Re: [Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language

2009/3/15 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen : > Hehe, I am way ahead of you, brother. > > I've already sort of put the idea out there, discreetly, > that it would be cool if there was a url redirection service > on wikimedia servers, that would shorten the urls into > something like http://wmattr/342y6 or the

Re: [Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language

2009/3/15 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen : > I think the practice of using summary lines for attribution > has from the start been viewed as a temporary solution, > only to be used until we figure out a better way to handle > content such as translations from other language projects. > > I think if we do go

Re: [Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language

2009/3/16 Ray Saintonge : > So, if I want to give to give a mug with an erotic description of the > Kama Sutra to my girl friend, I also need to give her this list of > authors.  Are there really people here who would be so law-abiding that > they would threaten their love-life with that kind of an

Re: [Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language

2009/3/16 Anthony : > I've never pressed "submit" on a button which read "GFDL 1.2 or later".  Try > again. The edit page has said "or later" as long as I can remember. Are you claiming that it didn't used to? What did it used to say and when? ___ found

Re: [Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language

2009/3/16 Anthony : > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Thomas Dalton > wrote: > >> 2009/3/16 Anthony : >> > I've never pressed "submit" on a button which read "GFDL 1.2 or later". >>  Try >> > again. >> >> The edit pag

Re: [Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language

2009/3/16 Anthony : > It doesn't say "or later".  It says "or [...] later [...]". And that is where I bid you "farewell". ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation

Re: [Foundation-l] Fundraising Data Dump

2009/3/19 Troy McConaghy : > and that's all well and good, but then there are rows like this: > > ,,,14.10,10.00,EUR,DE > > and I don't know what to do with those. They have no values for template, > tracking source, or campaign. Could they be people that went direct to the donation page (donate l

Re: [Foundation-l] Proposed revised attribution language

2009/3/20 David Gerard : > 2009/3/20 Ray Saintonge : > >> A copy of Wikipedia text is frequently used in eBay descriptions of >> books.  The attribution is simply to Wikipedia, and does not progress so >> far as to say "[...] et al."  That's about as much as anyone could >> reasonably expect, no ma

Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing transition: opposing points of view

2009/3/20 Mike Godwin : >> If we have, let's say, 10.000.000 of contributors and 1% of them >> (100.000) is not happy with Wikipedia because of any reason and 1% of >> them (1000) want to sue WMF or whoever and 1% of them can do it, we'll >> have 10 big problems. We may fail in just 10% of the case

Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing transition: opposing points of view

2009/3/21 Milos Rancic : > On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 1:15 AM, Thomas Dalton > wrote: >> I think the percentages given as plausible, but do we really have 10 >> million contributors? The English Wikipedia apparently has 9,237,657 >> registered users, but I believe a very

Re: [Foundation-l] depth

2009/3/21 Przykuta : > Hi > > look at ksh wiki > > http://s23.org/wikistats/wikipedias_html.php?sort=good_desc > > good: 10032 > total: 508246 > edits: 1135239 > > depth: 5509 :) > > best regards > > przykuta zh-classical also has an unusually high depth (for a Wikipedia with a significant number

Re: [Foundation-l] depth

Woa! You managed to force my email client into right-to-left mode there and I could get it back without deleting all the quoted text... Could you please set your email client to left-to-right when writing in English, please? Redirects are counted in depth because they aren't articles. It is an ext

Re: [Foundation-l] depth

2009/3/23 emijrp : > My question: > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Purodha&diff=prev&oldid=261483386 > > His answer: > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Purodha&diff=next&oldid=261483386 Seems sensible. The only real disadvantage is that it messes up the dept

Re: [Foundation-l] depth

2009/3/23 Mark Williamson : > I think we should find a way to exclude redirs from depth stats. Just define "non-articles" to mean pages outside the main namespace. Lots of redirects, disambig pages and stubs does not indicate greater collaboration, so I'm not sure why there were counted to start w

Re: [Foundation-l] depth

2009/3/23 Mark Williamson : > There are many situations in which it could be useful to have a way to > quantify the quality, rather than just number of articles, of a > Wikipedia edition. If the whole formula is flawed, we should find a > better one. Step one: Define "quality". If you give me an

Re: [Foundation-l] depth

2009/3/23 Michael Peel : > Perhaps a better thing to quantify is the usefulness, rather than the > quality? That is, ask the people reading and using articles how > useful the article has been to them? > > Or, more generally, ask them to rate articles on a scale of 1 to N, > where N is e.g. 5. The

Re: [Foundation-l] Welcome to Fred Vassard!

