> My argument is that there is a lack of research on Wikipedia, Wikipedia as a
> whole would benefit from research and indeed where the English Wikipedia's
> growth is slowing down, there is plenty of room for growth elsewhere of
> standard encyclopaedic information in the other projects. This in
It ssems like the a mouth of vandalism has changed and that this could
be the main reason why the a mouth of reverts has gone up. Previously
there was also a larger a mouth of smaller articles and then any edit is
a valid contribution. Now there is a larger number of bigger articles
and not every e
se it will be a vital argument in
> releasing material to us and in building a relationship.
> Thanks,
> Gerard
>
> 2009/8/13 John at Darkstar
>
>> I stumbled upon this too during discussions with institutions in Norway,
>> it seems like the number of times some mat
I stumbled upon this too during discussions with institutions in Norway,
it seems like the number of times some material is accessed is a very
interesting selling point. It is although not necessary to store the
image any specific place for this, it is the actual statistics that is
interesting.
Jo
> 1. What about our mirrors and forks and reusers; do they get the same
> rights? How about users who want to download media dumps?
This is at least two different problems, one is reuse when the content
is free and the other is reuse when the content is free due to an
agreement. For the moment th
The most enjoyable dialogue this morning.
Keep up the good work to both of you!
John =D
Mark Williamson wrote:
> Ray, I appreciate your honesty. I'll agree with you that I was not a
> very pleasant presence on the ML. Reading archives from, say, 2005
> makes me cringe. I'm glad that people were no
Probably a separate wiki will isolate the content from the community and
make it less accessible for for other users.
John
Brian wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Casey Brown wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Brian wrote:
>>> I recall convincing arguments on this list that m
an enough dogfights in future.
> So it's really important (mission-critical in terms of Wikipedia
> mission) what happens before the first dogfight.
>
> We have some stuff (RSS-feeds, personal sandboxes etc.) to assist both
> grossmeister and apprentice, but sure we should d
> Finally, we can not ignore the potential benefits of large scale
> contributions coming from specific communities, specially from
> educational institutions at all levels. The potential applications of
> Wikipedia to learning environments has been also a matter of research,
> and some authors ha
I asked a source if they may grant us access to some statistics on users
behaviour within social media. The time series starts well before Nupedia.
John
Felipe Ortega wrote:
> --- El vie, 24/7/09, Milos Rancic escribió:
>
>> De: Milos Rancic
>> Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
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:
>>> *
?
>
> - "John at Darkstar" wrote:
>> From: "John at Darkstar"
>> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
>> Sent: Friday, 17 July, 2009 20:38:09 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland,
>> Portugal
>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A
Forget direct funding, its not practical. The interesting thing is, we
do have "sales organization" that is very important for
GLAM-institutions, and it is probably so interesting that a conflict
with us is simply to damaging. How do we turn this around to make it
even more interesting for them?
I
Sorry, I don't follow you on this one. If the existing business model
don't work and it should be changed, then work with them to change it
and make the alternate options viable.
John
David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/7/17 geni :
>
>> Not really. Remember there are a bunch of other collections. Many wi
If we forget about politics and who-did-what, what is the common grounds
between "us" and "them"? To me it seems like they want us to use their
material, but that they are scared to let go of a possible income. This
seems fairly similar to the Galleri NOR -case.
Would it be possible for us to defi
This is a wikipedian from Norway.
John Erling Blad
Wikimedia Norway
Chad wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Philippe
> Beaudette wrote:
>> On Jul 17, 2009, at 8:25 AM, Chad wrote:
>>
>>> Does anyone know the guy who owns enwp.org?
>>>
>>> That being said, enwp.org/?oldid=1234 does work :)
this material.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> 2009/7/15 John at Darkstar
>
>> At least the term base should be translated.
>> John
>>
>> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>>> Hoi,
>>> I have been in discussion with the Tropenmuseum in Amsterdam about
At least the term base should be translated.
