Reminder that the current discussion on the banner will be continuing on
Meta-Wiki for another 12 hours:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Free_Bassel/Banner/Straw_poll
As of this email, 142 people have shown support for the banner campaign and 84
have opposed the banner campaign.
Thank you to ev
On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 1:17 AM, Gergo Tisza wrote:
> Trying to make our content less free for fear that someone might misuse it
> is a shamefully wrong frame
> of mind for and organization that's supposed to be a leader of the
> open content movement, IMO.
>
Do you think there is something "sh
On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 1:39 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Do you think there is something "shameful" about Wikipedia using the
> Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License?
>
> And if that isn't shameful, why would it be shameful if Wikidata used the
> same licence?
>
There is no
On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Gergő Tisza wrote:
>
> ("Shameful" was an unnecessarily confrontational choice of word; I
> apologize.)
>
Thanks.
> There is also the practical matter of facts not being copyrightable in the
> US, and non-zero CC licenses not being particularly useful for da
FYI
On Friday 6 November 2015, Gnangarra wrote:
> We have a new problem to face in the coming months assuming countries
> ratify the Trans Pacific Partnership
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership
>
> The text of the agreement has been released in the last 24 hours, early
> c
Gerard,
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
When you compare the quality of Wikipedias with what en.wp used to be you
> are comparing apples and oranges. The Myanmar Wikipedia is better informed
> on Myanmar than en.wp etc.
>
Is it? The entire Burmese Wikipedia contains a mere 31,646
On the very specific point of knowledge and how it's not always possible to
boil it down to a single quantifiable value, I couldn't agree more. Thank
you, Andreas, for the detailed anecdote displaying that problem, and I'll
be happy to provide more if needed.
Does Wikidata have a way of marking da
That male librarian here.
I think we need to encourage people to add more and conflicting data
to Wikidata, and to cite their sources when they do so. Currently
it's not particularly easy to cite your sources on Wikidata. So the
end result is that it encourages people to view whatever single
unc
Hey,
The subject is self-explanatory (also I have this suggestion for
blog.wikiquote.org and other projects as well)
What do you think?
Best
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia
On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 5:23 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> To the extent that Wikidata draws on Wikipedia, its CC0 license would
> appear to be a gross violation of Wikipedia's share-alike license
> requirement.
>
It's essential to also consider whether the factual information derived
from Wikiped
On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 5:23 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> To the extent that Wikidata draws on Wikipedia, its CC0 license would
> appear to be a gross violation of Wikipedia's share-alike license
> requirement.
>
By the same logic, to the extent Wikipedia takes its facts from non-free
external sou
Hoi,
It was from the Myanmar WIkipedia that a lot of data was imported to
Wikidata. Data that did not exist elsewhere. I do not care really what
"Freedom House" says. I do not know them, I do know that the data is
relevant and useful It was even the subject on a blogpost..
You may ignore data that
Why?
I would prefer not, as I like the project domains to be kept clean,
and I suspect it would (by effect if not intent) be abusing
'wikipedia's name to push meta content higher up in the results.
Project domains should be used for that project only, so IMO it would
only be appropriate to host a
>
> While I happily agree that Sources are good, I will not ask people to start
> adding Sources at this point of time it will not improve quality
> signifcantly. It makes more sense once we are at a stage where multiple
> sources disagree on values for statements. Adding sources is signifcantly
>
Amir Ladsgroup wrote:
>The subject is self-explanatory (also I have this suggestion for
>blog.wikiquote.org and other projects as well)
>
>What do you think?
Hi.
Why? The request is self-explanatory, but the uses and use-cases are not.
MZMcBride
___
We already have some subdomains that are not related to language, biggest
example: ten.wikipedia.org
My motivation of this request is that makes access for people who doesn't
know what's wikimedia easier. Everyone knows wikipedia but less people know
about wikimedia and the organization behind wik
On Sun, Nov 29, 2015 at 12:37 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> As to Grasulf, you failed to get the point. It was NOT about the data
> itself but about the presentation.
>
QED. :)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wi
Amir,
My initial, gut reaction to your suggestion was positive. I like that you
have thought of a way to make blog content more accessible to the public.
However, on reflection:
* The Planet Wikimedia blog predates the Wikimedia Foundation's blog by
some years, and is well populated by a variety
18 matches
Mail list logo