2009/3/23 Brion Vibber : > He'll be helping us out with operations, monitoring, and documentation > of our servers, making sure everything's running smoothly and improving > our responses to and anticipation of problems. Fantastic! Just what we've been needing. Welcome aboard! ___

Re: [Foundation-l] Abuse filter

2009/3/25 John at Darkstar : > In Norway it is legal to log such actions for the administration of the > system, but as soon as it is used for actions against the users it would > need a license (konsesjon) to handle such information. What kind of action against users are you thinking of? All we'r

Re: [Foundation-l] Abuse filter

2009/3/27 Mark Williamson : > And what is "every other countries"? I'm not a lawyer, but even if you > are, have you done a legal study of all the countries on earth, > because there are a lot. He said "every" not "any". "that is not legal in every other countries" (assuming that last word was int

Re: [Foundation-l] Non-free content on Commons

2009/4/1 Pedro Sanchez : > you'd be annoyed if you started getting lots of bogus messages and silly > jokes on december 28 Yes, because December 28 isn't the traditional day for such things. As long as it is just one day a year, it's a bit of fun. If people started doing it on random days, obvious

Re: [Foundation-l] Non-free content on Commons

2009/4/1 Pedro Sanchez : > On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > >> 2009/4/1 Pedro Sanchez : >> > you'd be annoyed if you started getting lots of bogus messages and silly >> > jokes on december 28 >> >> Yes, because December 2

Re: [Foundation-l] mo.wikipedia is not yet renamed to mo-cyrill as it was promised !

2009/4/7 Mark Williamson : > "It's important"? That's subjective. Isn't importance always subjective? What's your point? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-

Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing update: "third party" concern

2009/4/14 Marcin Cieslak : > "2. to require continued dual-licensing of new community edits in > this manner, but allow content from third parties to be under > CC-BY-SA only;" My understanding of that clause has always been that if something is first published on a Wikimedia project then it has t

[Foundation-l] Donations in a non-existent currency

According to http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:ContributionStatistics, the WMF has received 4 donations, one for nearly $250k, in a currency that doesn't seem to exist ("STO"). Does anyone know what that is supposed to mean? ___ foundation-l ma

Re: [Foundation-l] Donations in a non-existent currency

2009/4/21 Michael Snow : > Thomas Dalton wrote: >> According to >> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:ContributionStatistics, >> the WMF has received 4 donations, one for nearly $250k, in a currency >> that doesn't seem to exist ("STO"). Does an

Re: [Foundation-l] Board statement regarding biographies of living people

2009/4/22 Gregory Kohs : > Says Michael Snow: > > The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees urges the global Wikimedia > community to uphold and strengthen our commitment to high-quality, > accurate information > > ++ > > So, the "community" is urged to do this work at the request of the Board

Re: [Foundation-l] ID requirements proposed for Germans using video sites

2009/4/23 David Gerard : > http://newteevee.com/2009/04/20/achtung-youtube-germany-proposes-federal-id-checks-for-online-video-sites/ > > German readers - how much of a danger is this? Is Commons enough of a > "video site"? Commons isn't a German site, so I don't see a problem. The WMF has always

Re: [Foundation-l] ID requirements proposed for Germans using video sites

2009/4/23 Sebastian Moleski : > On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Thomas Dalton > wrote: >> ... The WMF has >> always said that it intends to follow US law only and not try and >> cater to the laws of every country in the world - that includes >> Germany > >

Re: [Foundation-l] ID requirements proposed for Germans using video sites

2009/4/23 David Gerard : > 2009/4/23 Thomas Dalton : > >> Commons isn't a German site, so I don't see a problem. The WMF has >> always said that it intends to follow US law only and not try and >> cater to the laws of every country in the world - that includes

