On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
>
> A related question - I see there was a request to set up a new domain, "
> strategy.wikimedia.org"
>
> What would this new site be for? New single-purpose wikis can flounder
> after distracting people with setting up basic infrastructure (u
Hoi,
It is great to find issues with MediaWiki. The solution is often not obvious
and, there are often solutions available, some of these solutions do not
scale and some of the solutions are not invented here.David Shankbone is one
of the solutions for our lack of high profile people. David does im
Eugene Eric Kim wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> We're still in the process of getting up to speed, but I'm anxious to
> start interacting with more of you and garnering some feedback as we
> prepare to initiate this process. As a way to get to know each other
> and talk about the process, Philippe and
The website link states 21st July - so I assume this evening...
Mike
On 21 Jul 2009, at 10:37, Florence Devouard wrote:
> Eugene Eric Kim wrote:
>> Hi everybody,
>>
>> We're still in the process of getting up to speed, but I'm anxious to
>> start interacting with more of you and garnering some f
Good eyes, Sj. I have to agree - opening a new wiki for every single
project is a terrible idea, as we've learned from quality.wikimedia.org.
Please try to use Meta for this purpose.
-Mike
On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 02:19 -0400, Samuel Klein wrote:
> A related question - I see there was a request to
Is it time to close the advisory board wiki like we just closed
quality.wikimedia.org? Considering the state you describe, I rather
think so (even qualitywiki wasn't so bad). Content could be moved to
foundationwiki or Meta (or both) depending on what it is.
-Mike
On Tue, 2009-07-21 at 17:08 +100
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 17:43, Sage Ross wrote:
> Hold up! This is User:Jerry Avenaim, and he has contributed some of
> his low-resolution photographs, and even a higher-resolution one of
> Mark Marmon that is a Featured Picture on en-wiki.
Thanks for the info, for I was able to actually check t
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:03 AM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> > it to Commons, or make it insufficiently; 2) why they do not make it ot
> > the articles. I tried to make the point in the recent thread on the
> > purpose of Commons, but somehow it did not draw enough atte
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:52 PM,
Mike.lifeguard wrote:
> Is it time to close the advisory board wiki like we just closed
> quality.wikimedia.org?
Yes. The content has been exported to meta.
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19855
Angela
__
We should leave quality.wikimedia.org in place as an object lesson to future
wikifounders. "When 20 interested editors isn't enough"...
And don't forget the grants wiki. It was used briefly, and despite being
private contains very little private info. It should also be moved to meta
and archive
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 3:47 AM, Eugene Eric Kim wrote:
>> and talk about the process, Philippe and I will be holding IRC office
>> hours tomorrow on freenode's #wikimedia channel from 8-10pm UTC. (You
>> can convert this to your local timezone
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Peter Gervai wrote:
> And in my opinion uploading a reduced resolution image, like 1-5
> Megapixels is completely good and acceptable for our mission. These
> are already quite useful resolutions, while they still aren't fit for
> mainstream media. (Of course if p
Donate Now Every donation helps us to keep free for everyone.
Donate Now Keep Wikipedia free for everyone.
Is no one else concerned by the use of the word "free" in the message options
being tested. I wouldn't want these ambigous messages like these on the site
no matter if they beat out the n
on 7/21/09 10:33 AM, Birgitte SB at birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Donate Now Every donation helps us to keep free for everyone.
> Donate Now Keep Wikipedia free for everyone.
>
> Is no one else concerned by the use of the word "free" in the message options
> being tested. I wouldn't want the
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> * Could you please help update the meta page on the process with your
> thoughts and ideas? [[m:Strategic planning 2009]] What's your current
> rough timeline for the coming 12 months?
We'll start seeding Meta with what we know (and probabl
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Eugene Eric Kim wrote:
>
>
> We'll start seeding Meta with what we know (and probably quite a bit
> of what we don't) today, and I'll look forward to reading other
> people's thoughts.
>
That will be great.
> There's a tradeoff between starting with a blank slat
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Peter Gervai wrote:
> So it seems just what I have guessed: the reporter misinterpreting someone.
>
The slashdot summary includes the choice quotes that are a bit out of
context, but in the original article it starts off the section with
Avenaim by noting his cont
I agree with this, and said so at the original discussion--where I
think the consensus was not to use that phrase.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Marc
Riddell wrote:
> on 7/21/09 10:33 AM, Birgitte SB at birgitte...@yahoo
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 7:42 AM, Eugene Eric Kim wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
>> * Could you please help update the meta page on the process with your
>> thoughts and ideas? [[m:Strategic planning 2009]] What's your current
>> rough timeline for the coming 12 mon
Hi,
I would like to give a little update on the licencing status of the
Hungarian Wikinews as it has come up before on this list.
