On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 12:57 AM, Sage Ross wrote:
> Cross-posting to Wikien-l...
>
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
>> Unfortunately,
>> community-created help pages tend to accumulate vast amounts of
>> instruction cruft that distracts from simple high-level information.
>
>
Cross-posting to Wikien-l...
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> Unfortunately,
> community-created help pages tend to accumulate vast amounts of
> instruction cruft that distracts from simple high-level information.
Maybe it's time English Wikipedia (at least) created a set of
On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Tris Thomas wrote:
>
> Could be useful?
>
> http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/find-creative-commons-images-with-image.html
>
The creative commons search engine[1] allows searching on multiple
different sites at once, so that might be a better tool to recommen
geni geniice at gmail.com wrote:
> I assume you are pointing to the "Downpreffed VLC because it crashes
> my browser all the damn time -- TS" comment.
> Still another problem with recommending an option is well when this happens:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Videoscreengrab_of_Morris_C8
2009/7/9 Michael Dale :
> Presently the proposed solution is to soft link to the Mozilla Firefox
> browser: see mockup:
> http://metavid.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/upgrade_to_firefox.png
> or see it in action:
> http://metavid.org/wiki/File:FolgersCoffe_512kb.1496.ogv
My preference would
2009/7/10 David Gerard :
> 2009/7/9 David Gerard :
>> 2009/7/9 geni :
>
>>> Mention VLC plugin perhaps?
>
>> Again, you're making suggestions to create an image of
>> pseudo-neutrality. The VLC plugin is notoriously problematic in
>> practice. Your suggestion would be actively misleading. I strongl
2009/7/9 David Gerard :
> 2009/7/9 geni :
>> Mention VLC plugin perhaps?
> Again, you're making suggestions to create an image of
> pseudo-neutrality. The VLC plugin is notoriously problematic in
> practice. Your suggestion would be actively misleading. I strongly
> suggest you read the wikitech-
2009/7/9 David Gerard :
> 2009/7/9 geni :
>
>> Mention VLC plugin perhaps?
>
>
> Again, you're making suggestions to create an image of
> pseudo-neutrality. The VLC plugin is notoriously problematic in
> practice. Your suggestion would be actively misleading. I strongly
> suggest you read the wikit
Could be useful?
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/find-creative-commons-images-with-image.html
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2009/7/9 geni :
> Mention VLC plugin perhaps?
Again, you're making suggestions to create an image of
pseudo-neutrality. The VLC plugin is notoriously problematic in
practice. Your suggestion would be actively misleading. I strongly
suggest you read the wikitech-l thread.
- d.
2009/7/9 David Gerard :
> 2009/7/9 geni :
>
>> Promoting any one browser for any reason is kinda dicey. Given how
>> contentious browser wars are it wouldn't look to good from the POV of
>> remaining neutral. Has anyone managed to work the firefox code into
>> Konqueror yet?
>
>
> Konqueror isn't a
2009/7/9 geni :
> Promoting any one browser for any reason is kinda dicey. Given how
> contentious browser wars are it wouldn't look to good from the POV of
> remaining neutral. Has anyone managed to work the firefox code into
> Konqueror yet?
Konqueror isn't a serious suggestion as a casual ins
2009/7/9 Michael Dale :
> There has been a technical discussion on wikitech-l regarding the
> recommendation of a browser for the high quality open video experience.
>
> Some native implementations are ~presently~ non optimal and the java
> cortado applet we use where no native support is available
2009/7/9 Michael Dale :
> * Google Chromium -- supports h.264 and ogg theora video natively. Again
> ogg performance is not very high quality. It uses the ffmpeg library
> which features a non-optimal theora decoder. Things like seeking
> presently don't work very reliably.
Does Chromium actuall
There has been a technical discussion on wikitech-l regarding the
recommendation of a browser for the high quality open video experience.
Some native implementations are ~presently~ non optimal and the java
cortado applet we use where no native support is available is a poor
user experience rel
**
____ _ __ _
/ / /\ \ (_) | _(_)___(_)_ __ ___
\ \/ \/ / | |/ / |_ / | '_ \ / _ \
\ /\ /| | <| |/ /| | | | | __/
\/ \/ |_|_|\_\_/___|_|_| |_|\___|
.org
Year: 2009 Week: 28 Number: 1
First, I want to thank to Tim who created the project [1] today.
Tomorrow is the main cultural event for Meadow Maris and they will
have Wikipedia for that day. Because of that, I asked the Board and
WMF tech staff to create the project more quickly than usually.
Meadow Mari [2] is one of three Fi
Below it is a Doctoral Thesis that analize quantitatively the evolution of top
ten Wikipedias, an their problems (in English):
http://libresoft.es/Members/jfelipe/thesis-wkp-quantanalysis
C.m.l.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lis
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Anders
Wennersten wrote:
> I also like this approach
> *On most informal level - a Working Group, carefully organized under a
> "Working Group Organizer" who has a time-limited agreement/recognition
> letter with the Foundation
> *On intermediate level - a legally
2009/7/9 Delphine Ménard :
> It could be assimilated to the way organisations partner up to answer
> EU grants for example. Each keeps their autonomy, but they all work
> together towards a common goal. Call it "support" or "partnership",
> not "recognition", that probably makes more sense.
Yes, "
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 16:41, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/7/9 Delphine Ménard :
>>> I think a formal "Association of Catalan Wikimedians", recognised by
>>> the WMF as an "affiliated organisation" and with something quite
>>> similar to the chapters agreement would work well. Calling it a
>>> chapt
2009/7/9 Delphine Ménard :
>> I think a formal "Association of Catalan Wikimedians", recognised by
>> the WMF as an "affiliated organisation" and with something quite
>> similar to the chapters agreement would work well. Calling it a
>> chapter will cause problems, since it overlaps with other chap
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 16:18, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/7/9 Delphine Ménard :
>> The issue here is that, in the Catalan case for example, the effort is
>> already beyond just a "working group". You have a group of people who
>> are more than mature to have their own organisation and make it
>> su
2009/7/9 Delphine Ménard :
> The issue here is that, in the Catalan case for example, the effort is
> already beyond just a "working group". You have a group of people who
> are more than mature to have their own organisation and make it
> succesful. What they lack is "legitimity" under the Wikimed
I also like this approach
*On most informal level - a Working Group, carefully organized under a
"Working Group Organizer" who has a time-limited agreement/recognition
letter with the Foundation
*On intermediate level - a legally recognized organizations that could
support an interest group, th
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 04:11, Pharos wrote:
> I think a possible solution for this kind of thing might be "Working
> Groups", each carefully organized under a "Working Group Organizer"
> who has a time-limited charter to lead such a group.
>
> The issue here is that when dealing with a small unorga
26 matches
Mail list logo