John
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> I have been in discussion with the Tropenmuseum in Amsterdam about making
> their material available on Commons. The Tropenmuseum has an important
> collection on the colonial past of the Netherlands and contains a r
I got an email from National Library in Norway and it has some
interesting points. My comments are after the bulleted points. The
bulleted points are my writeup from their comments, the original email
was in Norwegian. Hopefully it is understandable.. :D
* Backlinks to the museums themselves is im
Is it possible to find some common grounds on why and how a
GLAM-organization should use Wikimedia Commons? Forget about troublesome
disputes with specific organizations. Why should they use us and is it
possible for us to tell them how to better utilize our services? What
are our services? Perhaps
This is important; is it possible to get some kind of agreement with the
NPG and what will it cost us? Some museums are willing to support our
mission, but we can't just assume that they are in a possition to accept
every rip-off from their web sites and other publications.
John
Gerard Meijssen
> Where the Norwegian chapter can be helpful is in letting us know how
> such a thing might play out if we were concerned with pictures from
> Norway's national gallery.
>
> Ec
I guess you are speaking about GalleriNOR, which is a joint effort
between Nasjonalbiblioteket and Norsk Folkemuseum. Sor
Local chapters can say something about whats going on, they can't make
claims on behalf of others, but they can interpret written statements
like any other blogger or news outlet. Just remember that wmf sends
press releases on behalf of wmf, nobody else do that.
John
Sue Gardner wrote:
> Sure. Ac
This was public as soon as it got posted on Wikimedia Commons.
The press notice is on our Signpost.
http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tinget#Brukere_p.C3.A5_Wikimedia_Commons_i_tvist_med_National_Portrait_Gallery
John
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/7/11 John at Darkstar :
>> I sent ou
two, while the rest of the
world infact can read it at will.
John
David Gerard wrote:
> On 11/07/2009, John at Darkstar wrote:
>
>> I sent out a press release earlier today to newspapers in Norway. It was
>> sent to around 200 recipients. Perhaps others could do the same thi
I sent out a press release earlier today to newspapers in Norway. It was
sent to around 200 recipients. Perhaps others could do the same thing.
John
David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/7/11 David Gerard :
>
>> It gets better: the editor they sent the threat to is an American.
>> So, to recap: A UK organi
r day 10.
I'm not sure about how the rest of the world are modeled, the grid
resolution, etc.
John
John at Darkstar wrote:
> Wikimedia Norway have had a meeting with Meteorologisk Institutt
> (http://met.no) in Norway about using the dataset published by the
> institute. Today the
Wikimedia Norway have had a meeting with Meteorologisk Institutt
(http://met.no) in Norway about using the dataset published by the
institute. Today the dataset is used for the service Yr.no
(http://yr.no), a joint venture between them and Norwegian Broadcasting
Corporation (http://nrk.no). Met sai
There is a solution, and it is rather puzzling. The license talks about
identification by an URI, and this can be defined several ways. We can
simply define an URI like "Wikipedia:My article" or perhaps "cc:nn"
where the last is some kind of digital resource identifier for works
licensed by Cre
es in other scripts ... the notion that it is a
> small number of characters is based on the notion that the script will be
> the Latin script.. Other scripts tend to show as the Unicode numbers..
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> 2009/7/3 Brian
>
>> On Thu, Jul 2, 20
A url for a medium without a clickable link is, well, not an optimum
solution. Obfuscated url isn't really any better, but it might be shorter.
John
Peter Gervai wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 01:32, John at Darkstar wrote:
>> Minimum attribution of «Terms of Use» from Wikimdia Fo
more than one message. Ooops...
John
John at Darkstar wrote:
> It seems like the attribution scheme chosen does not support small
> interactive devices and systems very Well. Are there anyone who have
> given this any thoughts?
>
> The problem is basically as the chunk o
It seems like the attribution scheme chosen does not support small
interactive devices and systems very Well. Are there anyone who have
given this any thoughts?
The problem is basically as the chunk of information shrinks the
attribution scheme will be more and more of a problem. With the current
Could there be some updates to
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Implementation as this
page says the roll-out will start at 15. June, while
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/translators-l/2009-June/000959.html
says new messages are to be rolled out "as early as Monday, June 29". I
There are some posts about a new video solution, and even more posts
that ... err ... isn't quite correct, but without any official news
about it its impossible to tell the newspapers whats correct and whats not.
I especially like an article saying "from Wikimedia Foundation who made
Wikipedia". I
It depends on how much a priori knowledge you have about the languages.
For the moment people tend to go into two camps, those who want to use
statistical engines and those who want to go for rule based engines.
According to one person there are some activity to include rules into
statistical engin
itial machine translation thereby enabling the statistical
engine to learn from the errors. Its like an automatic classifier with
some a priori knowledge.
