2011/6/3 Jon Harald Søby :
> The only reason I can see for not allowing embedding is that
> embedding would be promoting YouTube
Embedding YouTube videos in Wikimedia content would send IP addresses
and other information about Wikimedia users to Google. This is
against Wikimedia's privacy policy,
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> As admin (but not Toolserver admin), the sense of rules similar to "
> excuses such as 'the rules didn't say I can't do this' will be
> ignored." is obvious to me and it means "don't make troubles". Having
> a redirect to a Wikipedia page is
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 8:59 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> You can stop using http://toolserver.org/~kalan/arb10/ if you have
> problems with profanity on user's main personal page.
>
> Server admins usually prefer not to do anything in relation to personal
> files if it is not a security problem and
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Stephen Bain wrote:
> Sorry if I was unclear, I meant that the development community is
> somewhat separate: people making modifications for non-Wikimedia
> installs, non-Wikimedia extension devs, Wikia devs, etc. Not that I
> know how many of them there are.
I d
2011/3/20 Jon Harald Søby :
> * Developers who are not server administrators, but who have made a certain
> number of commits (what number is "sufficient"?)
Some things to keep in mind:
* Anyone can create an account to edit. Getting commit access by
itself requires as much effort as a fairly la
On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 7:29 PM, Martin Maurer wrote:
> May I ask for an official Yes or No answer from the Foundation, please?
I don't think it's reasonable to demand a yes or no answer to a vague
hypothetical question. The answer might depend on the community's
stated reasons for the request, h
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
On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Rob Lanphier wrote:
> As you know, any time you want to compel someone to do something, there's
> always the carrot and the stick. One thing I don't like about the way
> you've phrased that is that is that you seem to be advocating the stick. Am
> I reading that r
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Aryeh Gregor
wrote:
> It's not specific to Wikimedia, it's practically universal in
> open-source development. To get it to happen, you need pushing from
> the top: formally stating it as part of people's job duties (so they
> don't
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Benjamin Lees wrote:
> I really agree with this sentiment, but it seems difficult to get staff to
> really be part of the community unless they're _from_ the community. The
> developers I've seen discuss their personal opinions on public fora
> (especially in ways
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> With all this in mind, here are just a few concrete ideas for closing the gap:
>
> 1) Embedding teams funded by WMF into larger, publicly visible
> workgroups which include volunteers and which meet regularly e.g. via
> IRC;
> 1 a) Outreach to
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> Unfortunately, we're still
> able to speak about the community and the UX teams as distinct
> entities. This division will continue so long as the relationship is
> viewed in the context of "decision"/"feedback" rather than as a
> dialogue
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Mark Williamson wrote:
> Aryeh, I was under the (apparently mistaken?) impression that at
> Wikipedia, the community makes the decisions
Not exactly. If the community actually made decisions, Wikipedia
would be a direct democracy, and it's not. The community doe
t; Said data indicated only that the interwiki links were used relatively
> infrequently. Apparently, there is absolutely no data suggesting that
> the full list's display posed a problem. Rather, this is a hunch
> based upon the application of a general design principle whose
> r
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> There is a clear attitude from the foundation staff that I, and
> others, are perceiving in these discussions. The notion that the
> community of contributors is a particularly whiny batch of customers
> who must be 'managed', that they exp
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
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 1:24 PM, Austin Hair wrote:
> Last night I was discussing this with Finne (henna), and she proposed
> that we might show a default list based on the user's most likely
> language(s), while still keeping the others collapsed by default.
>
> This could be done using the HTTP a
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Aryeh Gregor
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> You can attempt a weighted cost comparison: Num_interwiki_users *
>> Cost_of_hiding vs Everyone_else * Cost_of_clutter. But even
>> that will i
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> You can attempt a weighted cost comparison: Num_interwiki_users *
> Cost_of_hiding vs Everyone_else * Cost_of_clutter. But even
> that will inevitably lead to bad conclusions for some issues because
> the costs are usually not line
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> Who cares if people click them a lot? The space they formally
> occupied is filled with nothing now.
Interface clutter is not psychologically free. Empty space is better
than space filled with mostly-useless controls. Whether these
parti
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Amir E. Aharoni
wrote:
> The Usability Initiative was announced, but the search box hardly so.
