> Or you could simply restore the one-line code modification that
> provided the default behavior requested by the community (pending
> evidence that an alternative setup is beneficial).
Seconded. Just bring them back already. This is an imaginary problem
you've come up with here. The community is
[replying here and at
http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Opinion_Language_Links]
Howie Fung wrote:
> First, some background on the problem we're addressing and the design
> principle that we used. Every situation is unique, but in the case of
> the interwikilinks, we believe the sheer number of
Howie,
Thanks for your detailed message. I appreciate your efforts of trying
to listen to the feedback from the community. However, even after
listening to the discussion in the office today, and after reading
your message, I still fail to understand the logic behind these
decisions. I'm going to
A minimalist design is a good goal to strive for. As many people do mot use
them, it may be a good cleanup of the interface. Howver, for its
afficionados the developers might create an option in the user preferences
to show all interwiki links directly instead of hiding them. Personally I
find them
On 5 June 2010 01:03, Howie Fung wrote:
> First, some background on the problem we're addressing and the design
> principle that we used. Every situation is unique, but in the case of
> the interwikilinks, we believe the sheer number of language links,
> especially within the context of an infor
The Usability team discussed this issue at length this afternoon. We
listened closely to the feedback and have come up with solution which we
hope will work for everyone. It's not a perfect solution, but we think
it's a reasonable compromise.
First, some background on the problem we're addres
Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> Now, mind you, I don't necessary support getting rid of the
> interlanguage links. I'm mostly objecting to the reasoning being
> brought forward for that point, which seems to be mostly:
>
> * Some unknown number of users might somehow end up at a wiki they
> don't understan
Peter Gervai wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 11:37, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>>> The only catch is that by filing the counter-notice you are putting your
>>> money where your mouth is and legally asserting that you have the right
>>> to post the work (so make sure that this is correct or you may e
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> This would be a good idea only when you are allowed to choose the languages
> you do want to see.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
The problem is, you don't have them configured the first time you visit
the wiki, which is when you are more likely to use them.
I am all for
Mariano Cecowski wrote:
> --- El jue 3-jun-10, phoebe ayers escribió:
>> That said, having the # of languages and/or a global
>> selector as
>> others have mentioned are both good ideas too and could be
>> a good
>> compromise.
>
> Can't we use a flag in a cookie to remember the choice of show/col
Hello,
2010/6/5 Mike Godwin :
> Nathan writes:
>
> When the WMF makes a
>> decision to intervene in the projects, full and informative
>> communication isn't just a nice-if-you-can-get-it side benefit of
>> dealing with a small company - it's essential to maintaining the
>> fabric of a massively p
Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> Users don't explicitly complain about small things.
At the English Wikipedia, this is not so. If we had a bike shed,
there would be daily complaints about its color.
> They especially don't complain about things like clutter, because the
> negative effect that has is barel
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 9:39 PM, Aryeh Gregor
> wrote:
> Why would anyone link me to an article on ka.wikipedia? That's not a
> reasonable thing to imagine. I don't think I know anyone who speaks
> Georgian, and if I do, they wouldn't have any reason to link me to an
> article in Georgian. If t
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Nathan wrote:
> You can argue, and have argued, that participants should know
> this already or can easily discover the relevant information with some
> digging. But why not spare them the effort? It's fully possible that
> the folks most interested in the specifi
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Aryeh Gregor
> wrote:
> In the absence of further data, the only real argument I saw for
> restoring the interlanguage links by default is to show how
> international Wikipedia is and raise awareness about how many other
> languages are supported. In this case the
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> I think if you look at what we did with regard to the Gallimard takedowns --
>
> 1) Consulting with French legal experts before taking any action
> 2) Compelling Gallimard to narrow and specify their takedown demands
> 3) Enlisting community me
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Mark Williamson wrote:
> Aryeh, imagine someone links you to an article on physics at
> ka.wikipedia.
Why would anyone link me to an article on ka.wikipedia? That's not a
reasonable thing to imagine. I don't think I know anyone who speaks
Georgian, and if I do, t
Wow, we get it. *No one* likes the hidden interwiki language link. Bottom
line, the only people who may be "annoyed"(though I doubt really any are,
and this was rather a decision to simply neaten the overall look of the en
site) by the long list of languages are the regular users! Those people who
Nathan writes:
When the WMF makes a
> decision to intervene in the projects, full and informative
> communication isn't just a nice-if-you-can-get-it side benefit of
> dealing with a small company - it's essential to maintaining the
> fabric of a massively participatory and cooperative endeavor.