Re: [Foundation-l] The EFF appears to be somewhat upset by the foundation

2009/4/23 geni : > "Can a noncommercial critical website use the trademark of the entity > it critiques in its domain name? Surprisingly, it appears that the > usually open-minded folks at Wikipedia think not." > > http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/wikipedia-threatens- > > While I would regard t

Re: [Foundation-l] The EFF appears to be somewhat upset by the foundation

2009/4/23 Mike Godwin : > Nathan writes: > > Interesting - I wonder if this is in any way related to the decisions >> underlying the recent board statement on trademarks? Has the Foundation >> pursued Wikipedia Review in the same manner? > > > I can answer that question -- it's wholly unrelated to

Re: [Foundation-l] The EFF appears to be somewhat upset by the foundation

2009/4/23 Mike Godwin : > If they had transferred the domain name over to us, we'd have paid all their > expenses and forwarded requests for some period of time to any new domain > name they chose to register. There are other alternatives we might have > considered as well. But, take my word for it

Re: [Foundation-l] The EFF appears to be somewhat upset by the foundation

2009/4/23 Mike Godwin : > David Gerard writes: > > They're performance artists. This is more performance. They fooled the >> EFF into playing along. > > > This is precisely my own take on the situation. I don't disagree. I think we've unnecessarily given them more material to work with, though, wh

Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 61, Issue 44

2009/4/22 Durova : >> > The Wikimedia Foundation takes this opportunity to reiterate some core >> > principles related to our shared vision, mission, and values. One of >> > these values which is common to all our projects is a commitment to >> > maintaining a neutral point of view. >> >> I find it

Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 61, Issue 44

2009/4/30 Anthony : > On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > >> > Should commons allow images which are biased? >> >> Can an image be biased out of context? > > > Can text? I suppose not - the same principles apply to Wikisource as apply to

Re: [Foundation-l] More on Wikimedia strategic planning

2009/4/30 Michael Snow : > Anybody who wants to help the Wikimedia projects is invited to > participate. I expect that the primary activity will involve working > groups developing pieces of the strategy on-wiki. How will these working groups be organised? Having a specific group working on someth

Re: [Foundation-l] Board statement regarding biographies of living people

2009/4/30 Domas Mituzas : > In this case, as I mentioned above, nearly (over?) 100 community > members were met overall - so if we'd include that, the mean travel > distance would be way way lower - and the value of the meeting was > extremely high. I believe there were about 50 chapters people ab

Re: [Foundation-l] Board statement regarding biographies of living people

2009/4/30 Domas Mituzas : > Thomas, > >> I believe there were about 50 chapters people about about 100 devs. >> I'm not sure why the mean travel distance would be lower if you >> include everyone - there were people from all around the world there, >> many having travelled further than the average

Re: [Foundation-l] More on Wikimedia strategic planning

2009/4/30 Sue Gardner : > Having said that, we need some structure to ensure the work happens. > The trick will be trying to design a process that strikes a good > balance between total openness, and driving towards decision-making. > It's my responsibility to try to find that balance :-) May the

Re: [Foundation-l] More on Wikimedia strategic planning

2009/4/30 Samuel Klein : > I'd like to see Wikimedia as a community take some 300-year stances on > knowledge dissemination, Did you mean 300 years? 3 years is hard enough in our line of work, 30 would be a real challenge, 300 is simply impossible. I'm assuming that was a typo... >> * There is al

Re: [Foundation-l] Board statement regarding biographies of living people

2009/4/30 Alex : > Anthony wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Domas Mituzas wrote: >> >>> Actually, I'd be happy if you were right (and you probably are!) - it >>> shows, that lots of people had the motivation to come to this >>> "excursion". >> >> >> But yet you can't classify it as "leisu

Re: [Foundation-l] More on Wikimedia strategic planning

2009/5/1 Samuel Klein : > On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Thomas Dalton > wrote: >> 2009/4/30 Samuel Klein : >>> I'd like to see Wikimedia as a community take some 300-year stances on >>> knowledge dissemination, >> >> Did you mean 300 years? &g

Re: [Foundation-l] More on Wikimedia strategic planning

2009/5/1 phoebe ayers : > On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 10:24 PM, Thomas Dalton > wrote: >> 2009/5/1 Samuel Klein : >>> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Thomas Dalton >>> wrote: >>>> 2009/4/30 Samuel Klein : >>>>> I'd like to see Wikimedi

