Shiju, just FYI, tool kit can be used by anyone for translation. In
fact, it's good to use because (if you choose the option) it will go
toward improving future machine translation capability for your
language, thus expanding possibilities for monolingual speakers of
your language. In addition, "ma
This topic came up while we were discussing about Google's translation
effort. Google/Google employees are using Google tool kit to translate
English Wikipedia articles to many of the Indic language Wikipedias.
We are definitely more interested if Google translates these user required
articles th
+1. This would be a SUPER useful tool for all Wikis.
-m.
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 3:54 AM, Shiju Alex wrote:
> Recently I had a discussion with one of my fellow Malayalam wikipedian (
> http://ml.wikipedia.org) about the creation of new articles in small
> wikipedias like ours. He is one the few u
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 2:25 PM, wrote:
> Chad, I'm hesitant to reply to your note, because I feel like "defending the
> staff against the community" is a bad role for me: it tends to polarize and
> divide, rather than helping us all work together well. And I think I do, for
> the most part,
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 8:22 AM, Michael Snow wrote:
> Chad wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 2:49 AM, Michael Snow wrote:
>>
>>> ...if for example I was qualified to review a
>>> staff member's patch (which I'm not), I might want to think twice about
>>> what audience gets that feedback.
>>>
>>>
Such a tool should, from my inexpert view, not be to difficult to implement
as most of the required information is already publicly available trough
Squid logs. For example, http://stats.grok.se is a tool which shows the
amount of page requests that were made for a specific page (Currently used
for
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 6:54 AM, Shiju Alex wrote:
[snip]
> Some feature is required in the MediaWiki software that enable us to see a
> list of keywords used most frequently by the users to search for non-exist
> articles. If we get such a list then some users like him can concentrate on
> crea
Chad, I'm hesitant to reply to your note, because I feel like "defending the
staff against the community" is a bad role for me: it tends to polarize and
divide, rather than helping us all work together well. And I think I do, for
the most part, agree with you.
(As someone pointed out here the
Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Michael Snow wrote:
>
>> The replies to my comment are missing the point. Sure, the developers
>> themselves need to be able to handle public criticism of their work,
>> just like wiki editors. But I was responding to Austin's comment in
>
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Michael Snow wrote:
> The replies to my comment are missing the point. Sure, the developers
> themselves need to be able to handle public criticism of their work,
> just like wiki editors. But I was responding to Austin's comment in
> particular about board member
Chad wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 2:49 AM, Michael Snow wrote:
>
>> ...if for example I was qualified to review a
>> staff member's patch (which I'm not), I might want to think twice about
>> what audience gets that feedback.
>>
>> --Michael Snow
>>
> Why? If they're contributing a pat
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 2:49 AM, Michael Snow wrote:
> ...if for example I was qualified to review a
> staff member's patch (which I'm not), I might want to think twice about
> what audience gets that feedback.
>
> --Michael Snow
>
Why? If they're contributing a patch to MediaWiki, they should go
Recently I had a discussion with one of my fellow Malayalam wikipedian (
http://ml.wikipedia.org) about the creation of new articles in small
wikipedias like ours. He is one the few users who is keen on creating new
articles *based on the requirement of our readers*. (Of course we have many
people
>> reaction to what to me was actually a rather funny comment. However,
>> Mariano's following reaction as well as Yaroslav's came across to me
>> as unecessarily aggressive and actually shocked me in what I perceived
>> as a lack of consideration and altogether rather nasty answers.
>> Strange.
>
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
> ... if for example I was qualified to review a
> staff member's patch (which I'm not), I might want to think twice about
> what audience gets that feedback.
Ugh.
You are implicitly expecting that the patch submitter and the code
reviewer are
Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> «You're marvellous. I've particularly appreciated the languages menu and
> I think that in the future it will be even more important (Indian,
> Chinese etc.).»
> Funny feedback from a reader here:
> http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Progetto:Coordinamento/Us
16 matches
Mail list logo
