On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Tim Starling wrote:
> Another problem is that forking of a large Wikipedia edition has
> proven to be extremely difficult, regardless of the availability of
> image dumps, so the threat is very weak. The Chinese experience should
> tell us how hard it is: Baidu Ba
On 09/11/11 5:13 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> 2011/8/17 David Richfield:
>>> You say that we exclude significant material on the basis of
>>> notability?
>> Notability is not an absolute criteria.
>> There are thousands of subjects/articles which could be notable with
>> different criterias.
> What is
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> 2011/8/17 David Richfield :
>> Notability is not an absolute criteria.
>> There are thousands of subjects/articles which could be notable with
>> different criterias.
>
> What is happening is not one big fork, but many specialized forks based
> 2011/8/17 David Richfield :
>> You say that we exclude significant material on the basis of
>> notability?
>
> Notability is not an absolute criteria.
> There are thousands of subjects/articles which could be notable with
> different criterias.
>
> Regards,
>
> Yann
What is happening is not one
2011/8/17 David Richfield :
> You say that we exclude significant material on the basis of notability?
Notability is not an absolute criteria.
There are thousands of subjects/articles which could be notable with
different criterias.
Regards,
Yann
___
You say that we exclude significant material on the basis of notability?
That seems almost contradictory. If it has been the subject of non-trivial,
reliable, 3rd party coverage, it's notable. If it hasn't, how 'significant'
is it really?
As for childish, trivial, offensive stuff: is it an encyclo
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 12:55, emijrp wrote:
> Wikimedia Foundation wants to increase the participation and readers numbers
> just because the capitalist mind of forcing steady growing. They don't know
> how to reach that, just want to do it, and the participation growing is flat
> since 2007. The
On 8/16/2011 5:00 AM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
> A couple of months ago three admins of Aceh Wikipedia decided that it
> is not acceptable that they participate in the project which holds
> Muhammad depictions. By the project, they mean Wikimedia in general,
> including Wikim
On 16 August 2011 14:37, Tim Starling wrote:
> I think that we should have some other reason for being attractive to
> our editors apart from fear of forking. Say, some sort of goal or
> mission statement, which is helped by having a strong WMF.
> One problem with using fear of forking as your pr
On 16/08/11 20:11, David Gerard wrote:
> Precis: annoy a subcommunity sufficiently, they leave in a group. Try
> to stop them from leaving (as opposed to trying to attract them back),
> they leave faster and take others with them.
>
> This is what I mean when I say "forkability will keep us honest
> Furthermore, offering trustworthy text and image dumps is not seductive.
> Making forks easy is not seductive. That means re-using content but also
> losing contributors which go to other communities. Don't expect much
> effort
> in that.
Forking is hard nasty work. I'd much rather the Wikimedi
Here is a bigger problem.
Wikimedia Foundation wants to increase the participation and readers numbers
just because the capitalist mind of forcing steady growing. They don't know
how to reach that, just want to do it, and the participation growing is flat
since 2007. They tried to improve usabilit
On 16 August 2011 10:59, Milos Rancic wrote:
> That leads us to the serious dead end: We want forkability because of
> our principles. We could potentially lose parts of our movement.
> According to our principles, the only way to protect the movement is
> to be attractive to editors more than po
> Our competitors
> are not millions of MediaWiki installations; our competitor is Hudong
> (note the features [1]), but also Google and Facebook. I am not saying
> that they are against us, but that we have to catch their
> technological development if we want to survive.
>
> [1] http://en.wikiped
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 22:43, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> On 08/15/11 12:25 PM, Gustavo Carrancio wrote:
>> Fred: easy to fork vs hard to understand other cultures. Think a minute.
>> ¿Are we making an Encyclopedia? Must we struggle to split or to get
>> togeather?
>
> At some point we need to ask our
15 matches
Mail list logo