Re: [Foundation-l] Board statement regarding biographies of living people

2009/5/1 Gregory Kohs : > The purpose of my question was to examine the carbon impact on our global > environment by holding this meeting in Berlin, which (by my estimation) is > quite a ways off from the point of "least cumulative distance" that could > have been achieved for at least the mandator

Re: [Foundation-l] More on Wikimedia strategic planning

2009/5/2 geni : > 2009/5/2 Sue Gardner : >> Hi folks, >> >> I wrote here earlier about the process we're imagining for this >> project; I'm going to take a minute now to write about the substance >> of the work.  This isn't a direct response to any of the comments made >> here thus far, but I hope

Re: [Foundation-l] More on Wikimedia strategic planning

2009/5/2 geni : > 2009/5/2 Thomas Dalton : >> What would they spend it on? Talk is cheap, after all! Having >> conversations is easy, having focused conversations that actually >> reach useful conclusions is a little harder, but it isn't more >> expensive. > >

Re: [Foundation-l] More on Wikimedia strategic planning

2009/5/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen : > Besides the off-planet complete database-backup I envisioned, > another intriguing conceit would be to start on the process > of transcribing wikipedia onto vellum with non-corrosive and > persistent ink (I don't think there are enough stone tablets, or > even cla

Re: [Foundation-l] More on Wikimedia strategic planning

2009/5/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen : > I suspect the contrary. There were initial claims that CD's > would be nigh impossible to degrade, and the truth turned > out to be completely at variance with the assertions. I don't remember those claims (although I wasn't paying all that much attention to the

Re: [Foundation-l] More on Wikimedia strategic planning

2009/5/4 Thomas de Souza Buckup : > 4. Sustainability. The goal of this Working Group will be to make sure the > Wikimedia movement can reach its vision in a sustainable way. It could > answer important sub-group questions like: > *How to sustain Wikimedia services and data across any major situati

Re: [Foundation-l] More on Wikimedia strategic planning

2009/5/4 Nikola Smolenski : > It seems to me that you are joking, but I was seriously thinking about > cooperating with the Long Now project on long term preservation of Wikipedia. No joke, I thing the long term preservation of knowledge is a very worthy cause. > Printing Wikipedia on acid-free p

Re: [Foundation-l] Long-term archiving of Wikimedia content

2009/5/5 Anthony : > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:02 AM, Tim Starling wrote: > >> Personally I think it would be a waste of general funds, since I don't >> expect we'll see the end of civilisation any time in the next year or >> two. > > > Umm, if civilization ends, we won't be around to see it, and t

Re: [Foundation-l] Long-term archiving of Wikimedia content

2009/5/5 Aryeh Gregor : > The utility of this project is virtually > zero from any perspective. 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 usef

Re: [Foundation-l] Long-term archiving of Wikimedia content

2009/5/5 Aryeh Gregor : > 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 ci

Re: [Foundation-l] Long-term archiving of Wikimedia content

2009/5/5 Aryeh Gregor : > 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

Re: [Foundation-l] Long-term archiving of Wikimedia content

2009/5/5 Anthony : > I would put a pretty large bet on the fact that someone is going to think > they need to keep Wikipedia long past the point where it's worth it to keep > it.  Wrong decisions will be made to delete or oversight content, but > whatever isn't oversighted or deleted will be kept b

Re: [Foundation-l] Long-term archiving of Wikimedia content

2009/5/5 Chad : > In 3000 years, nobody will give a rat's ass about Britney Spears' > discography (again, to pick a random example of "pop culture"). > That's a bet I'm willing to make. Then why is this article so long: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_of_Ancient_Egypt __

Re: [Foundation-l] Long-term archiving of Wikimedia content

2009/5/5 Anthony : > Not true.  I'm considering the historical value, but I'm recognizing the > fact that it must be heavily discounted due to the fact that it takes place > so far in the future. I'm not convinced that discounting to present value applies here. You can't describe all of life in te

Re: [Foundation-l] Long-term archiving of Wikimedia content

2009/5/5 Anthony : > I think economics does apply here because we are specifically asking an > economic question - how best to allocate our present resources (should the > WMF buy a server, or etch stuff on nickel plates).  And I don't think values > have to be monetary in order to apply economic p

