On 16 Jun 2009, at 18:56, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> Commons is an oddball project. Other projects produce work, but
> Commons stores it. Wikisource could be considered another oddball
> for the same reason. At this point in time, I would class Commons
> as a service project (and wikisource
Yaroslav M. Blanter schreef:
>> I don't think the problem will be with the big projects, there are a lot
>> of people who can speak the language.. The small wiki's are the most
>> difficult and Commons isn't ready to handle them in a good way. It would
>> be best if Commons had two admins for every
Actually, what Commons does is store media files. Whether it does that
for other projects or not is the open question we're considering at
present. You shouldn't define your premises to meet your conclusions if
you want to participate in a constructive dialogue.
Thanks,
-Mike
On Tue, 2009-06-16
2009/6/16 Anthony
> 2009/6/16 Nikola Smolenski
>
>> Дана Tuesday 16 June 2009 18:39:11 Anthony написа:
>> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Nikola Smolenski > >wrote:
>> > > Дана Tuesday 16 June 2009 18:21:38 Anthony написа:
>> > > > The same way "anyone can edit" works: magic fairy pixie dust
2009/6/16 Nikola Smolenski
> Дана Tuesday 16 June 2009 18:39:11 Anthony написа:
> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Nikola Smolenski >wrote:
> > > Дана Tuesday 16 June 2009 18:21:38 Anthony написа:
> > > > The same way "anyone can edit" works: magic fairy pixie dust.
> > >
> > > Now, that was
> I don't think the problem will be with the big projects, there are a lot
> of people who can speak the language.. The small wiki's are the most
> difficult and Commons isn't ready to handle them in a good way. It would
> be best if Commons had two admins for every language instead of none for
> s
Yaroslav M. Blanter schreef:
>> 2> Commons is not ready to be a service project to replace local
>> uploads, translations aren't good enough and there a not enough
>> administrators to give enough service to all language projects.
>>
>>
>
> I am not sure what you mean. es.wp and (almost) de.wp
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> Just because people put things into a filing cabinet does not endow the
> filing cabinet with any special powers. I also am not disputing the relative
> importance of free content repositories.
>
>
>
You're talking about the wikipedia cabi
Just because several projects have decided to disable local uploads does not
mean that Commons is ready to accept them.
From: Pedro Sanchez
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 11:41:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia C
Just because people put things into a filing cabinet does not endow the filing
cabinet with any special powers. I also am not disputing the relative
importance of free content repositories.
From: Robert Rohde
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Tuesd
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Huib Laurens
wrote:
> effe iets anders schreef:
> > Hi Huib,
> >
> > yes, that seems to be an accurate description of the current situation.
> > However, what would you /want/ it to be, and /why/ ? :)
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > eia
> >
> > 2009/6/16 Huib Laurens
> >
> 2> Commons is not ready to be a service project to replace local
> uploads, translations aren't good enough and there a not enough
> administrators to give enough service to all language projects.
>
I am not sure what you mean. es.wp and (almost) de.wp only use Commons,
they do not have any loca
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> "Its only point"=what is does=store images for other projects
Then your earlier statement is incorrect because that's not the only thing
Commons does. People do view Commons images directly. Moreover, many of
those "other projects" are
Geoffrey Plourde schreef:
> "Its only point"=what is does=store images for other projects
>
> I was not referring to the cabinet makers, just the filing cabinets. It was
> the closest metaphor for Commons my caffeine deprived brain could think of.
> Following along it, a cabinet maker is one who
2009/6/16 Nikola Smolenski :
> Please don't view this as trolling, because it is a honest question. The new
> notice says that "you hereby agree that such credit is sufficient in any
> medium".
No it says "Re-users will be required to credit you in any medium, at
minimum, through a hyperlink or UR
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> Commons is an oddball project. Other projects produce work, but Commons
> stores it. Wikisource could be considered another oddball for the same
> reason. At this point in time, I would class Commons as a service project
> (and wikisource
"Its only point"=what is does=store images for other projects
I was not referring to the cabinet makers, just the filing cabinets. It was the
closest metaphor for Commons my caffeine deprived brain could think of.