> It was only announced in the technical blog and i actually read it and
> tried it in the prototype wiki, but as the prototype wiki says itself,
> it is not a real wiki,
On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 9:50 AM, Amir E. Aharoni
wrote:
> IIRC,
> when adding a page to the watchlist became AJAX-y two or three years
> ago, it was announced to the community some time before it was enabled
> - and that was a rather small change.
I don't remember that, and I was the one who enab
On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 5:27 PM, emijrp wrote:
> Solving captcha during registration is mandatory. Can this be replaced with
> a sound captcha for visual impairment people?
In theory, yes. Someone needs to provide the code, though. For now,
people who want to sign up and can't solve a captcha c
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 7:53 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Aryeh Gregor <
> simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com > wrote:
>> [[Daniel Pearl]] does not contain an image
>> of him being beheaded (although it's what he's famous for), and
>>
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:48 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> You're a developer. Write something for logged-in users to block
> images in local or Commons categories they don't want to see. You're
> the target market, after all.
I'd be happy to do any software development if that were helpful.
I've be
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 1:13 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
> On foundation-l we are divided between moderates and libertarians. The
> libertarians are more strident in their views, so the debate can seem
> one-sided at times, but there is a substantial moderate contingent,
> and I count myself among the
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 2:31 AM, David Goodman wrote:
> thousands, yes. Even conservapedia has thousands. But millions?
>
> I have no objection to working for a profit making enterprise. But
> when I do, I want my share of the money.
I imagine Wikia has millions of articles, all told. Gaia Onlin
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 4:22 PM, The Cunctator wrote:
> Hooray for letting American prurience and Larry Sanger's oddities shape the
> project.
Wikimedia's goal is to bring knowledge to everyone on Earth, not just
Europeans. Europe is at the extreme left on the global social scale,
along with a ha
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Tim Starling wrote:
> It's a big deal already, and by the time it becomes an even bigger
> deal, it will be too late to act. The global climate takes decades to
> respond to changes in forcing factors. Even if we stopped all
> greenhouse gas emissions now, the eart
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
> While the major program spending that Wikimedia performs should be
> defined by its mission, I think small spending decisions, relating to
> day-to-day operations, can be made without recourse to our mission.
> For instance, the office staff s
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 1:50 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
> I'm not appealing to the PR benefits here, or to the way this action
> would promote the climate change cause in general. I'm just saying
> that as an organisation composed of rational, moral people, Wikimedia
> has as much responsibility to a
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> Nitpicking, but the number of possible unique ballots is much greater
> than the factorial because of equality, and equality must be preserved
> in order produce the election calculations. The formula mostly easily
> represented is a messy
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Cox, Serita wrote:
> Google's new search engine, Caffeine, is supposedly kicking Wikipedia
> entries further down results page. Thoughts? Comments?
So what? Wikipedia's goal isn't to get high search rankings. It's to
be a useful resource within its domain. If a
It's great to hear this. We've really been lacking in senior
developer time for the last year or two, and I hope we can put an end
to that!
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> I would like to note that it isn't just internal naming schemes and/or
> industry conventions that matt
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/7/22 Pavlo Shevelo :
>> There should not be any real problem to link wikimedia.org.uk directly
>> to Wikimedia UK chapter wiki (wherever it's hosted).
>
> It depends on how the WMF has everything set up. They have a
> complicated setup fo
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 10:06 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> (For the record, I'm referring to
> the earliest history of ParserFunctions. I'm not sure about the
> history of #expr and some of the later bits.)
#expr was present since the first commit (r13505).
__
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Brian wrote:
> A compromise is a win-win.
Compromising is not a good idea per se. It's only a good idea if it
advances your goals more than refusing to compromises. Some
compromises are bad and should not be accepted. If you put enough
importance on open standard
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Brian wrote:
> It's a shame they couldn't get all vendors to agree to ship both ogg and
> h264 codecs.
No, it's not. H.264 is patented and you need to pay licensing fees to
use it. It's not an open standard and should not be used on the web
if it's at all avoidabl
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 1:16 AM, Brian wrote: > Is the assumption that all of
the members of the community who are > knowledgeable and interested have
already signed up to the relevant mailing > lists and all that is needed is
to send out a quick 'ping' and get their > thoughts? Yes, IMO (as a
volun
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Tisza Gergő wrote:
> I do argue that it is not in violation of the privacy policy (whether the
> people
> here find it acceptable is another question).
