Hoi,
When you talk about respect, it can mean so many things and have different
implications.
When people argue like the community this and that I do not respect their
arguments. The community is often flat wrong and there is no mileage, quite
the contrary to respecting the gravitas of someone
On 8 September 2014 05:46, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
If it is good
software, the projects will *ask* for it to be deployed, like they did
with LiquidThreads, and users will want to use it on their user talk
even if the wider community isnt ready to migrate.
This is the
A problem that I would like Flow to solve is the high amount of labor
needed to read over a dozen pages across four wikis in order for the reader
to access most of the MediaViewer discussions.
Pine
On Sep 8, 2014 12:22 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 September 2014 05:46, John
On 8 September 2014 05:54, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
And yet, after over a decade of open-ended design through social
convention, the end result is... our current talk pages. Perhaps
another decade or two will be needed before that document-centric
architecture gives us a
On 8 September 2014 11:44, Diego Moya dialm...@gmail.com wrote:
Now if Erik vision for the deeper than I give him credit for,
... that would be: Now if Erik vision for the Flow platform is deeper
than I give him credit for...
___
Wikimedia-l mailing
[x-posted]
Hello,
The next monthly IRC office hour of the Wikimedia Language Engineering
team will be on Wednesday, September 10, 2014 at 1700 UTC on
#wikimedia-office.
We will be taking questions and discussing about our ongoing work,
particularly around the Content Translation project[1], and
Hoi,
Pine, I would like so many things.. I expect that SUL and more goodliness
from this will be a requirement. For me there is urgency in having a
discussion system that works for mobiles and templates...
Once we have that we either have other priorities or it is a really good
idea to be
On 09/08/2014 12:46 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
While it may not be everybody's dream system, talk pages are quite
usable, as demonstrated by a lot of people using them every single
day.
That's... not a demonstration of usability. Like many people, I found
myself using some random blunt
That's not a reasonable task, Marc. Newbies have an equally hard time
editing content, too, and even when they succeed, on many projects they're
very likely to be reverted and deluged with templated messages in response
to a good faith attempt. There is no evidentiary basis to demonstrate that
On 09/08/2014 10:18 AM, Risker wrote:
The most obvious one is automatic signing of comments, and it is
something that we have technically been able to impose for years; sinebot
didn't come into existence in a vacuum.
I suppose that's a philosophical divergence between us then - that
sinebot
Well, I think that the article editing project (i.e., VE) has a huge
potential for also resolving a lot of discussion space issues. I don't see
tacking on yet another UI as being a positive for new editor introduction
or retention, and cannot think of another significant site that has two
such
Thank you for this overview and history, Erik!
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 9:49 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
And as above, I'm open to us putting some short term effort into talk
page improvements that can be made without Flow -- knowing it's still
some time out.
Is
Hello,
a) This discussion actually belongs to a talk page on Meta or
Mediawiki.org, for example :-)
b) All my experience in teaching Wikipedia tells me that the talk page
system is absolutely outdated and inappropriate. It is, sorry to use this
word, *ridiculous* that you have to teach people
+1
On 8 September 2014 16:43, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
a) This discussion actually belongs to a talk page on Meta or
Mediawiki.org, for example :-)
b) All my experience in teaching Wikipedia tells me that the talk page
system is absolutely outdated and inappropriate.
Facebook?
So tell me, how do you explain to new Facebook users about the different
levels of privacy? Seems to me that I'm constantly hearing about people
having a lot of problems with that, especially since it's supposed to be a
key site feature.
I'm with you about indenting, it's always been
Responding to two comments. Firstly Risker Newbies have an equally hard time
editing content, too, and even when they succeed, on many projects they're
very likely to be reverted and deluged with templated messages in response
to a good faith attempt. There is no evidentiary basis to
SJ, OK, currently we have mostly the 2010-15 strategy and chapter
strategies featured on [[m:strategy]], and some 2015+ strategy on
[[m:strategy project]]. I could reorganize these pages, but given the
highly visible nature of those pages to internal and external stakeholders
in the Strategy
We are planning to open a few pages for comments as we plan for this to be
an iterative, participatory process from the ground. Let us know if you'd
like to participate in setting up the pages themselves.
L
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 3:04 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:
SJ, OK, currently we
Yann,
The Commons app would need lots of love to continue to be worth advertising
as a mainline app. It's not been updated since October, and code rot sets
in after a while (I can easily reproduce crashes when logging in with an
account that has pre-existing uploads, which it tries to display
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Yann,
The Commons app would need lots of love to continue to be worth advertising
as a mainline app. It's not been updated since October, and code rot sets
in after a while (I can easily reproduce crashes when logging in
On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
As I wrote to Risker, I think it's worth considering spending some
development time on turning something like the Teahouse gadget (which
allows one click insertion of replies on the Teahouse Q/A page) into a
Beta Feature
Thanks to all in this thread for raising these issues.
A discussion about sunsetting the Commons Android app is ongoing on
mobile-l right now. I would encourage anyone who's interested to subscribe
and comment.
Thanks,
Dan
On 8 September 2014 18:30, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
John,
Responses in-line.
On 8 September 2014 18:41, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
The Wikipedia app description includes Share: Use your existing
social networking apps to share in the sum of all human knowledge.
This refers to the Share functionality which is in the overflow
As an experienced user, the Commons app is tremendously useful (when it
doesn't crash). But as a Commons curator, I see a steady stream of test
uploads and the like -- things that are utterly and completely unrelated
to our educational mission -- that require a great deal of volunteer
resources to
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
- Gabriel Wicke has done some experimentation with this as well, and
is looking if he can dig up the old code for me.
Very old indeed, but if anyone wants to take a look:
https://github.com/gwicke/wikiforum
--
Erik
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Dan Garry dga...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Thanks to all in this thread for raising these issues.
A discussion about sunsetting the Commons Android app is ongoing on
mobile-l right now. I would encourage anyone who's interested to subscribe
and comment.
Hi Dam,
On Monday, 8 September 2014, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Dam, thanks for your responses. If the Wikipedia app doesnt have
Commons upload capabilities, what is the viable replacement app for
Commons uploading?
As I'm sure you're aware, if we were to sunset the Commons app
27 matches
Mail list logo