As some of you may know by following this mailing list that the Hungarian
Wikinews was set up -- probably by accident -- with the "WMF licensing
resolution for new wiki
Small wikis need a lot more administrative work per articles than larger
wikis. If there isn't any clear real reason then simply don't make a new
wiki.
John
phoebe ayers wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 7:42 AM, Eugene Eric Kim wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
>>> *
Peter Gervai wrote:
>
> Usually I do not get it why people choose NC licenses all the time
> while there's usually a low probability to actually _lose_ money by
> making it public.
>
This may come as a shock to you but its not about money. When I take
photographs it is in my free time, and o
Hoi.
True but not in the context of the WMF.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/7/21
> Peter Gervai wrote:
> >
>
> > Usually I do not get it why people choose NC licenses all the time
> > while there's usually a low probability to actually _lose_ money by
> > making it public.
> >
>
> This may come as
2009/7/21 :
> If you have a personal use, want to illustrating an article or blog that
> is not Adsense rich, have an academic use, or a small scale fundraising
> non-profit fine take what you want. If on the other hand you are share
> cropping with Google Ads, using the images to tart up an othe
Hello,
A different question on the same topic,
However I completely support the change to cc-by-sa-3.0, I'm wondering
if its possible to change the cc-by-2.5 license into a cc-by-sa-3.0
license without having to deal with big problems, when I read the
license I find this:
"This License consti
David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/7/21 :
>
>> If you have a personal use, want to illustrating an article or blog that
>> is not Adsense rich, have an academic use, or a small scale fundraising
>> non-profit fine take what you want. If on the other hand you are share
>> cropping with Google Ads, using t
wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
>
>> Explaining this to professional content creators and media companies
>> leads to exploding heads. Pointing out that giving it all away has
>> made Wikipedia a top-ten website and must be doing all right from it
>> isn't enough to con
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> ...a properly viral licence will constrain the commercial
> publisher with the requirement that any use by him will also render his
> new context for that photograph just as available for free use as the
> photograph itself.
>
But our nomina
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
>> David Gerard wrote:
>>
>>> Explaining this to professional content creators and media companies
>>> leads to exploding heads. Pointing out that giving it all away has
>>> made Wikipedia a top-ten website and must be doing all right fr
2009/7/21 Samuel Klein :
> We should leave quality.wikimedia.org in place as an object lesson to future
> wikifounders. "When 20 interested editors isn't enough"...
:-)
I don't think it's comparable. The Quality Portal was an attempt to
drive attention towards some existing technologies and init
The Canadian government has asked for comments on copyright revision at
http://copyright.econsultation.ca/
It will accept comments until September 13. Amazingly this mostly
coincides with the time when most people interested in liberalized
copyright laws are away touring Europe or planting tre
2009/7/21 Samuel Klein :
> (speaking of which, engaging public grants discussions is a
> good idea to bring up during planning -- since some of the most active
> community work in support of grants happened when community members found
> out about, and were excited by, a potential NEH proposal bac
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 3:02 PM, wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>> wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
>>> David Gerard wrote:
>>>
Explaining this to professional content creators and media companies
leads to exploding heads. Pointing out that giving it all away has
made Wikipedia a
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 21:05, wrote:
> Peter Gervai wrote:
>
>> Usually I do not get it why people choose NC licenses all the time
>> while there's usually a low probability to actually _lose_ money by
>> making it public.
>>
>
> This may come as a shock to you but its not about money. When I tak
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> I don't think it's comparable. The Quality Portal was an attempt to
> drive attention towards some existing technologies and initiatives -
>
We have a simple and popular mechanism for creating portals. Why not ask
the target audience how b
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 8:10 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> Cool, and many thanks for sharing your calendar! We should all do that. I
> was wondering about versioning - a pity it's not supported. A wiki list and
> bugzilla project should work as well. Someone just needs to write the
> eek-chand-to-w
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> You replace one vested group (people already regularly editing the host
> wiki) with another (people who split off to found the new wiki). both run
> the risk of 'groupthink' and founder effects.
The plan is not to replace one group with anot
37 matches
Mail list logo
