On 26/04/13 19:38, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
* Andrea Zanni wrote:
At the moment, Wikisource could be a interesting corpora and laboratory for
improving and enhancing OCR,
as the OCR generated text is always proofread and corrected by humans.
Try also Distributed Proofreaders. It is my
On 29 April 2013 06:14, Christophe Henner christophe.hen...@gmail.com wrote:
As said during the feedback session, we still have to figure out how to fund
the first employee.
The FDC process is a really heavy process that do take a huge amount of time
and energy. This is a process everyone
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
As background, relevant links I was able to find regarding the WMHK
funding discussions:
WMHK FDC proposal:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikimedia_Hong_Kong/Proposal_form
MZMcBride skrev 2013-04-29 07:13:
I took a look at the current FDC members list[1] and the
decision-making information[2] but I'm still a bit unclear how
decisions like this[3] are made. Is there a vote on each individual
request (and subsequent recommendation)? If so, is that vote public?
On 29 Apr 2013, at 07:52, Tilman Bayer tba...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'm not familiar with the case, but reading that page, it seems that
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:WM_HK/Education_Toolkits_For_Liberal_Studies/Report#Remaining_funds
might also have played a role for the FDC's
Personally I think that these two points are relevant like weaknesses of
the FDC.
I would read three main important weaknesses:
a) if there is a conflictual position inside the members of the FDC and
a big difference of opinions probably there are no specific criteria to
evaluate the
Hi David,
I changed the topic to not flood Deryck parting email. Though the
topics are related, I'd rather not flood his thread.
Yes, the process is flawed, and everyone recognise it, even FDC staff
and FDC members in their comments do.
Yes, the process is a heavy burden to all the organisations
Hi Christophe,
From: christophe.hen...@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:07:45 +0200
To: dger...@gmail.com
CC: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark to
everyone
As I said in my previous email:
* Most of the chapters
Le 2013-04-26 17:00, Gerard Meijssen a écrit :
Hoi,
When we invest in MT it is to convey knowledge, information and
primarily
Wikipedia articles. They do not have the same problems poetry has.
With
explanatory articles on a subject there is a web of associated
concepts.
These concepts are
The beauty of the process, is in my mind, that is set up so that each
member can have their personal preferences on criteria to be used. This
ensues that as many perspectives as possible is up on the table during
the deliberation, and certainly not only what is in the staff assessment.
And
On 29 April 2013 10:21, Abbas Mahmood abbas...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi Christophe,
From: christophe.hen...@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:07:45 +0200
To: dger...@gmail.com
CC: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Resignation announcement, and a parting remark
to
Deryck Chan, 29/04/2013 00:52:
[...]
At this point, I believe it's an appropriate time for me to announce my
resignation and retirement from all my official Wikimedia roles - as
Administrative Assistant and WCA Council Member of WMHK. [...]
Thanks Deryck for your commitment. I'm very sorry
Le 2013-04-26 19:57, Samuel Klein a écrit :
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoe...@gmx.net
wrote:
* Erik Moeller wrote:
Are there open source MT efforts that are close enough to merit
scrutiny?
Wiktionary. If you want to help free software efforts in the area of
machine
Le 2013-04-26 20:27, Milos Rancic a écrit :
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 7:57 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com
wrote:
Yes. Finding a way to capture and integrate the work OmegaWiki has
done into a new Wikidata-powered Wiktionary would be a useful start.
And we've already sort of claimed the space
On 29 April 2013 09:33, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
It's very clear (to me) that the WMF grants system is not designed to make
Wikimedia entities grow, but only to reinforce those which are already
strong enough, keeping them at the same level they're at.
It's not clear
Based on just flicking though the conversation, The main issue here is
historical content that is mostly in the way of the re-purposing?
Why not just close down internal.wiki and start a Internal.wiki 2.0
with a more defined scope that suits the purpose?