John
Amir E. Aharoni skrev:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 09:37, John at Darkstar wrote:
>> Google previously used Systrans engine, but now
Sorry for my english, its actually not a machine translation even if it
looks like that! ;p
John
John at Darkstar skrev:
> There are two trends in machine translations; rule based translations
> and statistical translations. Both have pros and cons. Rule based
> translations seems to be
There are two trends in machine translations; rule based translations
and statistical translations. Both have pros and cons. Rule based
translations seems to be possible to integrate with Wiktionary in such a
way that it can support Wikipedia. Statistical translations seems to be
possible to integr
through the use of some tool, the tool gets no
part of the copyright, the person may get a part of the copyright for
the derived work but then he must do something in addition to running
the tool, unless the tool is so extremely difficult to use that running
it is sufficient.
John
John at Darkstar
Machine translations are not new work, neither derivatives, as it is
done by machines and not by humans.
Also Google will have a hard time claiming that because some
unidentified person added text or an url to a open service they now has
the right to do whatever they want with the text.
I guess w
Discussing something as a general social concern is one thing, claiming
that it is a wmf legal issue is something different.
John
Michael Snow skrev:
> John at Darkstar wrote:
>> Are the developers lawyers? A developer claiming something has an
>> unwanted privacy issue is very
;
> 2009/6/6 John at Darkstar
>
>> You can make claims about what you yourself wants or believe, but do
>> *not* claim that your personal beliefs reflects legal issues for
>> Foundation. If Foundation needs to make claims about what is and whats
>> not a legal issue
You can make claims about what you yourself wants or believe, but do
*not* claim that your personal beliefs reflects legal issues for
Foundation. If Foundation needs to make claims about what is and whats
not a legal issue, then such claims should be made by Mike.
John
Brian skrev:
> I also have
The strange thingh is, some such servers seems to be outside discussion
while others are not. ;)
John
Tisza Gergő skrev:
> Nathan writes:
>
>> Others have since discussed more centralised and secure methods for
>> providing these statistics via the WMF - this is the ideal outcome, and one
>> th
* clap - clap *
John
Peter Gervai skrev:
> Hello,
>
> I wasn't subscribed to this list, since I usually try to avoid the
> politics around.
>
> I was notified, however, that some interesting claims were made and
> some steps taken (again) without any discussion whatsoever.
>
> First, let me tel
Alex skrev:
> John at Darkstar wrote:
>>> Hmm? There's no reason to do anything like that. The AbuseFilter would
>>> just prevent sitewide JS pages from being saved with the particular URLs
>>> or a particular code block in them. It'll stop the well-me
>
> Hmm? There's no reason to do anything like that. The AbuseFilter would
> just prevent sitewide JS pages from being saved with the particular URLs
> or a particular code block in them. It'll stop the well-meaning but
> misguided admins. Short of restricting site JS to the point of
> uselessnes
>
> Is this enough? Of course not, there is so much more to learn.
>
>
> Erik Zachte
>
There are a few very important missing items for the moment
* Number of unique visitors
* Number of page visits per visitors
All should be analyzed on user roles, possibly also on different time
spans (ho
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 6:20 AM, John at Darkstar wrote:
>> User privacy on Wikipedia is is close to a public hoax, pages are
>> transfered unencrypted and with user names in clear text. Anyone with
>> access to a public hub is able to intercept and identify users, in
> One idea is the proposal to install the AbuseFilter in a global mode,
> i.e. rules loaded at Meta that apply everywhere. If that were done
> (and there are some arguments about whether it is a good idea), then
> it could be used to block these types of URLs from being installed,
> even by admin
> Not to mention, as
> far as I know the program is proprietary.
This is an example of whats the real problem here; its not the security
issues but the users political issues.
> I'm not convinced that
> we need to be tracking user behavior at this point in time, or that
> the tradeoffs for
ev:
> John at Darkstar wrote:
>> We need tools to track user behavior inside Wikipedia. As it is now we
>> know nearly nothing at all about user behavior and nearly all people
>> saying anything about users at Wikipedia makes gross estimates and wild
>> guesses.