It may be within the letter of the privacy policy. I think that's
entirely arguable, since the policy is so vagu
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
> As I understand it, nobody is arguing that it's considered acceptable at
> this point.
Peter Gervai seemed to argue exactly that, unless I badly misread him:
> someone from outside seriously interfere with other project
> based on, as it turns
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 2:14 AM, John at Darkstar wrote:
> Its not that it won't be perfect, it simply will not work.
It will in most cases if you don't mind some false positives. False
positives would be acceptable if it's just a warning page that the
admin could click through. Check for anythin
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 6:01 AM, Neil Harris wrote:
> Surely this is something which should be possible to block at the
> MediaWiki level, by suppressing the generation of any HTML that loads
> any indirect resources (scripts, iframes, images, etc.) whatsoever other
> than from a clearly defined wh
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Birgitte SB wrote:
> Well you now snipped it all, but someone suggested creating mirror under a
> different domain name for schools. I replied to that saying how I thought
> resources were best spent. Then you replied to me.
>
> If you weren't replying to me to
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Birgitte SB wrote:
> I think this email really shows a misunderstanding of "Wikipedia is not
> censored" is about; so I am starting a new thread to discuss the issue.
Well, for my part, I think the entire "Wikipedia is not censored"
policy completely misunderstan
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Birgitte SB wrote:
> Your really didn't address my question. Why do you think WMF resources are
> best used to create and support a mirror for people who are disgusted by
> sexuality rather than making easier for third-parties to create mirrors for
> *any* of d
Anyone who thinks Wikipedia isn't censored because it allows pictures
of penises is fooling himself. Wikipedia is absolutely censored from
images its editors find disgusting. Most of its editors find sexual
images just fine, and a large percentage view their suppression as
harmful, "sex-negative"
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 11:58 PM, Brian wrote:
> Quite frankly the advice that you should only use five subjects makes no
> sense. The appeal to Nielsen's authority is not going to work on me or
> anyone else who understands why the scientific method exists.
Experience shows that most people end u
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Platonides wrote:
> In that futuristic approach I find it more likely that there will be no
> paper / printer, but instead everthing will be stored into
> computers/PDAs and transfered between them. So in the event of the
> catastrophe you'd be only able to access i
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 6:45 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> By accident or by some other reason, we have much better optics than
> computers. So, it is reasonably to suppose that some future
> civilization will achieve much faster good optics than good computers.
Okay, great. Now you can assign probab
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> You make a good point, but that point applies just as well to any
> other time capsule plan and people still consider them worthwhile.
I don't. I think they're fairly silly.
> However, most information isn't lost because of disaster, it is
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> But rebuilding civilisation is probably not the most likely use such
> archives would be put to (it's just the most exciting, so the one I
> mentioned). The historical and cultural value 1000 years from now of
> knowing what people 1000 years
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> I disagree. The short term utility is obviously zero, but the long
> term utility could be massive. The contents of Wikimedia projects
> could play a vital role in rebuilding civilisation - I call that
> useful.
Assuming civilization collaps
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> Certainly not large amounts of funds any time soon. If it could be
> done for $5k, I'd recommend doing it with WMF funds.
I'm pretty sure buying another server or offering a slightly higher
salary on the next job offering or just leaving the
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 8:06 PM, wrote:
> OK, fair enough. I was just hoping there was some list where somebody
> still remembered accessibility.
Surely MediaWiki is more accessible than 90% of the web software out there . . .
___
foundation-l mailing
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 6:37 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
wrote:
> Personally (even though I don't have tattoos) I think I
> could give details of myself that would be somewhat
> difficult to forge on short notice. The index finger of
> my right hand sports a completely healed up lack
> of nail. That
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 3:49 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> When you declare one version canonical the risk is that you will have
> supporters of the losing version(s) becoming irrationally angry.
Which version was canonical is an implementation detail that wouldn't
even be visible to contributors, so
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Marcus Buck wrote:
> Harsh critic, isn't it? There are two interpretations possible now: a)
> All those critics are dicks. b) You did something that is indeed critizable.
"All those critics" being you and . . . who else, again?
Part of being on an international li
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> I am sceptical about automatic conversion. As you said, it is mainly a
> solution for reading, but not for writing, because the source text is in one
> specific spelling or character system.