Re: [Foundation-l] Long-term archiving of Wikimedia content

2009/5/5 Anthony : >> It clearly has value (otherwise there would be no such thing as >> academia), but I don't think it has a well defined monetary value. > > > How not?  There's a certain price you'd be willing to pay for education, > isn't there?  It doesn't have an *intrinsic* monetary value, i

Re: [Foundation-l] Long-term archiving of Wikimedia content

2009/5/5 Anthony : > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > >> Education >> has value because of scarcity - someone with a degree can earn more >> than someone without a degree because there are fewer people that can >> do the jobs they can do. > &

Re: [Foundation-l] Long-term archiving of Wikimedia content

2009/5/6 Milos Rancic : > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Aryeh Gregor > wrote: >> And assuming they still have microscopes, but not computers. > > 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

Re: [Foundation-l] Long-term archiving of Wikimedia content

2009/5/10 Anthony : > The private parts of the database are probably more valuable than the public > ones, though. Why? The private parts are just deleted stuff. The deleted stuff isn't generally very valuable, that's why it was deleted. ___ foundation-

Re: [Foundation-l] Long-term archiving of Wikimedia content

2009/5/10 Casey Brown : > On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Anthony wrote: >> Mostly I meant the user data (especially the passwords).  The relative value >> of them compared to the rest can be shown by anyone who tries to create a >> fork. > > In the dumps, these are always done first: >

Re: [Foundation-l] 2007 Form 990 Now Posted

2009/5/13 Robert Rohde : > As it is, this is being released more than 10 months after the end of > the fiscal year which is rather a lot. Indeed. Normally waiting a while for this kind of stuff doesn't matter, but an organisation like WMF is moving so quickly that it's pretty much irrelevant publi

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

2009/5/14 Fred Bauder : > I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not a > manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the > Karma Sutra. What about pictures of Muhammad? Descriptions of Chinese human rights violations? Articles about evolution? etc.

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

2009/5/14 Robert Rohde : > On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Thomas Dalton > wrote: >> 2009/5/14 Fred Bauder : >>> I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not a >>> manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the >

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

2009/5/14 Fred Bauder : >> 2009/5/14 Fred Bauder : >>> I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not >>> a >>> manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the >>> Karma Sutra. >> >> What about pictures of Muhammad? Descriptions of Chinese human rights

Re: [Foundation-l] Collecting or spreading information (was: Wikipedia is not the karma sutra)

2009/5/14 effe iets anders : > Here we have an interesting discussion topic. So what /is/ the main focus of > Wikimedia? Is it about collecting together free knowledge, or is it about > spreading it? I think it is clear that we need to do both. You can't spread information you don't have and there

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

2009/5/14 Brion Vibber : > IMHO any restriction that's not present in the default view isn't likely > to accomplish much. The answer an objecting parent wants to "my daughter > saw a lady with semen on her neck on your website" is *not* "you should > have told her to log in and check 'no sexual ima

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

2009/5/14 Fred Bauder : >> I'm sorry, but why is this even a discussion? Wikipedia is not censored. > > Wikipedia is censored with respect to a myriad of different sorts of > content. In fact it is routinely censored, consider articles for > deletion, just for a start then move on to recipes, dicti

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

2009/5/14 Chad : > Or for enwiki to stop thinking themselves such fantastic editors > and accept the notion that not all material is suitable for all ages. I don't accept that notion. I fail to see how children are harmed by such images. If we were to implement any kind of censorship it would be t

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

2009/5/14 Chad : > And? What's wrong with pleasing the parents? I would rather do that > and have children be able to access all the good content Wikipedia > has than have their parents just make Wikipedia off-limits because of > a small subset of the overall content. Nothing is wrong with it in p

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

2009/5/14 Chad : > Yes, the two big stumbling blocks for making mirrors are: > > 1) No recent good full dump of enwiki (last complete one was Jan '07) Why do you need a full dump? The most recent versions should be plenty. ___ foundation-l mailing list