Following along it, a cabinet maker is one who makes cabinets. The cabinets
them
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> Commons is an oddball project. Other projects produce work, but Commons
> stores it. Wikisource could be considered another oddball for the same
> reason. At this point in time, I would class Commons as a service project
> (and wikisource
Commons is an oddball project. Other projects produce work, but Commons stores
it. Wikisource could be considered another oddball for the same reason. At this
point in time, I would class Commons as a service project (and wikisource as
well) because it provides a service to other projects and it
effe iets anders schreef:
> Hi Huib,
>
> yes, that seems to be an accurate description of the current situation.
> However, what would you /want/ it to be, and /why/ ? :)
>
> Thanks,
>
> eia
>
> 2009/6/16 Huib Laurens
>
>
>
Hello,
I would want it to be a independent project thats optimized fo
Hi Huib,
yes, that seems to be an accurate description of the current situation.
However, what would you /want/ it to be, and /why/ ? :)
Thanks,
eia
2009/6/16 Huib Laurens
> Hello,
>
> I want to start with thanking Effe iets anders, this is the most neutral
> email about Commons I have seen t
Дана Tuesday 16 June 2009 18:39:11 Anthony написа:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> > Дана Tuesday 16 June 2009 18:21:38 Anthony написа:
> > > The same way "anyone can edit" works: magic fairy pixie dust.
> >
> > Now, that was trolling. Anyone can edit, and it does work
Hello,
I want to start with thanking Effe iets anders, this is the most neutral
email about Commons I have seen this week, and I like the fact that
there is a new angle to work with.
I think Commons is both a service projects and a independent project,
Commons is a free file repository and can
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> Дана Tuesday 16 June 2009 18:21:38 Anthony написа:
> > The same way "anyone can edit" works: magic fairy pixie dust.
>
> Now, that was trolling. Anyone can edit, and it does work.
And this will work in exactly the same sense.
__
Дана Tuesday 16 June 2009 18:21:38 Anthony написа:
> The same way "anyone can edit" works: magic fairy pixie dust.
Now, that was trolling. Anyone can edit, and it does work. It doesn't
mean "you can edit anything in" but it isn't supposed to.
___
found
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> Please don't view this as trolling, because it is a honest question. The
> new
> notice says that "you hereby agree that such credit is sufficient in any
> medium". Mere fact that this statement is there shows that, without
> contributors
Дана Monday 15 June 2009 21:09:36 Erik Moeller написа:
> 2009/6/15 Nikola Smolenski :
> > Дана Monday 15 June 2009 20:24:39 Robert Rohde написа:
> >> The terms of use for editors will require that editors accept linking
> >> as sufficient attribution; however, the instructions for re-users will
> >
OK, the question has popped up so many times, that I think it would only be
fair to give it a separate topic on this list :)
Now I'd like to have a discussion about this, and not just assumptions.
Let's not be childish and say "yes it is, no it's not" (which some of the
discussion comes down to) b
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 3:22 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/6/15 Rama Neko :
>
>> The "service project angle" worries me too. I have noticed that many
>> articles of Wikipedia, the service project that makes it easier to
>> find media in Commons by providing encyclopedic context to our
>> content,
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:25 AM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> What if there were two image spaces?
>
Veering slightly OT, but this is easier said than done.
-Chad
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wi
Bye Mikey !!. May your children edit wikipedia in years to come and make fun
of Old man jimbo and biker man cary :P
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I do not understand. About what changes are you talking about? When an article
is re-used, it is the fixed target at that time, of course. Everybody can
keep the list for the safe of its own business. The WMF should not
foreshadow the re-user will be safe with links to WMF's sites for ever. The
Hoi,
This would be acceptable when you are shooting on a fixed target. Given the
huge amount of changes it is too much to ask for.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/6/16 Jiri Hofman
> It seems my notice will not be taken in account. OK, I can live with that.
>
> I would like to propose at least one thi
It seems my notice will not be taken in account. OK, I can live with that.
I would like to propose at least one thing which, I hope, can be easily
accepted. Let's add a notice to "Terms of Use", warning re-users they should
possess a list of authors (for example a database dump) even when they g
The interface is only part of the problems which were identified. Also the
complicated procedures and the (sometimes considered hostile - although not
even always intentional) community were part of the equation. However, I do
agree that the interface is a huge problem, and fixing that would probab
35 matches
Mail list logo