Why couldn't that be converted on the fly as well?
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
> Private keys can be compromised by anyone with a whim and a few
> thousand dollars, either physically by compromise of the device, or
> remotely by social engineering or zero-day exploit. Key signing
> parties are premised on the idea that priv
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Anthony wrote:
> What's your estimate of how long it's going to take to get the next full
> history English Wikipedia dump?
I would guess it gets fixed in less than a year, with new dumps every
few weeks after that. If it doesn't happen by then given the moderat
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Anthony wrote:
> Accepted by whom? Co-lo a box on the Internet, and ask the Foundation for
> permission to create the dump. A single thread downloading articles to a
> single server isn't going to impact the project. It probably wouldn't even
> be *noticed*.
It
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Marcus Buck wrote:
> That's a true answer, but at the same time as useless as it can be.
> If it's indeed only a matter of "getting around to it" (is it?), then
> the fact that they didn't came around to it since April 2008 would
> proove my "accusation" that the "
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Platonides wrote:
> I don't think it should be added, but moving bugzilla to brainstorm
> could be considered.
IdeaStorm is not acceptable as a replacement for Bugzilla. Ubuntu
uses a separate bug tracker too, mind. Good bug trackers have many
essential features
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 10:27 PM, geni wrote:
> I wouldn't bet on that
No offense intended, but I'm curious: do you do any software development?
> The case was the wikia case with the CIA replacing wikia. How close
> would we be prepared to let WMF people get to the CIA. In theory as
> long as t
This is a fairly silly topic, but I'll say two things:
1) If the CIA or NSA or whoever contributed source code, we would
review them like any other patches. Period. If they're committing
illegal activities or whatever, that's something for the courts to
rule on, and is no business of ours. Our
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Gregory Kohs wrote:
> It would appear that nobody is concerned about giving the landlord a
> leg up on ITS for-profit competitors by supplying them in particular
> with a ready feed of intellectual capital in the form of the friendly
> Stanton-funded developers?
A
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> NB Five hundred dollars does not cut it. A *really *good commercial
> programmer may bill you for this amount for a days work.
$500/day isn't so much. Experienced contractors in programming can
bill well upwards of $1000/day (I know this
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:57 AM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> Another useful thing: after an article is parsed, write all the
> templates it uses and their parameters in the database. Even if at first
> it isn't possible to read this data on Wikipedia, Toolserver could do
> wonders with it :)
This s
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Gazimoff wrote:
> After downloading, installing and maintaining a low-traffic Mediawiki
> setup, I think the experience can be improved dramatically. It's clear
> that a heavy amount of work has been done on improving processing
> speed and providing additional fun
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:28 PM, geni wrote:
> How well do those concepts stand up when you have a lot of people
> copying and pasting code they don't really understand (writing an
> infobox from scratch is hard modifying an existing one less so)?
Pretty well, I suspect. Of course, real languag
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Brian wrote:
> ParserFunctions are my specific example of how the current development
> process is very, very broken, and out of touch with the community.
However, the community as a whole has not objected to ParserFunctions.
They were enabled with the full cons
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 9:04 PM, Brian wrote:
> False: Extension Matrix.
See the rest of that paragraph. Anyone who can write code and wants
commit access can get it. The only ones without commit access who
want it are those who can't or won't write code. Most of the
extension developers are a
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Brian wrote:
> Why are so few community-developed mediawiki extensions used by the
> Foundation?
Because there's approximately one person (Tim Starling) who reviews
such extensions in practice, and he has limited time. There's
approximately one other person (Brion
On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Delirium wrote:
> The point I was making is that the fact that people thought a
> content-related complaint about Wikia might be relevant to the
> foundation is the fault primarily of Wikia and the Foundation, and
> especially its entangled principals, not the fault
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 7:09 PM, Brian wrote:
> Interesting. I realize that the dump is extremely large, but if 7zip is
> really the bottleneck then to me the solutions are straightforward:
>
> 1. Offer an uncompressed version of the dump for download. Bandwidth is
> cheap and downloads can be res
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 4:53 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am quite happy to state that this is my strong opinion. I disagree however
> that a community always has primacy in considerations like this. Most
> relevant are the arguments behind the opinions expressed. When the com
78 matches
Mail list logo
