Re: [Foundation-l] mirroring a portion of the wikipedia
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 12:47 PM, basedrop based...@gmail.com wrote: I don't have a particular need to have the art history portion of the wiki editable for my users at my domain. I have the specialized users at my site, I'd like to take advantage of that aggregation of specialized users to the benefit of the wiki.If you guys don't have an API for me, I'm o.k. with that. There is an API which lets you edit pages. http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Edit_-_Create%26Edit_pages The mailing list for this is at https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-api Angela ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia and public sector involvement, connections
The local government of Seoul, Korea, is preparing to donate some of her contents. For the donation they approached to the bureaucrats of ko.wp, because we don't have a local chapter in Korea. Finally they decided to publish them in a major web portal in Korea in condition of free license. The portal donated an encyclopedia last year, so they have some experience to add the contents. I think it's OK anyway. I hope the foundation would promote contents donation in addition to raising fund. The promotion would really work for the WP projects which don't yet have critical mass to evolve dramatically. You could refer to this page for the case (sorry, it's in Korean): http://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EC%9C%84%ED%82%A4%EB%B0%B1%EA%B3%BC:%EC%84%9C%EC%9A%B8%ED%8A%B9%EB%B3%84%EC%8B%9C_%EC%A7%80%EC%8B%9D%EA%B3%B5%EC%9C%A0_%EC%BA%A0%ED%8E%98%EC%9D%B8 I would like to write some lines after the donation soon. Thank you. -Cheol 2009/2/16 Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com: Dear all,I was wondering if any of you know of cases where there has been any (official) connection between members of the public sector and projects of Wikimedia (or other independent projects under free licences). I would be interested in cases, when for example * the local government has used for example Wikisource to publish its statutes or provided other kinds of content for it * the legislative has included material from Wikipedia in the explanatory section of their bills * members of the public sector approached the WMF (or its chapters) for advice on free licences and their use in the public sector. I would be interested in cases outside Wikimedia, where a government has chosen open content licences to publish their data. I have heard of some cases that would fit one of the above categories (e.g. the Dutch government releasing some photos) but I have not found a comprehensive list to judge the extent of the possible cooperation that might be going on. Thank you, Bence Damokos ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Report to the Board of Trustees: Davos
2009/2/19 Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net: I'm likely going to put the general issue of biographies on the board's next agenda, for what that's worth. Though as I say, there's no simple blanket solution, and I don't know if we can promise anything beyond more discussion and more awareness of the issues. What's the schedule on the flagged revisions trial on en:wp? (cc: to wikitech-l) - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Report to the Board of Trustees: Davos
2009/2/19 Jimmy Wales jwa...@wikia-inc.com: I think a deeper point is that there are a lot of very problematic BLP's on Wikipedia, and this is an ongoing problem that we all have to be very serious about. In my anecdotal experience (as a UK phone contact), BLPs are our biggest public relations problem. I'm really really really hoping for the flagged revs on BLPs trial to work out well. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia and public sector involvement, connections
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 21:28, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote: Hi,Thank you for your replies. Are there any notable examples you could mention, or point me to?You might be interested in the German initiative of working with a state-funded Institute to write articles in Wikipedia about Sustainable Raw materials: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProjekt_Nachwachsende_Rohstoffe http://www.nachwachsende-rohstoffe.info/nachricht.php?id=20070626-02 And I believe Wikimedia Israel did some work on influencing the copyright law. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Israeli_new_copyright_law Cheers, Delphine -- ~notafish NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost. Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] mirroring a portion of the wikipedia
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote: That aside: the two situations are entirely different. This proposal is effectively outsourcing a section of Wikipedia to some experts in the field. That's entirely unlike the Foundation deciding to add an additional language for Wikipedia to appear in. I think this perfectly fits with the spirit of copyleft, so it's a great idea. Under copyleft, you're free to use some content and modify it, provided that it stays free. In this way, we both benefit. Up to now, there hasn't been that much emphasis on the fact that wiki* content can be improved offsite and then re-imported back. So, if there is an efficient way to do it, let's go for it. Cruccone ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] status of the licensing update
