On 14.12.2010 23:47, Magnus Manske wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Henning Schlottmann
>> Not true. The first other languages were introduced on March 15 and
>> could be part of this archive if the different Wikipedias were in one
>> database under UseMod.
>
Hi Magnus,
On 14.12.2010 22:35, Magnus Manske wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Henning Schlottmann
> wrote:
>> On 14.12.2010 16:54, Tim Starling wrote:
>>> I was looking through some old files in our SourceForge project. I
>>> opened a file called wiki
On 14.12.2010 16:54, Tim Starling wrote:
> I was looking through some old files in our SourceForge project. I
> opened a file called wiki.tar.gz, and inside were three complete
> backups of the text of Wikipedia, from February, March and August 2001!
That's wonderful news. Is this for enWP only or
On 27.11.2010 18:12, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 15:32, Henning Schlottmann
> wrote:
>> On 27.11.2010 01:41, Milos Rancic wrote:
>>
>>> In other words, our recruitment base are not well formed scientists,
>>> but high school students who ar
On 27.11.2010 01:41, Milos Rancic wrote:
> In other words, our recruitment base are not well formed scientists,
> but high school students who are interested in Wikipedia (and other
> Wikimedia projects) per se. After five years on project, a former high
> school student -- probably a university s
On 04.10.2010 20:43, geni wrote:
> On 4 October 2010 19:31, Henning Schlottmann wrote:
>> But those who don't have verifiable knowledge, should not write for
>> Wikipedia. Their contribution is at best useless, at worse they use up
>> time and energy of those who coul
On 03.10.2010 17:03, geni wrote:
> So I can run a 30 second search on the british library catalogue than
> go back to doing what I was going to do all along. Great use of my
> time.
Wikipedia is about people with knowledge collaborating to add their part
to the project. This way Wikipedia is tryi
On 20.09.2010 21:19, Peter Damian wrote:
> Following on from my previous posts about trying to classify the scope and
> coverage of humanities subjects in Wikipedia, I have a practical question:
> is it possible to query the Wikipedia database in such a way as to get a
> list of all articles (cu
On 25.08.2010 02:45, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Are people who clean up dead links taking the time to check Internet
> Archive to se if the page in question is there?
No one should even touch a presumed dead link unless he or she has the
expertise to check the link for a simple restructuring on the
Austin Hair wrote:
> A mailing list, however, is different. A mailing list is a
> conversation. Everyone's been in a conversation where a single person
> dominated, and no matter how smart or charismatic or entertaining he
> may be, dominating a conversation minimizes the chance for other
> peopl
Austin Hair wrote:
> My ideal, personally, is something more like nntp--and while I'm
> perfectly happy to turn over the list to some other technology, I
> don't know that this is the magic solution, and I agree with Tim that
> it risks killing what good we do have with the existing methods.
I'm r
Tim Starling wrote:
> I think we should stop using this outdated technology altogether and
> instead switch to a web-based forum, where comments can be
> postmoderated (i.e. removed after posting), and unproductive threads
> can be moved or locked.
Web boards are crap, partly precisely for the re
Milos Rancic wrote:
> The whole thread is about long-term sustainability. At least, I
> started it with this intention, mentioning that WMF started to work on
> that (Strategy plan).
"Long term" planning for the Foundation is not planning with
contributors who will write on Wikipedia for several d
John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Henning
> Schlottmann wrote:
>> And if there are kids with knowledge and understanding
>> on these or other topics, they will be fascinated by Wikipedia and find
>> the project on their own. We don't need to
Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> * Report: Many people are not interested in becoming a Wikipedian,
> they just want to correct a typo or add a link or an information. They
> are mostly interested only in one peticular subject. Would'nt it be
> better not to let them edit, but to let them report? Their repor
Mark Williamson wrote:
> Do you have data to back this up? For the record, I'll be 20 in August
> and the main areas I edited were pages about cultures, countries, and
> languages since I was about 15.
Great. And I never denied that prodigy kids exist, but they are few -
just think of how many of
Milos Rancic wrote:
> * Also, statistically, old people are dying more often than young
> people. Fortunately our generations (20+, 30+ and 40+) will become
> retired academicians or so one day in the future and then we'll have a
> very nice expansion in the number of highly qualified contributors.
Milos Rancic wrote:
> Now, we are starting with the implementation of the Scenario 1: we
> want to attract more retired academicians and we don't care for
> younger and we are very successful in that implementation. So, during
> the next year we are getting 500 more contributors in the ages groups
geni wrote:
> English wikipedia has 2.9 million articles and far more words and can
> still have things added to it by teenagers. And it's not just
> different inclusion standards. For example [[Langstone]] meets any
> reasonable inclusion standards. De does not have an article.
> [[Ordnance Surve
Dennis During wrote:
> It might be possible to rely on a population of academics as contributors
> but there needs to be a mechanism to make sure that the needs of our actual
> users have appropriate weight in decision making
Who are our actual users? Students are of course well known to use
Wiki
Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> Anyone else concerned by this line of reasoning? What happened to
> Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia anyone can edit?
Everyone may contribute, but not everyone can.*
Ciao Henning
* Mantra No.2:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Markus_Mueller/Mantras
Disclaimer: T
Milos Rancic wrote:
> In all cases we need to think seriously how to educate younger
> generations about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects.
Thanks for all the data and the number crunching. But I think you are
wrong in your assumptions and therefore in your analysis at least
regarding de-WP.
David Gerard wrote:
> That's what I mean - this issue goes way beyond NPG into how arts
> institutions are funded and sustained, which is why the NPG or people
> therein may believe they're really fighting for their lives and we
> threaten that. And if the NPG doesn't think that, other galleries ma
geni wrote:
> 2009/2/20 Henning Schlottmann :
>> * The responsibility for decisions of this magnitude lays with the
>> board. WMF is a non-membership association. Don't even try to evade that
>> responsibility by delegating it to the "community". Accept the
&
Ryan Kaldari wrote:
> As far as anyone not subscribed to this listserv can tell, the
> proposal to migrate Wikipedia to Creative Commons is dead in the
> water.
True.
This should be quite an important issue for the Foundation. The time
frame is narrow, running out and it looks like the Foundation
Judson Dunn wrote:
> Make no mistake, the free dissemination of all human knowledge to
> every person on the planet is a fight. The forces that would spread
> ignorance as a means of control, and separation are always fighting
> back. The idea that we should acquiesce in that fight, and censor our
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> It's a democratically elected government making the laws
> and those laws don't prevent free and fair elections, so it isn't
> undemocratic. (Of course, an semi-official and unaccountable agency
> like the IWF enforcing the laws is not a great way to go about it.)
Your adden
27 matches
Mail list logo