>
On 4 June 2010 19:58, David Levy wrote:
> Perhaps a suitable compromise can be devised, but in the meantime, the
> only appropriate solution is to display the interwiki links by
> default. It's unfortunate that this fix was reverted, let alone in
> the name of "usability."
Indeed. Could someon
Mark Williamson wrote:
> That's not good enough. First of all, people who don't speak a
> language won't recognize the text "see other languages", or even
> "languages". Could you pick the word "ენები" out of a page full of
> text in a foreign language and understand that clicking it would lead
>
On 6/4/10 3:41 AM, Peter Gervai wrote:
> Or we can reasonably expect them to ask for real legal advice from (or
> paid by) the WMF and_then_ accept the_known_ risk to file a
> counter-notice.
>
The Wikimedia Foundation cannot simultaneously act as an impartial (and
therefore non-liable) host
Bod Notbod wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 12:23 AM, Noein wrote:
>
>
>> I've been watching the dialogues between the WMF and this mailing list
>> for a while now and most of the conflicts are the same: bad
>> communication. This is apparently not due to individuals but institutional.
>>
>
That's not good enough. First of all, people who don't speak a
language won't recognize the text "see other languages", or even
"languages". Could you pick the word "ენები" out of a page full of
text in a foreign language and understand that clicking it would lead
you to a link to the English versi
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Bod Notbod wrote:
>
> I think you're wrong.
>
> Try to get any sense out of the upper echelons of your phone company,
> your gas providers, whoever gives you your electricity.
>
> The Wikimedia community is huge. The staff relatively small. It's
> unthinkable you'd
Aryeh, imagine someone links you to an article on physics at
ka.wikipedia. If there were a link that said "English", you'd know
what that meant, but if there's just a button that says "ენები"
(Georgian for "Languages"), how are you going to know to click that
rather than any of the other words on t
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 12:23 AM, Noein wrote:
> I've been watching the dialogues between the WMF and this mailing list
> for a while now and most of the conflicts are the same: bad
> communication. This is apparently not due to individuals but institutional.
I think you're wrong.
Try to get any
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 4:37 AM, Joan Goma wrote:
> Hiding interlanguage links will worse the effect of Google search on some
> small language projects.
It makes no difference to Google. The links are only hidden with
JavaScript, and Googlebot mostly doesn't use JavaScript, so it will
see them ju
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 1:08 AM, wrote:
The Right Honourable Mr Godwin:
>>In the world outside this mailing list, the fact that I'm responding to this
>>extent to these criticisms would itself be taken as proof of transparency,
>>not disproof.
> --
Peter Gervai wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 15:54, Mike Godwin wrote:
>
>
>> We run an encyclopedia, not a free legal clinic. (By comparison, when I
>> worked for EFF, I was actually empowered to give free legal advice to people
>> who called in for help.)
>>
>
> Couldn't we then use EFF
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 8:05 AM, Andre Engels wrote:
>
> Surely having a known defense strategy would beat having no defense
> strategy at all, which basically is the situation now.
I'm afraid I must deny that we have no defense strategy.
> But why not support the community in issuing
> count
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
>> Is that possible without putting WMF lawyers in a tight spot?
>
> Sometimes. Sometimes not. (The issue is not so much putting lawyers in a
> tight spot as it is one of making WMF more vulnerable, e.g., by revealing
> defense strategies.)
Sure
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 15:54, Mike Godwin wrote:
> We run an encyclopedia, not a free legal clinic. (By comparison, when I
> worked for EFF, I was actually empowered to give free legal advice to people
> who called in for help.)
Couldn't we then use EFF for this specific occasion? Aren't they w
Ray Saintonge writes:
An important point; we musn't force the WMF lawyer into a conflict of
> interest
>
The issue is only partly conflict of interest, and it often isn't that. It's
primarily that WMF is not insured to give legal advice to community members.
We run an encyclopedia, not a free leg
Andrew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 10:17 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>
>> Can someone from the Foundation confirm whether any testing was done
>> with people who would actually be affected by the decision to remove
>> the language links - or only on people who wouldn't care? If only the
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 3:07 PM, Andrew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 10:17 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> > Can someone from the Foundation confirm whether any testing was done
> > with people who would actually be affected by the decision to remove
> > the language links - or only on people
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 10:17 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> Can someone from the Foundation confirm whether any testing was done
> with people who would actually be affected by the decision to remove
> the language links - or only on people who wouldn't care? If only the
> latter, then the stated reaso
On 4 June 2010 13:00, Austin Hair wrote:
> 2010/6/4 Jon Harald Søby :
>> When you are monolingual and are already on your
>> native language Wikipedia there isn't really a lot of use in going to
>> another language.