I totally agree that we should know in advance on how attribution should take place when people are going to reuse our content. A good example on how to handle this might be how the Blender Foundation did that with its 'Elephant's Dream' and 'Big Buck Bunny' projects (even though the license there is CC-BY): http://orange.blender.org/blog/creative-commons-license-2/ -- Hay On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 7:27 AM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 8:38 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote: Personally I can't fully agree. Where no new problems are introduced, and old obstacles are removed, the move can be a good thing in itself, irregardless of the ambiguities that were there before, and still remain. snip I disagree quite clearly that it should be a pre-condition. I don't think keeping an ongoing discussion of the issue concurrently would necessarily be counterproductive. But when it comes down to brass tacks, for reasonable people it should be enough that CC-BY-SA is a vastly better license for what we do. Period. snip Relicensing is not free. It adds a new layer of potential confusion, exposes us to various legal uncertainties, and generates non-trivial hassle (not least of which is the sometimes-but-not-always dual licensing scheme that we would have to keep track of). I do not consider those issues insurmountable. However, if we are going to relicense (and ultimately I think we should get away from the GFDL) then it is also important that we get something useful at the end of the day. You say: CC-BY-SA is a vastly better license for what we do, but that is only true if CC-BY-SA is demonstrably useful. The point I am trying to make is that in order for CC-BY-SA to be useful we should be prepared to concretely show examples of how it can and should be used. If we can't do that, then it largely is not useful. It is fine to talk abstractly about all the great CC-BY-SA content in the world, and wanting to remove barriers to use, etc. But let's be concrete. How do we use CC-BY-SA to expand our content (for example, when importing content: who gets attributed, where, and how)? How do others use CC-BY-SA when they want to copy from Wikipedia? I'm hopeful we can answer those questions, but I consider being able to answer them as a clear prerequisite to establishing whether or not CC-BY-SA will actually be useful. Failing that, we would simply be replacing one crummy license that no one knows how to use with another somewhat less crummy license that still no one knows how to use, and that sort of a transaction would be almost entirely a waste of time. Given the hassle and complexities involved, I'd be very disappointed if at the end of the process we still weren't able to tell people the proper way to use the license. -Robert Rohde ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia and public sector involvement, connections
Wikimedia Nederland has: * Participated in the greenbook about copyright reform in the European Union * Written a letter to the government which resulted in the release of portrait photographs of all members of the current cabinet under GFDL * Talked to members of the parliament about copyright reform and free licenses. -- Hay On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 21:28, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote: Hi,Thank you for your replies. Are there any notable examples you could mention, or point me to?You might be interested in the German initiative of working with a state-funded Institute to write articles in Wikipedia about Sustainable Raw materials: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProjekt_Nachwachsende_Rohstoffe http://www.nachwachsende-rohstoffe.info/nachricht.php?id=20070626-02 And I believe Wikimedia Israel did some work on influencing the copyright law. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Israeli_new_copyright_law Cheers, Delphine -- ~notafish NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost. Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] mirroring a portion of the wikipedia
2009/2/19 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com: Hoi, Thomas OTHER people can see this benefit.. It is not that hard.. even I can. Then would you care to explain it to me? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] status of the licensing update
2009/2/19 Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com: In my opinion, it is incumbent upon us to give examples of how we believe third parties can legally and practically reuse WMF content by exercising rights under CC-BY-SA. If we can't, in our collective wisdom, agree on how third parties ought to be able to accomplish that under the new license, then the license is probably inadequate for our needs. Now we don't have to cover every way that CC-BY-SA might be used. And we don't have to go through every possible complication that might occur with wiki content. But I do think we must be prepared to give concrete examples of how the license may be used in common applications, and that requires being willing to confront the question of reasonable attribution. If someone comes to us and says: I want to print a copy of [[France]] in my book. What is a reasonable way to comply with the license?, then we really ought to be able to answer that question. If we can't agree on an acceptable answer to that question under CC-BY-SA, then we probably shouldn't be considering adopting it. For the record, I am open to the idea that we might well be able to get nearly everyone to agree on a set of reasonable usage guidelines consistent with the terms and spirit of CC-BY-SA, but I agree with Thomas that it is important that we address that either before or concurrent with the relicensing effort. Excellently put, I agree 100%. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] status of the licensing update