On 29 April 2013 12:32, Craig Franklin cfrank...@halonetwork.net wrote:
I'd like to come back to this - if the entity was told they were eligible
(which certainly looks to be the case from the public documents), when was
it discovered they were not?
When the FDC recommendations were
We have replied multiple times that we want the remaining funds from the
2010-11 grants to be considered in conjunction with the FDC proposal. (ie.
the FDC proposal is the reallocation request.) This is because it is
logistically impractical for us to return any funds to WMF before the end
of
I think that we agree about the problem not about the solution.
Anyway what it should be clear is that I have never spoken about an
algorithm but about a matrix of parameters to evaluate a project.
These parameters have been enumerated *but* after the evaluation of the
project.
This has
On 29 April 2013 16:47, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote:
Unfortunately I know that any project is specific and peculiar but the
*personal* feeling doesn't help because it means that another FDC will
evaluate it differently.
And this is *precisely* what was predicted when the
2013/4/29 Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl:
My perception of this round of the FDC is mainly that it is very clear that
there needs to be much more and clearer information about GAC and about
what kinds of projects and chapters are better suited for the FDC.
Actually the information how
Deryck,
it makes me sad to read your leaving message, as I have got to know you
as a very constructive and engaged person, and I think your input and
contributions are very valuable to the movement.
It seems to me that we all kind of agree there's a gap between GAC and
FDC funding when it
P. S. again, internal-l discussions that should be public. Damn.
Agreed, I am not on Internal either…
Jan-Bart
[1] http://etherpad.wikimedia.org/wmconf2013-fdc-process
Tom
--
Everton Zanella Alvarenga (also Tom)
A life spent making mistakes is not only more honorable, but more
On 4/29/13 12:59 PM, Jan-Bart de Vreede wrote:
P. S. again, internal-l discussions that should be public. Damn.
Agreed, I am not on Internal either...
Jan-Bart
Yes, there is a good number of people (including me) who are not on that
list anymore. I'm really unclear, at this point in the
Hello,
If those three seats are to be elected by the community, then voting should
be restricted actually to the power editors. I could imagine that one of
those three seats - or, instead, a fourth one - is elected by the staff,
maybe plus the members of the Advisory board. E.g. Greenpeace Germany
On 29 April 2013 21:01, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, there is a good number of people (including me) who are not on that
list anymore. I'm really unclear, at this point in the movement, as to why
it needs to remain closed. Critical conversations take place here, there,
Hi all,
Here is a question that came up during today's US GLAM consortium meeting:
what's the current status of the 'movement partners' affiliation?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_affiliation_models/Movement_Partners
Is recognition of movement partners something that AffComm will be
Hello Everyone
I was an observer on the first round of the FDC, Patricio was the observer of
the recent round of FDC requests so he will probably be able to tell you more
on the specific details. But in general I have been (and still am) extremely
impressed with the level of scrutiny AND the
On 4/29/13 1:03 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
Hi all,
Here is a question that came up during today's US GLAM consortium meeting:
what's the current status of the 'movement partners' affiliation?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_affiliation_models/Movement_Partners
Is recognition of movement
Hey
So while I really regret your decision and hope that you will reconsider I
would like to ask you something.
Or, ironically, putting together a reallocation grant. Here's another
hen-and-egg problem for you all. We saw little value in settling the
remaining funds from the 2010-11 grants
Hi Markus,
I am not sure but I have the feeling that WMHK is free to apply for a Grant
once they are in compliance with the terms of the earlier grant? But I am out
of my depth here, probably someone like Asaf could inform us better…
And I was happy that the chapters are setting up peer review
Hi everyone,
A quick email to announce and explain current WMFr payment processor status.
As some of you know, French regulations makes it hard to transfer ver
50% of the fund raised locally to an international organisation.
Until know, WMFr budget was always somewhat equal to 50% of the money
Hello,
I am not quite sure what will be the future of the Movement partners. I
can imagine that a museum (for example) can be a partner in an initiative
set up by the WMF, a chapter or a thorg.
