Dear all,
We seek community input on a proposed WikiProject called "WikiProject Accuracy"
conceptualized by Ms. Betty Wills (User:Atsme). Following a recent discussion
with Betty, I decided to bring it here for community input because of the
possible controversy that may arise from establishing
How would this differ from Wikiprojects that already work to improve accuracy
of articles within their scope of interest?
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Olatunde Isaac
Sent: Friday, 25 March 2016 10:44 AM
T
Is this restricted to en: or across all Wikipedias or something else?
Is there a project discussion page somewhere?
Cheers,
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Olatunde Isaac
Sent: Friday, 25 March 2016 10:44 AM
To: Wiki
The WikiProject is likely to be extended to other Wikipedias. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Accuracy
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless handheld from Glo Mobile.
-Original Message-
From: "Peter Southwood"
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 11:18:10
To: ; 'Wikimedia Ma
Just judging from this email, I tend to agree with Smallbones and based on
the name alone I would vote against this project. That said, I believe I
understand the motivation behind this and I would vote for a project
called "WikiProject
Content Synchronization" which would be the (re)birth of CoSy
Hoi,
There are two parts to it as far as I am concerned. More collaboration, I
am all for it.
The other part is a power grab because it means that things must meet
"established" requirements, that is imho a bad idea. It establishes power
struggles whereby established "truths" trump common sense wi
There is no single authority on Truth and fact. There is not even a
democracy that can ensure truth and fact.
Perhaps, we could think of a secondary layer, even a Wikimedia domain of
its own, some kind of 'Refined Wikipedia' completely independent of the
current structure, to which, 'refined' and
On 25 March 2016 at 08:44, Olatunde Isaac wrote:
> However, an editor (User:Smallbones) raised a concern on whether this is in
> line with the spirit of Wikipedia which permit anyone to freely edit its
> content at all levels. User:Smallbones said " An Editorial Review Board
> sounds like a v
On 25 March 2016 at 09:49, Jane Darnell wrote:
> Just judging from this email, I tend to agree with Smallbones and based on
> the name alone I would vote against this project.
+1. "Board" has all sorts of implications of authority., none of which
would be deserved.
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewi
On 25 March 2016 at 08:44, Olatunde Isaac wrote:
> We seek community input on a proposed WikiProject called "WikiProject
> Accuracy"
I see from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Accuracy
that there is already a "Reviewed and approved accurate seal of approval."
Burn it
Improved accuracy is like motherhood and apple pie — I trust no one will be
opposed to the goal.
However the initial proposal to achieve that goal needs a fair amount of
work.
*Clarify scope* – the page WikiProject_Accuracy is in the English
Wikipedia, so implicitly, the initial scope is the En
maybe I've been around for too long but
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team rings a
bell or two, I'm sure its still used by editors and projects to "grade"
articles
with most projects having their own internal assessment areas both on
quality and importance
then we h
Dear Wikimedians,
Since 2 years, Wikimédia France provides its "APG" proposal in advance on meta,
even if some parts are still in progress and other require improvements.
You'll find our proposal for the 2015-2016 Round 2 here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round
Thank you, Emeric. I appreciate the commitment for community engagement.
Warm regards,
Sydney
On Mar 25, 2016 9:44 AM, "Emeric Vallespi"
wrote:
> Dear Wikimedians,
>
> Since 2 years, Wikimédia France provides its "APG" proposal in advance on
> meta, even if some parts are still in progress and
hi Emeric,
I think it is a good way of engaging with the community and setting a good
example, that all organizations in the movement, including the WMF, can get
inspired by!
best,
dj
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Emeric Vallespi <
emeric.valle...@wikimedia.fr> wrote:
> Dear Wikimedians,
>
Thanks Emeric,I will take a look.
Regards,
Micru
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Sydney Poore
wrote:
> Thank you, Emeric. I appreciate the commitment for community engagement.
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Sydney
> On Mar 25, 2016 9:44 AM, "Emeric Vallespi"
> wrote:
>
> > Dear Wikimedians,
> >
> > Si
Hoi,
Sorry but your alphabet soup makes it hard if not impossible to understand.
I do not edit en.wp and that should not be a necessity to understand what
is being said.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 25 March 2016 at 14:13, Stephen Philbrick
wrote:
> Improved accuracy is like motherhood and apple pie
Featured Article, Good Article and point of view, in sequence. Hope that helps.
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> Hoi,
> Sorry but your alphabet soup makes it hard if not impossible to understand.
> I do not edit en.wp and that should not be a necessity to understand what
Great. Thanks for sharing while it is still in progress, Emeric.
On Mar 25, 2016 06:44, "Emeric Vallespi"
wrote:
> Dear Wikimedians,
>
> Since 2 years, Wikimédia France provides its "APG" proposal in advance on
> meta, even if some parts are still in progress and other require
> improvements.
>
>
Yeah, I am definitely watching users that violate any Wikimedia project and
I talk about it with other users publicly. What should be done different?
Should we let this users go and ignore they are violating important rules?
I will be paying atention to suggestions. And trying to do something
diffe
Hi everyone,
WMF's Community Tech team is starting to work on a Cross-wiki watchlist,
one of the top 10 wishes in the Community Wishlist Survey that we conducted
at the end of last year. [1]
We're running a survey on how people use their watchlists, to help inform
our work. If you've got a minute
21 matches
Mail list logo
