On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2010/9/28 John Vandenberg :
>> Of course I have seen it.
>
> I've learned to not assume such things, John. :-)
You didn't need to assume anything. You only needed to read my email.
There has only been one global policy developed by the WMF,
2010/9/28 John Vandenberg :
> Of course I have seen it.
I've learned to not assume such things, John. :-) I respect the work
done by the task force, and it's up to the Board to answer whether it
wants to adopt or build upon any of this work. My own take, FWIW, is
that within the scope of the exist
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2010/9/28 John Vandenberg :
>> IMO, the foundation could look to strengthen its global policies
>> regarding content where living people are a subject. i.e. worded more
>> like the non-free content resolution. Then the projects _need_ to
>> f
2010/9/28 John Vandenberg :
> IMO, the foundation could look to strengthen its global policies
> regarding content where living people are a subject. i.e. worded more
> like the non-free content resolution. Then the projects _need_ to
> find appropriate solutions to conform to the WMF requirements
That we are resorting to discussing multiple polls worries me; it
reminds me of the circumstances which led to the English Wikipedia
arbitration case 'date delinking'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ARBDATE
IMO the English Wikipedia community should be allowed to continue to
review the results o
2010/9/28 Nathan :
> If the trial said the extension would be turned off, and it didn't get
> turned off, then whatever the reason...
As a reminder, there was a post-trial poll with very broad
participation and 65% of support for continued use of PC. Jimmy then
put on his traditional leadership ha
On 28 September 2010 23:19, Michael Snow wrote:
> On 9/28/2010 4:41 PM, Risker wrote:
> Aside from the point already made regarding the desires of projects
> other than the English Wikipedia - I guess I struggle to see what's so
> demotivating about the prospect of a feature being "permanent" in
Hi Michael,
If the community decides it doesn't want to use Pending Changes, but
the feature remains enabled, it will be a constant battle to police
usage of the extension. Why should the extension remain enabled on the
project if its community decides not to use it? That frankly makes no
sense at
On 9/28/2010 4:41 PM, Risker wrote:
> On 28 September 2010 18:58, Ryan Lomonaco wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Michael Snow>> We would be better off with more people working
>>> seriously to figure out the best answers to the issues this feature
>>> addresses, plus whatever issues th
On 29 September 2010 01:25, Birgitte SB wrote:
> And how should they know what the consensus is which they should promise to
> respect without determining it? They can't very >well just turn off an
> extension while it is use on hundreds of articles. If the consensus is so
> clear (that Dan
2010/9/28 Risker :
> Yes it is, and it's an important one. Several of us had already been
> working on a plan for the second trial, and those of us discussing had
> widely agreed that it would be much more likely to be successful if more of
> the recommendations on improving the software were inco
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Birgitte SB wrote:
>
>
> --- On Tue, 9/28/10, Risker wrote:
>
>> From: Risker
>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27
>> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
>> Date: Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 5:22 PM
>> On 28 Septem
Brigitte, I owe you and everyone else on this list an apology for bringing
English Wikipedia business here. This post was initially sent to multiple
lists, and it came through only on my Wiki-en-L tab, so I believed I was
replying there, not to Foundation-L.
This is, indeed, a discussion appropri
--- On Tue, 9/28/10, Risker wrote:
> From: Risker
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Date: Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 5:22 PM
> On 28 September 2010 18:10, Birgitte
> SB
> wrote:
>
> > Without having f
LocalWiki looks like a great project.