> What's more, when that language is the one with the largest Wikipedia,
> you'r
2010/6/4 Jon Harald Søby :
> When you are monolingual and are already on your
> native language Wikipedia there isn't really a lot of use in going to
> another language.
What's more, when that language is the one with the largest Wikipedia,
you're likely to find the most comprehensive article of a
2010/6/4 Gerard Meijssen
> Hoi,
> It works indeed best for logged in users. However the statistics show that
> the main public for particular languages is not where you expect them to
> be.
>
>
> It is good to be generous in the number of languages that we show in my
> opinion.
> Thanks,
> G
Hoi,
It works indeed best for logged in users. However the statistics show that
the main public for particular languages is not where you expect them to be.
It is good to be generous in the number of languages that we show in my
opinion.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 4 June 2010 11:18, Andre Engels
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Peter Gervai wrote:
>..
> So either we wait until people want to spend their private money to
> lawyers to define the risk and only accept mostly low risk
> counternotices, or to enroll to be crash test dummies. Both highly
> unlikely.
>
> Or we can reasonably expec
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 11:37, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>> The only catch is that by filing the counter-notice you are putting your
>> money where your mouth is and legally asserting that you have the right
>> to post the work (so make sure that this is correct or you may end up in
>> a lawsuit).
>>
>
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
>> Yep! You want to write a first draft of a guide? I'm sure the EFF or
>> someone like that will have something suitable to start with.
>>
>> We can't have a lawyer employed by the WMF look over it, but we have
>> lots of
David Gerard wrote:
> Yep! You want to write a first draft of a guide? I'm sure the EFF or
> someone like that will have something suitable to start with.
>
> We can't have a lawyer employed by the WMF look over it, but we have
> lots of lawyers amongst the volunteers.
>
An important point; we
Ryan Kaldari wrote:
> If you want to challenge a takedown notice, the proper (and only) course
> of action is to file a counter-notice. I had work that I did on Commons
> taken down by a bogus DMCA takedown notice several years ago. Instead of
> complaining to the Foundation, which would have be
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> Hoi,
> When you look where what languages have their biggest audience, you will be
> surprised. The notion of most likely languages is either based on such
> statistics or it is only guess work. The best performance is when people can
> cho
Hoi,
When you look where what languages have their biggest audience, you will be
surprised. The notion of most likely languages is either based on such
statistics or it is only guess work. The best performance is when people can
choose the languages involved.
It would make sense to combine this wi
Hoi,
This would be a good idea only when you are allowed to choose the languages
you do want to see.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 3 June 2010 23:30, David Gerard wrote:
> On 3 June 2010 19:04, Erik Moeller wrote:
>
> > Yes, we discussed this internally as well as a better path to exposse
> > Wikipe
Hiding interlanguage links will worse the effect of Google search on some
small language projects.
See this previous thread:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-January/056671.html
Present situation isn’t much better because intrelanguage links are at the
end of a long list of
Me three for using the interwiki links as a way of finding the word or
phrase I'm looking for in another language (along with Wiktionary). Not only
do they assist me in finding translations of the words or phrases I am
looking for, they also give me context and relevant material for languages
I'm c
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 12:10 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
> Sort of tangentially, ... am I really the only one that frequently
> uses the Wikipedia inter-language links as a big translating
> dictionary? I've found it to be much more useful than automatic
> translation engines for mathematical te
On 06/04/2010 09:10 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> As far as the the dynamic hiding goes, I'd like to toss in my voice
> against that: Determinism is very important for usability. Guessing
> what the user wants is great when it works but terrible when it
> doesn't. Computers are often _stupid_ bu
On 4 June 2010 03:40, John Vandenberg wrote:
> If the interwikis are not displayed in the vector skin, either
> Wikisource cant use the vector skin, or Wikisource will need to move
> these links into the content of the pages. I've started a discussion
> about this on the multilingual wikisource
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 2:24 AM, Michael Peel wrote:
>
> On 2 Jun 2010, at 22:51, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
>> A tiny benefit to a hundred
>> million people wouldn't justify making wikipedia very hard to use for
>> a hundred thousand
>
> Can you justify that the change has now made it very hard for
On 06/04/2010 08:24 AM, Michael Peel wrote:
> On 2 Jun 2010, at 22:51, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> A tiny benefit to a hundred
>> million people wouldn't justify making wikipedia very hard to use for
>> a hundred thousand
>
> Can you justify that the change has now made it very hard for users of thos
56 matches
Mail list logo