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote: Robert Rohde wrote: If someone comes to us and says: I want to print a copy of [[France]] in my book. What is a reasonable way to comply with the license?, then we really ought to be able to answer that question. If we can't agree on an acceptable answer to that question under CC-BY-SA, then we probably shouldn't be considering adopting it. Again I have to record dissent. Do keep in mind that under what we are escaping from under, not even the guardians of that license were able to answer that question. So staying under GFDL is not a real way to dodge the issue. The GFDL has problems which need to be fixed. If the relicensing under CC-BY-SA occurs, that's much less likely to happen. Now on the gripping hand, if the real problem you have here is the fear that some time later, after the migration the foundation were to unilaterally express an interpretation of allowable reasonable forms of attribution, I would have to regretfully admit that given past form (and sadly, opinions expressed by some influential people in the foundation staff) that is not unfathomable. And then there's that, which is by far my biggest problem with this switch. I'd much rather see a switch to the GSFDL, with some sort of clause added to that license allowing combining of history lines into a single line listing all significant authors, in the case of an MMORPG (or whatever it is the FSF has chosen for the codeword for Wikipedia). The only thing I can offer is that that would of course be a new ball game, and the same people waving whiffle-bats around, would be involved there and then, again. I not only think possible, but am reassured that a bad result could not stand, for long. Please trust the good sense of the community being able to countermand the understandable errors of the foundations operatives. Rushing to a premature decision is exactly the problem that provided the GFDL in the first place. I see no reason not to take the time to do things right. Even if the August 1, 2009 deadline can't be reached (and I see no reason for this), it can always be extended via a GFDL 1.4. (Or even better, GFDL 2.0 whose draft already contains a GSFDL clause.) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] status of the licensing update
I have never understood why any substantial contributor to Wikipedia here would feel that attributing the specific text the contributed to an article to them individually if an article is reprinted is to their benefit--given that the text will have been almost entirely replaced, modified, and fragmented? I can understand why the greater of an image might what specific attribution preserved, but for almost all articles, the individual contribution is almost entirely submerged. To make this more specific, I ask anyone who would pull his text contributions out of Wikipedia is given the choice between doing so and accepting a license without such attribution to indicate their contributions and explain why in context it matters to them. No generalities, please, but specific articles whose history we can examine. On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: I'd much rather see a switch to the GSFDL, with some sort of clause added to that license allowing combining of history lines into a single line listing all significant authors, in the case of an MMORPG (or whatever it is the FSF has chosen for the codeword for Wikipedia). Or perhaps even better, as more generally, in the case of any back-to-back history lines with the same title and publisher (in whatever necessary lawyer-speak). ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] mirroring a portion of the wikipedia
The benefit is in getting users who would not be comfortable on Wikipedia because of the perceived and real behavior problems on that site--even if this is no worse ultimately than in the academic world, the mode of interaction is certainly very different. Why do we assume the present editing environment can serve everyone's purposes optimally? On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/2/19 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com: Hoi, Thomas OTHER people can see this benefit.. It is not that hard.. even I can. Then would you care to explain it to me? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Report to the Board of Trustees: Davos
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:09 PM, Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.netwrote: Sage Ross wrote: From my experience talking with people (mostly academics) who have Wikipedia articles, they are often unhappy with their articles but also either don't want to interfere in a community they aren't part of, or don't want to be seen as complaining on their own behalf and thus risk seeming vain. Most often it's not that there is something really wrong or negative, it's just that the article is so incomplete or imbalanced that it gives a misleading impression of who they are and what they do. I'd go so far as to say that the significant majority of BLPs for academics (at least) are not appreciated by their subjects. I'd guess that it probably holds across a fairly wide swath of people. I'm not sure what should be done about it, though. And another thing to consider, for those who have been the subject of media coverage, how many feel that was really representative and balanced? Dissatisfaction is common there as well, it's hard to say if we're qualitatively different. Especially when those are the sources we often draw upon. I think you're right that such dissatisfaction is common. Newspapers and magazines in particular, seem to get this kind of stuff wrong all the time. Encyclopedias probably ought to be held to a higher standard, though, and in theory Wikipedia with its neutrality policy ought to be held to an even higher standard than that. I have no idea how Wikipedia can get there. Flagged revisions might be able to reduce the blatant defamation, but it's not likely to address issues of balance or incompleteness (and might actually make things worse in that space). In this space, I think Citizendium's approved articles is the best a wiki can hope for. That has its own problems, and the articles don't always turn out well balanced, but at least you know who to blame. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] mirroring a portion of the wikipedia