In a similar vein, Wikimedia NYC has been engaged with local free
culture and community groups on our joint 'NYCwiki' initiative:
http://nycwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://nycwiki.org/wiki/NYCwiki:Community_portal
Thanks,
Richard
(User:Pharos)
Wikimedia NYC
h
On 28 September 2010 18:58, Ryan Lomonaco wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Michael Snow >wrote:
>
> > We would be better off with more people working
> > seriously to figure out the best answers to the issues this feature
> > addresses, plus whatever issues there may be with the feature
On 28 September 2010 23:37, James Heilman wrote:
> Decisions at Wikipedia are not based a vote. The majority support
> Pending Changes and insufficient reasons have been put forwards by
> those who wish to see it quashed. I would like to thank Erik Moeller
> for the difficult discussion he has ma
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 6:44 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
> We would be better off with more people working
> seriously to figure out the best answers to the issues this feature
> addresses, plus whatever issues there may be with the feature itself,
> rather than having a debating duel about the signif
guys, please! Lets not try to solve hypothetical problems here until we know
what the problem will be! Let the folks see if they can get people together
in the first place, what they want to do, and what in their opinion would be
the best way to organize that. THEN we can see if a chapter has to be
David Gerard wrote:
> On 28 September 2010 23:12, Risker wrote:
>
>> You're losing the hearts and minds battle here, guys.
>>
> There'll be new hearts and minds along in eighteen months.
>
Come now, regardless of how one feels about the status of this
particular feature (one for which
On 28 September 2010 18:35, Ryan Lomonaco wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Risker wrote:
>
> > And even with it just being put forward as a second trial, the support
> for
> > continuing dropped 10% in two weeks.
> >
> > You're losing the hearts and minds battle here, guys.
> >
> > Risk
Decisions at Wikipedia are not based a vote. The majority support
Pending Changes and insufficient reasons have been put forwards by
those who wish to see it quashed. I would like to thank Erik Moeller
for the difficult discussion he has made. It is impossible to make
everyone happy sometimes.
I
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Risker wrote:
> And even with it just being put forward as a second trial, the support for
> continuing dropped 10% in two weeks.
>
> You're losing the hearts and minds battle here, guys.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
I haven't followed the discussion at all, but I have two
On 28 September 2010 23:12, Risker wrote:
> You're losing the hearts and minds battle here, guys.
There'll be new hearts and minds along in eighteen months.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://li
On 28 September 2010 18:10, Birgitte SB wrote:
> Without having formed in opinion either way to what has come out of the
> trial or the straw polls, I don't understand why there is such importance
> placed on *technically* disabling the feature. If en.WP doesn't want to use
> it, why don't they
Ah, so it's not going to be the Sue Gardner office hours, it's going to be
the Pending Changes office hours. Well, I suppose that makes sense.
One very large part of the disconnect, I will note, is that a very
significant proportion of the editors who voted to stop the trial on the
second poll ar
Without having formed in opinion either way to what has come out of the trial
or the straw polls, I don't understand why there is such importance placed on
*technically* disabling the feature. If en.WP doesn't want to use it, why
don't they not just move all the articles back to semi-protection
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Risker wrote:
> Rob, without wanting to take any wind out of your sails, please don't start
> the next trial so soon. The analysis from the first trial is nowhere near
> finished, the community has just started to consider criteria for a new
> trial, and followin
>
> Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 17:46:19 +0100
> From: Thomas Dalton
>
>
> Yes, what I wrote doesn't really make sense, does it? What I meant was
> that separate chapters is probably best for the WM movement, not
> counting the negative impact of being seen to take sides in the
> dispute. If you do cou
2010/9/28 Risker :
> Ummm, no, Erik. The objective was to have consensus to KEEP it on, not
> consensus to turn it off, and that was always the agreement. There was
> never, until the lack of consensus to keep it on became clear, a direct
> suggestion that we'd be stuck with it.
Anne, there are no
Ummm, no, Erik. The objective was to have consensus to KEEP it on, not
consensus to turn it off, and that was always the agreement. There was
never, until the lack of consensus to keep it on became clear, a direct
suggestion that we'd be stuck with it. The only reason the trial was
approved in the
2010/9/28 Erik Moeller :
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Closure
Correct link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Straw_poll
>
> and
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Straw_poll_on_interim_usage
>
> In both these polls, strong
2010/9/28 Risker :
> Thank you for confirming that English Wikipedia does not have a choice in
> whether or not this tool is deployed on our project.
There have been two massive polls in the English Wikipedia already on
Pending Changes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Closu
Erik -
Thank you for confirming that English Wikipedia does not have a choice in
whether or not this tool is deployed on our project.