Re: [Foundation-l] 2007 Form 990 Now Posted

2009/5/15 Veronique Kessler : > The account being referred to is our Moneybookers account; Moneybookers > is a payment gateway like Paypal and we have had the account for a > couple of years.  Only a small fraction of donations come via > Moneybookers but some folks prefer it over Paypal. Ok. Pres

[Foundation-l] We're not quite at Google's level

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8051262.stm Google has an hour of slow service and it's headline news. Imagine the donations we could get if our downtime (which, as David is fond of saying, is our most profitable product) got into the headlines! Perhaps we should take to issuing press releas

Re: [Foundation-l] We're not quite at Google's level

2009/5/16 Delirium : > Thomas Dalton wrote: >> Google has an hour of slow service and it's headline news. Imagine the >> donations we could get if our downtime (which, as David is fond of >> saying, is our most profitable product) got into the headlines! >

Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing update vote result

2009/5/21 Andrew Gray : > 2009/5/21 Robert Rohde : > >>> I think this is a very good result, in particular the turnout looks great >>> to me! >>> Congratulations to all who have worked hard to get to it, and I hope >>> there will be a board resolution soon. >> >> As was commented on elsewhere, the

Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing update vote result

2009/5/21 Robert Rohde : > I believe there are around 600,000 qualified accounts (roughly half of > which from enwiki). What is your source for that? > PS. Incidentally enwiki has 9.7 M registered accounts, but 70% of > these have exactly 0 edits and 90% have less than 5 edits. 90% with less tha

Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing update vote result

2009/5/22 Michael Snow : > Deliberately low threshold for eligibility. Do we have any statistics for what the turnout was among different demographics? In particular, do we know how many people voted that wouldn't have been eligible under the board election suffrage rules? If it isn't many then th

Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing update vote result

2009/5/22 Anthony : > On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 7:43 PM, phoebe ayers wrote: > >> Yes -- I think this is definitely the largest group of Wikimedians to >> ever collectively express an opinion on anything! It'd be worth >> figuring out why the vote was successful, if possible (long period of >> votin

Re: [Foundation-l] Proposals re : sexual content on wikimedia

2009/5/22 private musings : > Hi all, > > I saw this news item today; > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8061979.stm > > and felt that it was tangentially related to the discussions on this list > concerning sexual content on wikimedia - it's prompted me to make this reply > anywhoo (both the story

Re: [Foundation-l] Licensing resolution

2009/5/22 Samuel Klein : > Thanks to everyone for handling the process so cleanly, and with an > abundance of good information. > > Would it be possible to change the license switch to August 1 rather > than June 15? > > I would like to point out the next major step, for which there is no > time to

Re: [Foundation-l] Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1

2009/5/27 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) : > Thanks for circulating this. > > Not to create a self-fulfilling prophecy here, but I suspect that 90% > or more of those affected by this issue will not care or will not > understand the urgency, and they will not do anything, either on their > own sites or on

Re: [Foundation-l] Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1

2009/5/28 Ray Saintonge : > Samuel Klein wrote: >>> As much as anything else it is the short time frame that will look >>> pushy.  Wikipedia went through a lot of debate *before* the switch, and >>> >> The timeframe is a problem, absolutely. >> > > If we were so fortunate as to have that as the onl

Re: [Foundation-l] Third-party GFDL text irrevocably incompatible with Wikipedia as of August 1

2009/5/28 David Goodman : > The solution, as with international affairs, is tolerance. In this > case, the practical aceptance of all free licenses as equivalent, > regardless of lthe licensing zealots. Free culture arose to permit > reuse, and should continue that way. We should  simply have told

Re: [Foundation-l] Google Wave and Wikimedia projects

2009/5/30 Milos Rancic : > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Anthony wrote: >> Adding people to a conversation already in progress is cool.  The rest of >> it...I dunno...what's the point? > > Basically, moving the Internet usage from the client-server model to > the peer-to-peer model with auxili

Re: [Foundation-l] Google Wave and Wikimedia projects

2009/5/30 Milos Rancic : > On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 1:42 AM, Anthony wrote: >> That would be great, but wouldn't it also mean the death of Google and >> pretty much any company which relies on web advertising to make money?  How >> do you make money off of P2P?  Software and data license fees, I gu

