Hoi.
I had a look at the youtube video. Really important in this context is the
presentation by Dario. In it he shows how editing is taking of from mobile
users using tablets. This is a recent shift but the implication as I see it
that working on better tooling for mobile / tablet editors will get
Hoi,
I am so happy that you know so well that all the millions have been wasted.
As so often, an opinion is just that. When you want to learn about the
effect of the development done, it may be useful to look a bit further
afield. Mobile is one area where the development proves really effective.
Hello,
I am very grateful for Gerards remarks.
Sometimes I see a lot of black/white-thinking in the Wikimedia
movement, with statements such as this is all bad (and,
occasionally, this is all good). I am more comfortable with shades
of grey, they don't have to be fifty, but at least 5 or 10. On
hi,
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
wrote:
Now what do we aim to achieve? Keeping you happy or making sure we have a
public ???
simply put: both. We need readers just as much as we need the free labor of
editors/volunteers.
I don't think it
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 4:38 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Pi zero at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Permalink/9622503
writes, The non-Wikipedian sisters are the growth sector of the
wikimedian movement, and the WMF by dissing them is strangling the
wikimedian movement's
Hoi,
In the metrics meeting, a presentation was given that showed that mobile
editing is really starting to happen. It is happening to the extend where
new editors are predominantly mobile editors.
When I asked my question do we need to keep you happy I specifically
targeted the vitriolic parts
If you don't know of a policy which gives you the right to ask
something, why ask that something?
Instead, ask something you know you have the right to ask; for instance,
EU citizens have the right, by privacy law, to ask what PII an entity
has about them.
Nemo
On 8/24/14, 7:03 PM, Jeevan Jose wrote:
Try to download as PDF https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheetah
Check Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors.
It attributes File:Cheetah Feb09 02.jpg Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Cheetah_Feb09_02.jpg
License: unknown
Hmm, that file seems to be released under a non-commercial Creative Commons
license, in addition to the GFDL. The bug here seems to be bad licensing,
rather than bad attribution (since when did we start accepting -NC licenses?!).
Thanks,
Mike
On 24 Aug 2014, at 18:03, Jeevan Jose
I've swapped it for a CC-licensed file that does allow for commercial reuse.
Problem solved?
Thanks,
Mike
On 24 Aug 2014, at 19:55, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote:
Hmm, that file seems to be released under a non-commercial Creative Commons
license, in addition to the GFDL. The bug
Mike --
Did you see the recent discussion about this at [[Talk:Cheetah]]?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cheetah#Lead_photo_license
Although Erik Moeller recommended in 2008 (with the move to Creative
Commons licenses) that we stop permitting new uploads of files on the basis
of a GFDL
I don't mean to divert this thread into a discussion of the GFDL loophole,
though -- Jeevan's original question about PDF output is a good one, it's
important that all WM software honor attribution requirements (and,
ideally, non legally-binding wishes) appropriately.
Pete
On Sun, Aug 24, 2014
But if the entity refuses to answer, one has limited recourse, especially
if that entity is American, or trans-Atlantic.
On 24 August 2014 16:50, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
If you don't know of a policy which gives you the right to ask
something, why ask that something?
Hey Pete,
Thanks for pointing me towards that discussion - I hadn't spotted it, and I've
replied (and apologised for not noticing it) accordingly.
This is definitely a loop worth closing, as it's a right pain to deal with when
working with derivative images of Wikipedia page screenshots. For a
On 8/24/14, 9:34 PM, Michael Peel wrote:
I can kinda understand why the software doesn't deal with messed-up situations
like this - it shouldn't need to do so in the first place. I hope that we as a
community can fix this by sensible licensing choices, rather than blaming the
software.
I
Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
First, let's make one thing clear: the reader doesn't exist; it's just a
rhetorical trick, and a very dangerous one. For more:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stupidity_of_the_reader
This essay looks fascinating. I hope to read it soon.
Page views, however brute a
Hi,
This is definitely a loop worth closing
This is mentionned in the Talk page discussion, but for the benefits of all
list readers who might not check it out :):
please see
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/AppropriatelyLicensed
--
Jean-Fred
Given the mission is sharing information, I'd suggest that if we have a 95%
drop in readership, we're failing the mission. Donations are only a means
to an end.
Risker/Anne
On 24 August 2014 22:57, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
First, let's make one thing
Risker wrote:
Given the mission is sharing information, I'd suggest that if we have a
95% drop in readership, we're failing the mission. Donations are only a
means to an end.
I think this assumes a direct correlation between pageviews and sharing
information and I'm not sure such a direct
On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 6:55 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there a list somewhere of all currently active Foundation
initiatives for attracting and retaining active editors? I am only
aware of the one project, Task Recommendations, to try to encourage
editors who have made a
Thanks Mark for pointing me to the new PDF exporter; hope it will improve
the accuracy of data gathering from file pages.
BTW, I improved the file page [1], and now contributor is attributing
properly [2]. But it still failed to fetch the license. So my understanding
is that the current script is
Yes, we could look at Google's infoboxes as doing us a favor because they
decrease the load on our servers. We would need to account for those views
in some way if we are interested in quantifying success in the sense of
total views of our content regardless of where it is reproduced.
However, I
I don't know, it seems to me that deploying new software ASAP before it has
been exhaustively tested by the end user base has caused a few headaches
lately ;-).
Cheers,
Craig
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
I have heard very few people say don't ever change the interface. I have
heard people say don't force an interface change on me that I don't think
is an improvement.
VE was a good example. The sentiment of the community wasn't that VE''s
concept is wrong, it's that the implementation and rollout
On 08/24/2014 11:19 PM, Pine W wrote:
I have
heard people say don't force an interface change on me that I don't think
is an improvement.
I do not recall a recent interface change deployment that wasn't
accompanied with, at the very least, some method of opting out. Did I
miss one?
-- Marc
That sounds like a bug to me. Have you filed a bug in Bugzilla to be sure
that the Mobile Web team is aware?
Dan
On 24 August 2014 21:13, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
I've found one very recently, actually, or at least if there is an opt-out
it's very opaque.
I use the desktop
Dan,
Filed as 69967 on Bugzilla. I'm glad you clarified that; to be quite
honest, the timing here (starting about a couple weeks ago) looked to me to
be yet another You'll use it and you'll LIKE IT!, especially given the
lack of response at the documentation page. Sorry if I jumped to a
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
On 08/24/2014 11:19 PM, Pine W wrote:
I have
heard people say don't force an interface change on me that I don't think
is an improvement.
I do not recall a recent interface change deployment that wasn't
accompanied
On 24 August 2014 21:36, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
Filed as 69967 on Bugzilla.
Great, thanks! I suspect this is a problem with MobileFrontend, so I've
moved the bug into that product so that people will see it. I'll keep my
eye on the bug, either way.
I'm glad you clarified that;
I'd worry about that only after a rejection. :-) However, while I don't
know about UK, in Italy I see several degrees of administrative recourse
at the data protection authority. Here's a list:
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/bodies/authorities/eu/index_en.htm
Nemo
30 matches
Mail list logo
