Re: [Foundation-l] Missing Wikipedians: An Essay

In a message dated 2/19/2011 4:18:52 PM Pacific Standard Time, thewub.w...@googlemail.com writes: > Deletion log for Makmende: > * 00:37, 24 March 2010 Flyguy649 (talk | contribs) deleted “Makmende” > ? (CSD G3: Pure Vandalism) > * 22:53, 23 March 2010 Malik Shabazz (talk | contribs) deleted > “

Re: [Foundation-l] Missing Wikipedians: An Essay

On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 7:53 PM, wrote: > I have a problem with this admin comprehending what exactly "Vandalism" > means. > In what way is the initial version "vandalism". > > If I cared enough I would suggest that re-training might be appropriate > here. > > W > The third incarnation of the ar

Re: [Foundation-l] VPAT

Spreading free knowledge implies a good free knowledge infrastructure, including reputable free knowledge tools. We don't need the US govt to use any given software, it pays to make it as widely usable and not block ourselves from any major group who might want to try using Mediawiki. Not least 1/

Re: [Foundation-l] VPAT

Hoi, The United States government uses MediaWiki in several places. When you consider that most of the money donated to the Wikimedia Foundation is given by Americans and, when you consider that complying with a standard for usability is something that is a strategic goal, I do understand your pov

Re: [Foundation-l] Missing Wikipedians: An Essay

On 2/20/11, Ryan Lomonaco wrote: > The third incarnation of the article (the one that was labeled "vandalism") > was labeled as a "hoax" under CSD G3 by an IP editor. It looks like the > admin meant to delete it as a hoax, but picked the wrong option from the > drop-down box -- G3 covers both "va

Re: [Foundation-l] VPAT

On Feb 20, 2011, at 5:36 AM, FT2 wrote: > Spreading free knowledge implies a good free knowledge infrastructure, > including reputable free knowledge tools. We don't need the US govt > to use > any given software, it pays to make it as widely usable and not block > ourselves from any major grou

Re: [Foundation-l] VPAT

On 20 February 2011 13:09, aude wrote: > Section 508, widely used beyond government, is a benchmark to allow us > to assess how we do in this regard. Yep. 508 compliance for software is considered simply good practice, even if you don't *have* to apply it. > Since the US gov already uses medi

Re: [Foundation-l] VPAT

Hello Gerard, while I totally agree with you about the usability part, what I want to say in my last mail is that there is no need for put the US government into your argumentation for it. Greetings Ting On 20.02.2011 11:55, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > The United States government uses Med

Re: [Foundation-l] Missing Wikipedians: An Essay

On 20 February 2011 10:57, Marco Chiesa wrote: > Please consider that this is foundation-l and for many people CSD G3 > is pretty meaningless > Cruccone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CSD#G3 But we are talking about en's deletion procedures. Not being able to work out what G3 is could m

Re: [Foundation-l] VPAT

On 20 February 2011 13:56, Ting Chen wrote: > while I totally agree with you about the usability part, what I want to > say in my last mail is that there is no need for put the US government > into your argumentation for it. Government use of MediaWiki is strongly to our advantage, as this may

Re: [Foundation-l] Missing Wikipedians: An Essay

I have read this article this morning, Well this is a similar problem I am having with adding details to, or new articles about Kosovo, even my attempts are getting deleted. Having problems even getting the Turkish, Bosnian or Albanian alternative names added without being deleted, even if sources

Re: [Foundation-l] Missing Wikipedians: An Essay

On 2/20/11, geni wrote: > On 20 February 2011 10:57, Marco Chiesa wrote: >> Please consider that this is foundation-l and for many people CSD G3 >> is pretty meaningless >> Cruccone > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CSD#G3 > > But we are talking about en's deletion procedures. Not bein

Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications

2011/2/19 David Gerard : > On 19 February 2011 10:31, Teofilo wrote: > >> A) Internationalisation. The CC 3.0 license is an "unported" license. >> This means English-based, English speaking countries' jurisdictions >> bases, English Common Law based. The 3.0 version is a disappointing >> regressio

Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications

Hello, Please get real. The translation of such licenses is WORK and much of this WORK is done by volunteers. Even when it is not done by volunteers it costs time. There is one suggestion I can give you. Give abundantly of your money to Creative Commons so that they are able to address your concer

Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications

On 20 February 2011 15:52, Teofilo wrote: > 2011/2/19 David Gerard : >> You do not understand the licenses. There are also country versions of >> 3.0, and each is explicitly interchangeable with each of the others. > 3.0 is not as thoroughly internationalized as 2.0. > Click on the following lin

Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications

2011/2/20 Gerard Meijssen : > Hello, > Please get real. The translation of such licenses is WORK and much of this > WORK is done by volunteers. Even when it is not done by volunteers it costs > time. > > There is one suggestion I can give you. Give abundantly of your money to > Creative Commons so

Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications

2011/2/20 David Gerard : > On 20 February 2011 15:52, Teofilo wrote: >> 2011/2/19 David Gerard : > >>> You do not understand the licenses. There are also country versions of >>> 3.0, and each is explicitly interchangeable with each of the others. > >> 3.0 is not as thoroughly internationalized as

Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications

On 20 February 2011 16:18, Teofilo wrote: > I presume that the people who created > http://creativecommons.org/choose/ know what they are doing and that > their view on licensing does make sense, to some extent. You also presume that CC by-sa is a non-free licence. Further, you still haven't e

Re: [Foundation-l] Missing Wikipedians: An Essay

On 20 February 2011 15:49, Marco Chiesa wrote: > On 2/20/11, geni wrote: >> On 20 February 2011 10:57, Marco Chiesa wrote: >>> Please consider that this is foundation-l and for many people CSD G3 >>> is pretty meaningless >>> Cruccone >> >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CSD#G3 >> >>

Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications

2011/2/20 David Gerard : > On 20 February 2011 16:18, Teofilo wrote: > >> I presume that the people who created >> http://creativecommons.org/choose/ know what they are doing and that >> their view on licensing does make sense, to some extent. > > > You also presume that CC by-sa is a non-free lic

Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications

On 20 February 2011 17:26, Teofilo wrote: > Software is a specific sector of content creation. Perhaps it is > possible to gather software creators around a table, possibly with a > few lawyers nearby, and ask them to create the single ultimate license > that will fit all the needs of all softwar

Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications

On 20 February 2011 17:26, Teofilo wrote: > But on Wikimedia Commons we are not dealing with a specific sector. We > are receiving a variety of contents from different creative worlds. By > the same token that you do not use the same legal code for a wedding > contract and for a car purchase, Tha

Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content -- update

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 5:26 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > Could Phoebe, Jan-Bart or Kat please give us an update on the activities of > the working group looking into the recommendations resulting from the 2010 > Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content? > > Have any conclusions been drawn, and are

Re: [Foundation-l] Licenses' biodiversity : my big disagreement with the Wikimedia usability initiative's software specifications

On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 8:07 AM, Teofilo wrote: > I think the upload wizard should > > - allow non-CC licenses such as License art libre, or GNU GPL, GNU > LGPL, Open Source Music License, etc... > - when CC licenses are chosen, allow to pick up licenses from any > version (2.0 or 2.5 or 3.0) and

Re: [Foundation-l] VPAT

On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 5:27 AM, David Gerard wrote: > On 20 February 2011 13:09, aude wrote: > >> Section 508, widely used beyond government, is a benchmark to allow us >> to assess how we do in this regard. > > > Yep. 508 compliance for software is considered simply good practice, > even if you

Re: [Foundation-l] An agenda for the meeting of the language committee

On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 4:37 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > In Berlin, in parallel to the MediaWiki hackathon, > members of the language > committeeof the > Wikimedia > Foundation will

[Foundation-l] Do you want to write pages that thousands of people see every day?

Hello, Just a quick note from the Account Creation Improvement Project: Tomorrow we will start testing the pages that newcomers see once they have created their accounts. So far we have six new versions of the landing pages, but we would very much like your input and your help. You can check out

Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content -- update

Hi Phoebe, Thank you very much for the update. Recommendations 7 and 9 are important points, and I am glad there is some work being done on them. Do let us know again how things are progressing! Best, Andreas --- On Sun, 20/2/11, phoebe ayers wrote: > From: phoebe ayers > Subject: Re: [

[Foundation-l] help on usability initiative sandbox wiki

http://prototype.wikimedia.org/sandbox.4/Special:Contributions/213.5.64.179 I don't know why SUL doens't work there I can't find the proper database suffix on http://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/all.dblist Therefore I can't grant me sysop bit there to do somethign So... to anyone who actually have rig

Re: [Foundation-l] An agenda for the meeting of the language committee

On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > > As I read the roster of the people who may attend, I am amazed at their > qualifications. All people are involved in their > Wikipediasin the > Incubator , they are > l

Re: [Foundation-l] help on usability initiative sandbox wiki

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Pedro Sanchez wrote: > http://prototype.wikimedia.org/sandbox.4/Special:Contributions/213.5.64.179 > > I don't know why SUL doens't work there > I can't find the proper database suffix on > http://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/all.dblist > Therefore I can't grant me sysop

Re: [Foundation-l] help on usability initiative sandbox wiki

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 1:26 AM, K. Peachey wrote: > The prototypes are designed not to be added to SUL, so that won't be > happening. > -Peachey > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikime

Re: [Foundation-l] help on usability initiative sandbox wiki

On 21 February 2011 00:22, Pedro Sanchez wrote: > http://prototype.wikimedia.org/sandbox.4/Special:Contributions/213.5.64.179 > > I don't know why SUL doens't work there > I can't find the proper database suffix on > http://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/all.dblist > Therefore I can't grant me sysop bit