Just a quick reminder of the words of William Pietri, who was the lead
developer of this project until the day after the first trial took place:
"This is, as the
Risker,
we've consistently communicated that we'll iteratively update the
Pending Changes codebase with fixes to address known issues, as
documented on:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Pending_Changes_enwiki_trial/Roadmap#November_2010_Release
This is the assumption on which hundreds of people vot
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 1:45 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 28 September 2010 12:40, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> > On 27 September 2010 21:02, Joan Goma wrote:
>
> >> We are here to promote Wikimedia projects not to promote Serbia union
> nor
> >> Kosovo independence.
>
> > Very true, but allowing sep
Hi Marcus - thanks for the note. I'll be looking into this right away to see if
we can get the good work of the subtitlers/translators into the whole
presentation of the videos on youtube and Vimeo.
Thanks for the pointer. As soon as we have some progress on this we'll let you
know (but hopefu
Rob, without wanting to take any wind out of your sails, please don't start
the next trial so soon. The analysis from the first trial is nowhere near
finished, the community has just started to consider criteria for a new
trial, and following the very abnormal "majority rules" poll, there needs to
Hoi,
Neither New York nor Hong Kong are independent. So this is not an argument.
It is completely beside the point what is the point is that Kosovo is
administratively a separate area. it has its own issues..
Thanks,
GerardM
On 27 September 2010 19:13, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 27 Septemb
Hi everyone,
As many of you know, the results of the poll to keep Pending Changes
on through a short development cycle were approved for interim usage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Straw_poll_on_interim_usage
Ongoing use of Pending Changes is contingent upon consensus af
An'n 28.09.2010 13:45, hett David Gerard schreven:
> On 28 September 2010 12:40, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> On 27 September 2010 21:02, Joan Goma wrote:
>>> We are here to promote Wikimedia projects not to promote Serbia union nor
>>> Kosovo independence.
>> Very true, but allowing separate Kosova
Hi all,
Sue Gardner, the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, will
be having office hours this Thursday (September 30) at 23:00 UTC
(16:00 PT, 19:00 ET, 01:00 Friday CEST) on IRC in #wikimedia-office.
If you do not have an IRC client, there are two ways you can come chat
using a web b
On 28 September 2010 15:27, Joan Goma wrote:
>> On 27 September 2010 21:02, Joan Goma wrote:
>> > We are here to promote Wikimedia projects not to promote Serbia union nor
>> > Kosovo independence.
>>
>> Very true, but allowing separate Kosovan and Sebian chapters (which is
>> probably best for t
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 12:40:30 +0100
> From: Thomas Dalton
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Kosovo Chapter?
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>
> Message-ID:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On 27 September 2010 21:02, Joan Goma wrote:
>
On 28 September 2010 12:40, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 27 September 2010 21:02, Joan Goma wrote:
>> We are here to promote Wikimedia projects not to promote Serbia union nor
>> Kosovo independence.
> Very true, but allowing separate Kosovan and Sebian chapters (which is
> probably best for the W
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 13:35, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> So your proposal is basically to make the Kosovan group a recognised
> non-chapter group (like we're talking about doing with the Kansai
> group) and then "upgrade" them to chapter status at a later date
> if/when it is less contentious to do s
On 27 September 2010 21:02, Joan Goma wrote:
> We are here to promote Wikimedia projects not to promote Serbia union nor
> Kosovo independence.
Very true, but allowing separate Kosovan and Sebian chapters (which is
probably best for the WM movement, since the Serbian chapter
presumably can't oper
On 27 September 2010 15:17, Nathan wrote:
> A few posts back Peter linked to several philosophy-trained editors
> who had left Wikipedia, representing them as examples of the problems
> he has identified.
> I think it's worth reposting here what one of those editors gave as
> his reasons for leav
On 27 September 2010 20:36, Milos Rancic wrote:
> The most important harm which exists now is the fact that free
> knowledge activists from Kosovo are not included yet into the
> Wikimedia movement. So, until the situation becomes more clear, we
> should think how to solve that problem.
>
> And we
49 matches
Mail list logo
