, PIPA, ACTA and OPEN. Now there is going to be > Yet Another Attempt > to enact draconian legislation through mislabeling the real purpose of > IP legislation by inserting > it as a rider to law supposedly inten

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Facebook goes turncoat on the "squash internet freedom" battle.

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 2:36 AM, Liam Wyatt wrote: > On 17 April 2012 19:52, David Gerard wrote: > >> On 17 April 2012 20:32, Todd Allen wrote: >> >> > Would it be possible to get enough other sites behind another protest? >> > The last one didn't succeed just because of Wikipedia, it succeeded

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Facebook goes turncoat on the "squash internet freedom" battle.

What about the ocean? On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Kirill Lokshin wrote: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 8:42 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen > wrote: > >> First there were SOPA, PIPA, ACTA and OPEN. Now there is going to be >> Yet Another Attempt >> to enact draconian legislation through mislabeling the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Commons-l] [Commons-POTY-l] 10th anniversary of Wikimedia Commons

It could very well be escalated to something like the monument campaign from last year. -- とある白い猫 (To Aru Shiroi Neko) 2012/4/18 Tomasz Ganicz > 2012/4/17 とある白い猫 : > > Commons will be celebrating its 10th anniversary on 7 September 2014 and > I > > feel this warrants a special occasion. We

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Facebook goes turncoat on the "squash internet freedom" battle.

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 2:44 AM, Kirill Lokshin wrote: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 8:42 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen > wrote: > >> First there were SOPA, PIPA, ACTA and OPEN. Now there is going to be >> Yet Another Attempt >> to enact draconian legislation through mislabeling the real purpose of >> IP

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Facebook goes turncoat on the "squash internet freedom" battle.

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > The *real* issue though, is that Wikimedia lives on > trust,depends on the integrity of the internet. All > intelligent kids moving onto black nets; tight beam > Line of Sight Only UV-beam connections, means > they are going be much

[Wikimedia-l] Chapter software tools work welcome at Berlin hackathon in June

Several Wikimedia chapters have mentioned that they are interested in software tools used in chapter operations, including CiviCRM improvements/customization. This came up at the meeting a few weeks ago, I am told

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Facebook goes turncoat on the "squash internet freedom" battle.

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 5:03 AM, Kirill Lokshin wrote: > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen > wrote: > >> The *real* issue though, is that Wikimedia lives on >> trust,depends on the integrity of the internet. All >> intelligent kids moving onto black nets; tight beam >> Line of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Commons-l] [Commons-POTY-l] 10th anniversary of Wikimedia Commons

> > 2012/4/17 とある白い猫 : > > > We already have POTY as an annual event so perhaps a "decade" event could > > > be something interesting to consider. The obvious: select POTD from all the POTYs :) ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.o

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Commons-l] [Commons-POTY-l] 10th anniversary of Wikimedia Commons

I do not think we want to select POT-DEC (lets not call it POTD which is something else :) ) from older POTYs since we don't have a large number to choose from. Also, it would be very boring to re-nominate the same winner again. If anything existing POTY winners perhaps should be disqualified for