Hello,
Wikimédia France never had 15 paid employees at the same time. But if
you include members' work (and specially Board members' work), you
easily get 15 Full-time equivalent... This number is a better
representation of Wikimédia France's activity than 10 FTE (real size of
the staff this
Hi Asaf et All,
Hope I won't get skipped because I barely talk on this list or in general
on an international level but this proposal could have a long term effect
on my chapter.
Happy to see WMF is ready to start giving up at least a bit on geography or
census numbers and shift focus to existing
I cant believe this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/The_World_Contest
has
got WMF funding, the idea of trying to create 100,000 stub articles on
english wikipedia without any thought to how it'll impact on the
community.
I find it ironic that a competition is being
Correction:
There is a tool that automatically checks for copyright infringement.
It is called CopyPatrol
https://tools.wmflabs.org/copypatrol/en
James
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Gnangarra wrote:
> I cant believe this
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/The
"The nerve of these women, to think that they can write encyclopedia
articles on women who must inherently be non-notable! There's nothing to
write about here."
That's basically what your email says. No complaints when the subject is
anything else from you, when these thematic editing are held on
There are still over 2,700 known notable women scientists without stubs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Missing_articles_by_occupation/Scientists
And those are just the women scientists who made it on to Wikidata but
not Wiktionary somehow. The old ISI/Thompson R
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 9:02 AM, Gnangarra wrote:
> I cant believe this
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_
> in_Red/The_World_Contest
> has
> got WMF funding, the idea of trying to create 100,000 stub articles on
> english wikipedia without any thought to how it'll impac
Keegan, calling people names isn't helpful here.
We've already had horrible projects to write tons of stubs before, like the
"place" bots. And in those cases, we'd know at least roughly what they
would do and how.
This project is going for 100k articles. There are as of this writing 118
editors s
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Todd Allen wrote:
> Keegan, calling people names isn't helpful here.
>
>
I didn't. I'm calling out the tone.
> We've already had horrible projects to write tons of stubs before, like the
> "place" bots. And in those cases, we'd know at least roughly what they
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Keegan Peterzell
wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Todd Allen wrote:
>
>> Keegan, calling people names isn't helpful here.
>>
>>
> I didn't. I'm calling out the tone.
>
>
>> We've already had horrible projects to write tons of stubs before, like
>>
Have you looked at the list of signed up contributors?
Peter
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
Gnangarra
Sent: Sunday, 15 October 2017 4:03 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Women in red
I cant believe th
WMSE has run programs with this focus for more then 3 years on svwp.
The result have been roughly
2-3 generated more then 1000 articles
15-25 generated more then 100 articles
100-200 more then 10 articles
around 500 at least one
giving a total of a bit more the 1 new articles of women. And ev
Hoi,
When you read the article you link to, it is explicitly about
destubification and not about new stubs.
Given this intend, I do not see it as a problem. Actually I do not mind
more women entries in Wikidata.. But hey, that is my thing :_
Thanks,
GerardM
On 15 October 2017 at 16:02, Gna
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 7:02 AM, Gnangarra wrote:
> I cant believe this
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_
> in_Red/The_World_Contest
> has got WMF funding, the idea of trying to create 100,000 stub articles on
> english wikipedia without any thought to how it'll impact
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Keegan Peterzell
wrote:
> "The nerve of these women, to think that they can write encyclopedia
> articles on women who must inherently be non-notable! There's nothing to
> write about here."
>
> That's basically what your email says. No complaints when the subjec
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Todd Allen wrote:
> This project is going for 100k articles. There are as of this writing 118
> editors signed up. That is, even if we presume 100% participation (which is
> generally wildly optimistic), nearly 1000 articles per editor to reach that
> goal. If so
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 12:50 PM, Keegan Peterzell
wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Todd Allen wrote:
>
> > Keegan, calling people names isn't helpful here.
> >
> >
> I didn't. I'm calling out the tone.
>
>
I care if someone's right or wrong, not their tone. If we want to talk
about
If I misread that part, my apologies. That still doesn't change the core
issue, that money is being offered, and that it's being offered for
quantity rather than quality.
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Gergo Tisza wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Todd Allen wrote:
>
> > This project
Nah, the contest is about motivating people to write about a topic area
that is not there normal bailiwick.
That is fine thing to do because the unintended consequences of being
written on a wiki, English Wikipedia initially attracted people who were
less interested in writing about women than the
On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Gergő Tisza wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Keegan Peterzell
> wrote:
>
> > "The nerve of these women, to think that they can write encyclopedia
> > articles on women who must inherently be non-notable! There's nothing to
> > write about here."
> >
> >
No worries Keegan I read it as sarcastic, given the amount of noise on here
I chose my tone intentionally to draw attention to the competition, yes it
looks like a wonderful idea until to look at the mechanics of comeptition
given it has a start time in 2 weeks, people are being encourage to start
Emily (User:Keilana) is having some trouble getting mails through to this
list, so I'm forwarding this on her behalf in case it's an issue with her
email address.
"This is some sexist bullshit. You really think we can't handle some stubs?
And do you really, really think that people won't try to AF
Also, in case it's not clear from my forwarding of Emily's/Keilana's
message, I endorse it completely and am glad she made her points.
I agree fully with Keegan and Sydney. I don't think the concerns that this
will be overtaken by bots are well-founded; that was planned for in the
document outlini
Dear All,
I can only agree with GorillaWarfare. I am also tired of having to proove
anything concernig gender has to be perfect, when the whole principle of
Wikipedia is that everything is always perfectible.
I think we should assume good faith and avoid comments.
Doing nothing about the gender
This has nothing to do with Gender,
The issue is the standards required and the aim of the event not the
subjects of the content
The event set a minimum standard at 0.75k per article created, new editors
going through articles for creation are required to have 1.5k of prose
which is twice the
25 matches
Mail list logo