>>
&g
Forgot a link to an article which describes very well privacy on
Wikipedia! ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes
John at Darkstar skrev:
> We need tools to track user behavior inside Wikipedia. As it is now we
> know nearly nothing at all about user behavior and near
We need tools to track user behavior inside Wikipedia. As it is now we
know nearly nothing at all about user behavior and nearly all people
saying anything about users at Wikipedia makes gross estimates and wild
guesses.
User privacy on Wikipedia is is close to a public hoax, pages are
transfered
To my knowledge the comparison is not published on www.vg.no, although
it is possible to buy it online.
This is the discussion at our signpost:
http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tinget#VG_tester_SNL_og_Wikipedia
There are two unofficial "faximiles":
http://bayimg.com/image/laankaacf.jpg
http
Sunday 31th of May the Norwegian newspaper VG (Verdens Gang) compared
Wikipedia in Norsk (Bokmål) and Store Norske Leksikon. The latter
encyclopedia is a large traditional paper lexicon transfered to a web
portal, together with to other lexicons; one medical and health lexicon
and one biographical
>From some voting in no.wp it seems like it takes some time for the real
trends to kick in. If the voting is open for a to short period only the
most eager users will vote and the result will be biased.
John
Brian skrev:
> On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
>
>> phoebe ayers w
No opinion means no opinion and should not be interpreted in any way,
the group represents an uncertainty in the result.
John
Erik Moeller skrev:
> 2009/5/20 Robert Rohde :
>> The licensing update poll has been tallied.
>>
>> "Yes, I am in favor of this change" : 13242 (75.8%)
>> "No, I am oppose
Thats Finns interpretation of this. Finn and some other users claims
that there are no such things as privacy concerns with the Abuse filter,
and claims they have a general consensus on the use of it. They even
claim that the local authority "Datatilsynet" would not have any opinion
on the matter a
in itself, it
is no universal accepted definitions of when this is done.
John
Chad skrev:
> On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 8:29 AM, John at Darkstar wrote:
>> As I see it, all problems comes from public or partly public logging
>> actions that are now in a private context.
>>
>
Thats correct.
Thomas Dalton skrev:
> 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 ever
after provocations (aka the perpetrators
intentions), that is not legal in every other countries (eg quite few
countries).
As I see it, all problems comes from public or partly public logging
actions that are now in a private context.
Thomas Dalton skrev:
> 2009/3/25 John at Darkstar :
>>
he log, but I don't see why
> that would be necessary at this point.
>
> Nathan
>
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:35 AM, John at Darkstar wrote:
>
>> It is not refusing to accept some kind of edit that creates the problem,
>> it is the logging of the action beca
I've seen some of the results from "agile testing", it seems like they
have a tendency to lock in on specific suboptimal solution. What is an
acceptable solution on a given limited state.
John
Erik Moeller skrev:
> 2009/3/25 John at Darkstar :
>> Wikipedians sho
, I might be enabled to change my role and consequently
> get a different layout.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> 2009/3/25 John at Darkstar
>
>> One additional note, in Norway a lot of the newspapers used a layout
>> like Monobook (sort of) but has lately dismissed the solu
contains potentially sensitive details of
> individual editors and readers. Nothing in the abuse filter would seem to
> change the public availability of this sort of data, and I can hardly see
> Wikimedia being penalized simply for preventing vandalism instead of
> reacting to it.
>
Privacy _is_ about law, but the extension creates the privacy problem
and it must be solved.
John
Domas Mituzas skrev:
> John,
>
>> There are a lot of other problems, but I think most of them are
>> minor to
>> this.
>
>
> Well, this looks like lawyer thing then, not overall privacy policy
dia (and hence, using
> Commons) is almost as common and could also use *lots* of work on
> increasing usability.
>
> -- Hay
>
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:55 AM, John at Darkstar wrote:
>> Wikipedians should not be used to asses usabillity problems with
>> Wikipedi
The problem is that something that previously was public (vandal moving
the page "George W. Bush" to "moron") will now be private (he get a
message that hi isn't allowed to do that), this shifts the context from
a public context to a private context. Then the extension do logging of
actions done i
The abuse filter has some serious problems with logging of personal
information, what to log and why. There are also the problems associated
with the use of such a log, and who has access to it. In some
jurisdictions it may be legal to log and use such information for
arbitrary actions against the
Wikipedians should not be used to asses usabillity problems with
Wikipedia, this is rule number one if you want to get information about
why a newbie has problems with a system. A typical wikipedian is simply
not a valid newbie. Ten participants are not nearly enough, they can
only give you some cl
I'm not sure if I would like to credit "Wikipedia" anyhow, Wikipedia is
not the author even if tradition says you can give attribution to an
encyclopedia in some countries. I think GFDL is better on this, even if
the current practice on Wikipedia is crappy on attribution. The main
authors of an art
One person told me that attribution of a single article and a bigger
collection could be made different. That is, a single printed copy of an
article could use a credit of "Wikipedia" and a mirror on a website
could use a history link. We don't have to choose a "one scheme fits
all" -solution.
