On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Pharos wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:02 AM, John Vandenberg wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Pharos wrote:
>>> ..
>>>
>>>
>>> I agree, a focus on new namespaces (perhaps with differentiated
>>> editing permissions, per Liam) certainly looks like the
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:02 AM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Pharos wrote:
>> ..
>>
>>
>> I agree, a focus on new namespaces (perhaps with differentiated
>> editing permissions, per Liam) certainly looks like the best path
>> forward to me.
>
> Or we could just leave
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 10:38 AM, Pharos wrote:
> ..
>
>
> I agree, a focus on new namespaces (perhaps with differentiated
> editing permissions, per Liam) certainly looks like the best path
> forward to me.
Or we could just leave the sister projects alone. That is also a viable option.
For the
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 2:40 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On 07/01/2011 11:52 PM, WereSpielChequers wrote:
>> One thing I find irritating and complex about our structure is the
>> proliferation of small wikis. Now I've no objection to the idea that
>> we have a wiki for every language on Earth, though
On 4 Jul 2011, at 23:57, Juergen Fenn wrote:
>
>
> Am 02.07.11 14:17 schrieb Alec Conroy:
>>> if you talk to the press, or to media experts, they all know
>>> "Wikipedia" but not "Wikimedia". The most simple and reasonable way is
>>> to use the famous brand, not to invest in "Wikimedia".
>>
>>
>>
Am 02.07.11 14:17 schrieb Alec Conroy:
>> if you talk to the press, or to media experts, they all know
>> "Wikipedia" but not "Wikimedia". The most simple and reasonable way is
>> to use the famous brand, not to invest in "Wikimedia".
>
>
> There's an even bigger opportunity here--
> Make a bra
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 15:31, Alhen wrote:
> While I agree on principle, it can be more than difficult to merge sister
> projects at this point of time. Wiktionary, wikibook, and wikisource and so
> on have very different users. Some of them even dread the idea of belonging
> to Wikipedia. Cross-p
Within the general concept of Merging Wikis I agree, it would be good in
principle to have one uber-wiki that is the central hub of all community
things (meta, outreach, strategy...). Each time we create a separate wiki
Ward Cunningham kills a kitten.
I wonder - would it be possible in MediaWiki t
>
> From: Steven Walling
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 14:48:09 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Merge wikis
>
> That discussion was interesting for this one, because it brings up issues
> such as that merging even a relatively small wiki like ten (565 content
Forwarded on behalf of a non-member.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Jutta von Dincklage
Date: Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 10:14 PM
Subject: FW: Call for input: Strategic planning at Wikimedia Australia
To: "foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org" <
foundation-l-ow...@lists.wikimedia.org>
While I agree on principle, it can be more than difficult to merge sister
projects at this point of time. Wiktionary, wikibook, and wikisource and so
on have very different users. Some of them even dread the idea of belonging
to Wikipedia. Cross-project colaboration must be encouraged, yes, but
pla
If merging existing wikis is resource intensive, lets start the
process by not creating new wikis for thins that should be projects
within existing wikis. So wikimania 2012, or if it is too late for
that Wikimania 2013 could be a project within meta.
But my suspicion is that a bit of development a
On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 22:48, Steven Walling wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 3:34 PM, . Courcelles wrote:
>> I couldn't agree more, now that the date has passed, so should
>> ten.wikipedia. Outreach and Strategy have a mission, but nothing so
>> distinct that it would be out of scope on Meta, and
13 matches
Mail list logo
