Re: [Wikimedia-l] "News Integrity Initiative" at CUNY

English Wikinews took serious measures for reliability back in 2009. For our pains, we've received mostly grief from the Foundation, and from a vocal segment of the Wikipedian community. If they consulted, before this expertise-lending, with the sister project that specializes in vetting-before-p

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "News Integrity Initiative" at CUNY

It is why we have Wikipedia > and not Nupedia. > Thanks, > GerardM > > On 10 April 2017 at 14:44, pi zero wrote: > > > English Wikinews took serious measures for reliability back in 2009. For > > our pains, we've received mostly grief from the Founda

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Women in red

Based on my own experience on en.wn, I believe copyright/plagiary detection cannot be fully automated without introducing horrific errors, for the same reason translation can't be: doing the task properly requires knowing what the text means. On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 10:47 AM, James Heilman wrote

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Direction] WMF Board of Trustees 2016 priorities

> Our goal is to make sure we — as a movement — will have a strategy that we > can all embrace and push forward together. I do hope that everyone together can find a positive way forward (says the optimist in me, even while the pessimist in m

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community Wishlist Survey: Top 10 wishes of 2016!

Just a general observation: Making things "global" can be good or bad for non-wikipedia projects depending on how it's done; spreading uniformity across projects could also damage non-wikipedia projects by imposing inappropriate infrastructure. I'm not totally cynical about the idea, just noting

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Superprotect is gone

On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Neil Harris wrote: > That's fantastic, represents a huge vote of confidence for the Wiki Way, > and is a big move towards improving the relationship between the WMF and > the community. > Just to keep things in perspective: the removal of superprotect (which is,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's fix templates

On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) wrote: > That would take a more detailed look at what is actually trying to be > accomplished with these dialogs. For example, enwiki's Teahouse[1] has a > dialog for newbies to more easily post questions, but it's implemented as a > gadget th

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's fix templates

On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) wrote: > as a developer (both volunteer and staff)> > > Is there an actual problem with Scribunto that drove you to writing this > lisp interpreter, or is it just that you don't like the fact that Scribunto > forces you to separate Lua code f

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's fix templates

Pardon my long reply; I actually meant to just comment on a couple of things, and got carried away. But I really do find this topic very interesting. On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) wrote: > When it comes to your extremely complicated templates with embedded lisp, > you're

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's fix templates

On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote: > On 09/02/2014 01:35 PM, pi zero wrote: > > > (1) It's very easy to use. > > (2) it naturally promotes incremental learning. > > I'm sorry, but both of those assertions are not only wrong, but > profou

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's fix templates

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Matthew Flaschen wrote: > Finally, I consider the "unreadable parser functions" problem essentially > solved. Lua is not perfect, but it's a usable language (and not a > Mediawiki-specific one) that is far more readable and writable than > complicated nested parse

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikinews and free journalism

It would scarcely be possible to overstate how un-seriously Wikinews takes Signpost's coverage of Wikinews. We typically don't even bother to try to debunk falsehoods about Wikinews when they appear on Signpost, figuring they're too numerous and the forum is too biased for meaningful dialog. Of p

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Building a "we" in the wikimedia movement

I agree with a bunch of what you're saying here. That's probably worth saying up front, because I'm going to disagree with a bunch of it, too. > to assume good faith. > "Assume good faith", and nearby concepts such as "be civil", have in the long term severely damaged the social infrastructure

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please rename this list to shitfight-l, and give us a list where civil discussion about wikimedia can take place

> I am looking for a productive mailing list that discusses matters of > importance to the Wikimedia community. That the people on such a list can > have these discussions politely, respectfully, and with concern for others > in that the words that say, and attitudes taken. I want to see > announc

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "let's elect people to serve on the wikimedia engineering "community" team!" (brainstorming)

ols for some serious applications; yonder <https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Help:Dialog>. Pi zero ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's fix templates

On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 5:40 AM, Martijn Hoekstra wrote: > tl;dr: We've been collectively whining about templates for long enough. Who > wants to help with fixing them? > Improving on templates is broadly what I've been doing with my dialog tools , which

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's fix templates

To be clear, ordinary user of the dialog tools most certainly does *not* involve knowing javascript or Lua or html. The whole point is to arrange that an ordinary wiki users can do wonderful things using *only wiki markup*. (The hypothetical example of a url there is, btw, entirely wrong; but one