Hoi,
Now that the Wikidatafication of Commons allows for "depicts", there is
plenty to do. It will make it easier to find what is on Commons, it will
hugely increase the relevance of Commons beyond the Wikimedia Foundation
and within, it allows people to find illustrations in their own language
But it won’t be. Wikipedia does a fine job of documenting a great deal of
news: in an encyclopedic fashion.
On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 11:48 AM Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Strainu,
>
> Simply leaving the world of news to others is not really an option for the
În mar., 16 apr. 2019 la 12:38, Dan Garry (Deskana) a scris:
>
> Splitting off the Wikinews discussion from the branding discussion...
>
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 07:52, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
> jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Compared to Wikitribune it is! But more importantly,
I seem to recall seeing a thread on this list every few years about
how to revive Wikinews and make it do something useful and
interesting.
In practice, it had a burst of enthusiasm for about six months after
it started and then went pretty much dormant, and has been there ever
since.
- d.
On
Strainu,
Simply leaving the world of news to others is not really an option for the
Foundation. Recall that its vision is that
> By 2030, Wikimedia will become the essential infrastructure of the
ecosystem of free knowledge, and anyone who shares our vision will be able
to join us.
It can't
Hi all,
does any of you have info on the deadline for the next project grants?
As far as I remember, it was June, but at the moment there is no info on
this at the official page.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project
Thanks,
Milan
--
Milan Dojchinovski
http://dojchinovski.mk
Pe sâmbătă, 27 aprilie 2019, Jennifer Pryor-Summers <
jennifer.pryorsumm...@gmail.com> a scris:
> Strainu,
>
> Simply leaving the world of news to others is not really an option for the
> Foundation.
The foundation doesn't really have a say in this. They might
push really hard for a wiki, but
Congratulations South Korea !
On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 12:57, Philip Kopetzky
wrote:
> Congrats Korea! :-)
>
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 05:17, Roman Bustria Jr.
> wrote:
>
> > In behalf of the East, Southeast Asia and the Pacific Regional
> Cooperation
> > (ESEAP) we would like to extend our
Okay, let's see how these go:
CTO criteria:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Working_Groups/Product_%26_Technology=19040328=18121474
Fundraising:
> On Apr 27, 2019, at 4:44 PM, Strainu wrote:
>
> They might just as well employ a bunch of journalists to write
> articles, it won't make it a successful project.
>
That certainly wouldn't be the worst use of funds...
___
Wikimedia-l mailing
Hello Philippe,
Thank you for your points to which I generally can agree. Because this
is an important matter to my, allow me to explain what I exactly mean.
Of course, there are several tasks or layers where people can (and do)
collaborate when working on journalistic content. But there is an
Hi Ziko,
you could then argue that Commons is also not a collaborative project -
only one person takes a picture (determines the story, the position, light
etc), and others can at best perform some editing or add/remove categories.
Cheers
Yaroslav
On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 11:29 AM Ziko van Dijk
Yes indeed, Wikimedia Commons sees not much of collaboration in that sense.
The collaboration on Commons is of an insular kind: people don't
(much) edit other people's work, but they together contribute to the
whole wiki.
Different is collaboration where several people edit the same content
and
Yaroslav
I think you have identified an important point -- I hestitate to call it a
problem -- about Commons. We are dependent on the authority of the
uploader of an image, say, to say what it is an image of. If they say it
is a certain locality, or object, we have to take their word for it (or
It would be nice if more Commons images HAD proper location and context
info. As it is experts are often needed to identify meaningful content and
categories. Those tasks are not the equivalent of minor copyediting, not
that proofreading is a minor matter.
IOW, Commons *needs* more collaborative
There are many subjects of images that can be objectively assessed, so this
comparison is not very accurate. In many cases the metadata provides verifiable
information too.
Cheers,
P
-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
That is an excellent point, Jennifer! This problem makes collaboration
on Commons even more difficult or unlikely.
The photographer sometimes has an unique access to the part of the
world he described with a picture. Often on Commons we simply ask the
photographer: 'where did you take the
17 matches
Mail list logo
