Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiwand

2016-04-03 Thread Tim Landscheidt
Ruslan Takayev wrote: > Wikiwand states: "Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license" > WMF projects are available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license. > Correct me if I am wrong, but these licenses are not interchangeable and > therefore the entire Wikiwand site is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiwand

2016-04-03 Thread James Heilman
From what I understand we are moving to the CC BY-SA 4.0 license ourselves eventually. I have been in discussions with the World Health Organization for the last few years about them licensing more stuff under a CC BY SA license. The original road block was that the 3.0 license tied them to a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiwand

2016-04-03 Thread Ruslan Takayev
Wikiwand states: "Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license" WMF projects are available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license. Correct me if I am wrong, but these licenses are not interchangeable and therefore the entire Wikiwand site is a copyright violation? Warm regards, Ruslan Takayev

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiwand

2016-03-31 Thread Keegan Peterzell
Hey Gerard, I think you might have missed *my* point? Please note that I was nuancing something that Adam said that caught my eye. I broadly agree with your (Gerard's) position. You say: The notion that "people just want the content no matter how great of awful the skin is" is awful. I agree

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiwand

2016-03-31 Thread Adam Wight
GerardM, I liked the way you said it the first time, > Readers in turn do not need all the tools of editors but we do want to convert them to editors. It does not follow that they will be enticed to become one by all the clutter. > The objective is therefore to invite them in a less cluttered way

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiwand

2016-03-31 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, I think you have missed the point badly. Wikiwand is not about the communities and their pride. It is about what the Wikimedia Foundation stands for. It is sharing the sum of all knowledge. When we do a piss poor job and let Wikiwand steal the cake we have our priorities fatally wrong. The

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiwand

2016-03-31 Thread Dan Garry
On 31 March 2016 at 10:27, Anders Wennersten wrote: > > Besides the interface as such, where several have given, for me, > interesting feedback, I wonder over the funding banner. > > Would not a widespread use of Wikiwand mean that readers no longer get the > "begging"

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiwand

2016-03-31 Thread Adam Wight
To second what others have said, I personally love the idea that a reading interface should include less editor clutter, until it is requested. There's a task for this, if anyone would like to help push that investigation forward: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T106439 There's also some

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiwand

2016-03-31 Thread Anders Wennersten
Thanks Dan. Besides the interface as such, where several have given, for me, interesting feedback, I wonder over the funding banner. Would not a widespread use of Wikiwand mean that readers no longer get the "begging" banner. And would that not mean a risk of decreasing funding? Anders

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiwand

2016-03-31 Thread Dan Garry
On 30 March 2016 at 23:39, Anders Wennersten wrote: > What is WMFs position on Wikiwand [1]? > There is no "official WMF position" on Wikiwand. The Wikimedia Foundation is quite a diverse collection of individuals with a range of different opinions. :-) Personally, I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiwand

2016-03-31 Thread Peter Southwood
: Thursday, 31 March 2016 5:08 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiwand Hoi, When we recognise that an editor has different needs we should provide editors with different tools. Readers in turn do not need all the tools of editors but we do want to convert them to editors

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiwand

2016-03-31 Thread John Mark Vandenberg
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 7:24 PM, James Heilman wrote: > There output of our mainpage however is horrible > http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Main_Page On my LG L Bello 5.0" mobile phone it is worse than on desktop, with that large language selection box taking over all of the screen

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiwand

2016-03-31 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, When we recognise that an editor has different needs we should provide editors with different tools. Readers in turn do not need all the tools of editors but we do want to convert them to editors. It does not follow that they will be enticed to become one by all the clutter. The objective is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiwand

2016-03-31 Thread WereSpielChequers
I don't know about the WMF's position re Wikiwand, but I see Wikiwand as a more reader friendly way to view Wikipedia. We have far more readers than editors so in some sense this is a good thing. I can understand a reader being more interested in seeing the table of contents in the left hand

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiwand

2016-03-31 Thread James Heilman
I am fine with Wikiwand especially with their recent improvements. It is basically a different skin for our content. Not everyone needs to like the same style. The gear at the top gives a bunch of ways you can customize the styling as well. And it does link to use if people want to edit. As an

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiwand

2016-03-31 Thread Magnus Manske
While this is true, there has been some improvement on Wikipedia. Desktop browsers now have the Wikiwand "media gallery" as the Media Viewer, and Wikivoyage (as a test platform) has the interactive maps. On mobile, things are even better; most of the Wikiwand mobile features are also in the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiwand

2016-03-31 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, If anything they provide us a service. Anything they can do, we can do integrated. Anything they can do, we can learn from. Anything they prove works better is often a discussion the others have lost their firm footing. We are very much stuck in fixed thinking modes. It is why Wikisource is