joh
Some options may be out of the question due to local law.
John
Erik Moeller skrev:
> 2009/3/7 Thomas Dalton :
>> I'm curious, why did you include options that aren't actually
>> available? No credit and credit to the community are clearly not in
>> keeping with the license, so knowing who would ac
Please stop this.
John
Gerard Meijssen skrev:
> Hoi,
> My English is considered to be quite good. I have not learned any new words
> and I do not mind to have an occassional word. For me this was excessive and
> it stopped my reading and my interest.
> Thanks,
> Gerard
>
> PS David, what was
If I'm not mistaken it should be possible to detect the presence of a
text which describe a person, and then include a link to a contact form
about BLP.
John
Nathan skrev:
> Personally, I'd like to see a prominent "Report a problem with this article"
> link or box only on BLPs for starters. We do
In Norway it seems that neglecting to do something will not lead to any
real danger of legal actions, its phrased "uforstand", but gross
neglectence, or "grov uforstand" could be punishable by law. An example
given is that if an admin is notified on email about specific child porn
in an article (th
In Norway its covered in "Lov om behandling av personopplysninger
(personopplysningsloven)" §7; Forholdet til ytringsfriheten (Relation to
freedom of speech) [http://www.lovdata.no/all/tl-2414-031-001.html#7]
It is an exception for "kunstneriske, litterære eller journalistiske,
herunder opinio
At no.wp there was a link in the sidebar with email address to OTRS to
ease reporting of such problems. It generated to many emails to the
liking of some of the people on the OTRS list. After a poll with 3
against the link - they wanted an alternate solution, two for the link,
one unclear and one w
Well, quite a number of people (including me) do not agree with you on
that point.
Gerard Meijssen skrev:
> Hoi,
> Due credit is given. It is given to the extend that the amount of attention
> and detail is unparalleled.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> 2009/2/26 John at D
Adding authors, even if they write under pseudonyms, gives due credit as
described in the copyright laws of several countries and also gives
those persons added cultural capital. I guess someone can elaborate
about how cultural capital and economic capital can be traded, and how
this can offset the
John
Andre Engels skrev:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:17 AM, John at Darkstar wrote:
>> The release has been given a lot of press coverage, and some comparisons
>> between the encyclopedias has been done. Two of them, in Dagbladet[1]
>> and Dagsavisen[2], has concl
The release has been given a lot of press coverage, and some comparisons
between the encyclopedias has been done. Two of them, in Dagbladet[1]
and Dagsavisen[2], has concluded that Wikipedia is best. According to
Aftenposten the new edition will cost Kunskapsforlaget and their owners
Aschehoug og G
ill
>> have more alternatives.
>>
>> Finn Rindahl
>>
>> 2009/2/25 John at Darkstar
>>
>>> Our "national lexicon" here in Norway, Store Norske Leksikon, went
>>> online with its new free edition today. The new edition has user
>>>
Our "national lexicon" here in Norway, Store Norske Leksikon, went
online with its new free edition today. The new edition has user
contributed articles. The chief editor says some of the reason for the
new edition is the harsh competition from Wikipedia, especially
no.wikipedia.org which outnumber
Then it is safe to assume that there is no special agreement between
Wikimedia Foundation and Nokia that gives the later any kind of special
rights?
John
Angela skrev:
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 3:41 AM, John at Darkstar wrote:
>> What is the present status on licensing of «Wikipedia» an
What is the present status on licensing of «Wikipedia» and exactly what
does the current agreement with Nokia cover? It seems like ZDNet
Australia and Angela Beesley isn't talking about quite the same, and I
would like an clarification.
If one supplier gets some kind of exclusive rights, for whate
88 matches
Mail list logo