WMNL and Teylers Museum together started the Teylers Challenge, a edit
competition. The museum could
I hope a few remarks are valid.
As a chapter volunteer responsible for leading the local application
during round 2, I recognize much of the frustration from WMKH.
The process is not on its right track, as things are. The WMF is
understandably under legitimate scrutiny over the use of donations
The WMF is not the only source of fundraising for Wikimedia chapters
or other movement partners. Many chapters have successfully partnered
with other organizations to accomplish great things in outreach and
programming. Every chapter has the opportunity to raise money to
achieve meaningful results
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Itzik Edri it...@infra.co.il wrote:
I agree. We should limit it to only community members, or to give equal
right to everyone.
Asaf, you right, but we are talking also about the FDC elections. a
processes where we are not granting chapters and others
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Itzik Edri it...@infra.co.il wrote:
I agree. We should limit it to only community members, or to give equal
right to everyone.
Asaf, you right, but we are talking also about the
On 29 April 2013 18:48, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 2:37 AM, Itzik Edri it...@infra.co.il wrote:
I agree. We should limit it to only community members, or to give equal
right to everyone.
Asaf, you right, but we are talking also about the FDC
Florence - my comments followed Erlend's in the thread, where he
suggested sending resources around the world without regard to which
chapters were the most developed. Outside of the paragraph where I
referred to WMKH specifically, my comments were not directed at it.
In any case, it's fictional
Dear Nathan,
I did not suggest what you say I suggested. My proposal was not to send
funds away to weak chapters.
The WMHK case illustrates exactly the point I wanted to make. The WMF has
made reaching out to the world's largest language community (China), in the
hands of the reporting and
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Erlend Bjørtvedt erl...@wikimedia.nowrote:
Dear Nathan,
I did not suggest what you say I suggested. My proposal was not to send
funds away to weak chapters.
The WMHK case illustrates exactly the point I wanted to make. The WMF has
made reaching out to the
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Erlend Bjørtvedt erl...@wikimedia.no wrote:
To clarify, my message is that the WMF should rather open an OFFICE in Hong
Kong, to serve the 1.3 billion chinese-speaking, and other south-east
Asians aswell from there.
India, anyone?
But if you do not help the Wikimedia Movement in California, then why are
you all posted there?
;-)
Erlend, WMNO
2013/4/30 phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 4:57 PM, Erlend Bjørtvedt erl...@wikimedia.no
wrote:
Dear Nathan,
I did not suggest what you say I
All,
The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts
work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools
for our users (like cross-wiki notifications). These changes will mean
users have the same account name everywhere, will let us give you new
features
Hi James, thanks for the links.
Keeping in mind that there will be users that unexpectedly find their
much loved account name changed the next time they try to log in, and
this may be central to their established online wiki identity, is
there a community discussion that we can point to where
Hello, everyone.
0. Meta
0.1. I do not respect the choice by Deryck -- an experienced Wikimedian --
to voice his (understandable) frustration in a letter full of wikidrama,
and to follow it with a direct accusation of our team of foul play[0]. I
think this should not go uncommented on. All of
Fae,
Though I understand the concern that users will have, the need to
rename a relatively-small number of accounts is a technical
requirement that has been built into our system since SUL was designed
c. 2005; it was switched on in early 2008. This has (sadly) been on
the back-burner for too
Thanks James, personally I'm comforted by your prompt reply.
My intuition is that this would be unlikely to affect any accounts
with more than 5,000 edits, possibly fewer. I have no doubt that you
intend to take special care to help users with significant
contributions, such as those with a well
Asaf,
Thank you for sharing your perspective.
This situation is complicated. I think it should be reviewed by an uninvolved
third party, probably the FDC ombudsperson. I think it would take significant
time and a lot of emails in this thread to accomplish what a review by the
ombudsperson
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:33 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Here is a question that came up during today's US GLAM consortium meeting:
what's the current status of the 'movement partners' affiliation?
50 matches
Mail list logo