Re: [Foundation-l] Google Wave and Wikimedia projects

2009/5/30 Milos Rancic : > It would be on steroids as a proprietary software model or > free-client-proprietary-server model. However, this model have the > same potential as email had a couple of decades ago. Not really. This isn't that different to existing technology, it's just bringing togeth

Re: [Foundation-l] Google Wave and Wikimedia projects

2009/5/30 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen : > Thomas Dalton wrote: >> >>  E-mail, once >> it let the military/academia, was a completely new thing, there wasn't >> anything like it before (the closest thing was telegrams, which >> charged by the word, could take a few h

Re: [Foundation-l] Google Wave and Wikimedia projects

2009/5/30 Anthony : > On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 7:24 AM, Anthony wrote: > >> I'm not sure if it'll catch on, because Google seems to have added so much >> extraneous crap into the mix >> > > Like replying in the middle of a message, not by quoting the original, but > by just editing the person's mes

Re: [Foundation-l] Google Wave and Wikimedia projects

2009/5/30 Anthony : > On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > >> I hated the way it didn't seem to >> indicate what message you were replying to. For the most part, the >> conversation had a linear structure, not a tree one. They would reply

Re: [Foundation-l] Google Wave and Wikimedia projects

2009/5/30 Anthony : > A: "What's your favorite color?" > B: "I like red" > C: "I like green" > D: "Red and green?  Are you nuts?  Blue is the best color of all?" > A: I agree with B, red is definitely the nicest color. > C: But isn't the wavelength of green so much more asthetically pleasing? > > H

Re: [Foundation-l] Google Wave and Wikimedia projects

2009/5/30 Tim Starling : > Milos Rancic wrote: >> On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Tim Starling >> wrote: >>> It's not free software. The blog post says they "intend to open source >>> the code". That generally means the code quality is so bad that they'd >>> be embarrassed to make it public, and

Re: [Foundation-l] Google Wave and Wikimedia projects

2009/5/31 Lars Aronsson : > The idea of showing diffs since the user last viewed the same > wave, is very similar to Flagged revisions. How is it in any way like Flagged revisions? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscri

Re: [Foundation-l] Google Wave and Wikimedia projects

2009/5/31 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen : > For sure. I was just burying the point that telegrams > are not the best comparison. Courier mail did the > thing much slower, but it got the thing done. > Telegrams were for when you needed the > immediacy that E-mail now gives for free.(spam notwithstanding) I

Re: [Foundation-l] getting Wikipedia to the 5.2 billion people who can't access it

2009/5/31 Anthony : > On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 9:33 PM, Brian wrote: > >> How does Google Wave help the WMF achieve its goals? > > > Not sure, it doesn't really exist yet.  I'm sure there will be numerous ways > in which it can do it, though. While we could move this mailing list over to Waves and

Re: [Foundation-l] Google Wave and Wikimedia projects

2009/5/31 Gerard Meijssen : > Hoi, > Thinking of Google Wave as an application is not doing it justice. In my > opinion the most important part of Wave is its protocol. You're absolutely right, but I still think it is the fact that all these things are in one app that is important, but it is equal

Re: [Foundation-l] One Wikipedia Per Person (regarding the distribution of and the ability to read Wikipedia)

2009/5/31 Anthony : > On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 10:38 PM, Brian wrote: > >> I propose a cheap cellphone-sized device (OWPP) whose only purpose is to >> read Wikipedia. > > > That's probably both the wrong form (too small) and the wrong content (too > flighty) for people permanently without access to

Re: [Foundation-l] getting Wikipedia to the 5.2 billion people who can't access it

2009/5/31 Anthony : > If Waves works anything like email, then it will be possible to use it when > not directly connected to the Internet.  How's that for helping get > Wikipedia to people without Internet access? Not very. Waves, like email, should work for people with intermittent internet acce

Re: [Foundation-l] One Wikipedia Per Person (regarding the distribution of and the ability to read Wikipedia)

2009/5/31 Anthony : >> Wikipedia over TV would never work. There isn't the bandwidth for it. > > > So only broadcast a subset. A very small subset. >> TV is a broadcast medium, that means you have to be constantly sending >> everything anyone could want (or, at least, sending it fairly >> frequen

<    2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   >