Re: [Foundation-l] Why is the software out of reach of the community?
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu wrote: David Gerard wrote: The other useful thing that can be done with templates is to standardise the field names in them as much as possible per wiki. The reason? To enhance machine readability of data in them. People are SERIOUSLY INTERESTED in this. Another useful thing: after an article is parsed, write all the templates it uses and their parameters in the database. Even if at first it isn't possible to read this data on Wikipedia, Toolserver could do wonders with it :) People (including yours truly) have been asking for this for years... Magnus ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Why is the software out of reach of the community?
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:57 AM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu wrote: Another useful thing: after an article is parsed, write all the templates it uses and their parameters in the database. Even if at first it isn't possible to read this data on Wikipedia, Toolserver could do wonders with it :) This should be fairly easy . . . the table would be absolutely ginormous, probably bigger than any table we currently have, but with zero reads (or near-zero, supposing it's made available through the API and such) that might not be the end of the world. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Why is the software out of reach of the community?
Hello Tim, I definitively like to see things develop in the direction you described. That would make the templates more useful, either for the editors but also for the readers and other developers who can datamine the Wikimedia-project entries. And at some point we must simply ignore the desire of the template-developers and go in a direction that would be beneficial for the majority of the editors and users. Ting ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] New advisory board member
Not sure why this announcement didn't merit a mention on the lists (as most others do), but Roger McNamee has been named to the advisory board. I incidentally found out from the WM blog. -Chad Press release: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Roger_McNamee_to_Become_Wikimedia_Advisor_January_2009 Blog post: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/01/13/welcome-roger/ His site: http://www.elevation.com/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Wikipedia Attribution and Relicensing
Hi, I've been following with great interest the endeavour to relicense Wikipedia for some time, though this is my first meaningful contribution to it. Attribution is an important and sensitive issue but I think the discussions so far are missing a great opportunity to promote Wikipedia itself while further simplifying (and thus fostering) re-use. Focus so far has been on arduous processes for identifying authors and linking to revision histories which runs the risk of continuing to stifle adoption of content even after re-licensing. It appears that it would be adequate (as a minimum acceptable standard) to specify the CC-BY-SA license and refer to the Wikipedia article - certainly the license section 4(c) allows for significant flexibility in this regard. The attribution itself would then be something like Wikipedia 'Widgets' article which is enough in itself for a user to be able to find the article and associated revision history (concise attributions are critical especially for print work, on t-shirts, etc.). My primary concern is that it can be essentially impossible to reliably identify key contributers, and that doing so in an environment of stigmergic collaboration can be very misleading as to the value of each contribution (even the most minor of edits play a critical role in the building of trust). It is also a potential source of significant contention, both internally between editors and externally with editors individually seeking attribution from content consumers. Take for example the cloud computinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_computingarticle which I [re]wrote last year, the vast majority of which is to this day still my work. In this case it is clear from the statisticshttp://vs.aka-online.de/cgi-bin/wppagehiststat.pl?lang=en.wikipediapage=cloud%20computingthat I am the primary/original author but had I have confined my updates to a single edit there would be no way to reliably identify me, short of tracking the owner of each and every character (and even this is far from perfect). In any case my contribution was intended to further the objects of Wikipedia and if I need to derive recognition for my work then I will reference it directly myself. Please consider adopting as low a minimum acceptable standard for attributions as possible so as to derive the full benefit from this exciting transition by lowering the barriers to participation. Kind regards, Sam ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