2009/2/19 David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com: David Goodman wrote: The benefit is in getting users who would not be comfortable on Wikipedia because of the perceived and real behavior problems on that site--even if this is no worse ultimately than in the academic world, the mode of interaction is certainly very different. In other words, users of the other websiite would modify Wikipedia's content without interacting with the Wikipedia-side users editing the same articles. They would be isolated from concerns raised on talk pages and unable to discuss disagreements with Wikipedians. In the case of a reversion or other contrary revision on Wikiepdia's end, they would be left to guess the rationale and either allow the changes to stand or revert them without knowledge of the reasons behind them or pertinent discussion/consensus among Wikipedians. Edit wars would arise between two sets of users lacking insight into each other's ideas and the ability to cross-communicate. Please correct me if I've misunderstood something. Yes, that's one of the problems I foresee. Either the site is mirrored to such an extent that they can interact properly with the community, in which case they might as well just be using the site itself, or it isn't, in which case the whole thing won't work. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] mirroring a portion of the wikipedia
Gerard Meijssen wrote: If articles can be shared, surely talk pages can be shared too ? Yes, but this eliminates the avoidance of interaction that David Goodman cited as a benefit. And if that's the case, what *is* the benefit? Why dedicate effort and resources toward duplicating the normal editing experience instead of simply sending the users to Wikipedia? Various contributors to this discussion seem to have different ideas in mind, but as Thomas said, I don't see how any setup wouldn't result in either problematic isolation or pointless redundancy. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] mirroring a portion of the wikipedia
Nathan wrote: This sounds like a very interesting idea to me. None of the potential problems are obvious dealbreakers to me. It isn't outsourcing, the talkpage can be shared as easily as anything else, we would really like to take advantage of concentrated groups of expert users, and the more editors we get (wherever we get them from) the better off the projects are. But what's the point of duplicating the entire structure (including talk pages) instead of simply referring these experts to Wikipedia? Even if everything could be made seamless, what would be the advantage? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Top posters, special edition
Sometime in the past year I stopped posting the top posters list because it was seen as not useful and perhaps encouraging the type of behavior it was, in fact, meant to discourage. Even so, I thought I might post this special edition of top posters. The numbers come from Erik Zachte's list page, and sum posts for the top 25 posters from Jan 08 to Feb 09. Thomas Dalton 753 GerardM 738 David Gerard 450 Ray Saintonge 405 Anthony 403 Milos Rancic 381 geni 359 Anthere 323 Dan Rosenthal 316 Chad 311 Nathan 283 Mark Williamson 276 Andrew Whitworth 273 Geoffrey Plourde 253 Erik Moeller 229 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 224 effe iets anders 220 Mike Godwin 197 Robert Rohde 188 Gregory Maxwell 182 Michael Bimmler 167 Michael Snow 161 Yaroslav M. Blanter 154 Brian 152 Of interest is that Thomas Dalton was the top poster in 8 of 14 months, and GerardM in 4. That is dedication, certainly. Nathan -- Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] mirroring a portion of the wikipedia
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 1:30 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote: But what's the point of duplicating the entire structure (including talk pages) instead of simply referring these experts to Wikipedia? Even if everything could be made seamless, what would be the advantage? It's simple, really. First, there are a number of beneficial interface changes that could be made when dealing with a group of experts in a specific field - embedded tools to common references, additional methods of communication, etc. It might encourage field experts to contribute if they can do so through a site they already use, particularly if they don't have to leave most of the elements of that site behind. Also, of course, it would be possible for these people to generate free content while also benefiting the referring site. I understand that having anyone draw any benefit from anything related to Wikimedia is something that a number of people reflectively object to, but such is life and I find its easier to ignore that line of thinking entirely. Such benefits encourage referrers or partners to encourage contributions to our projects, which is obviously what we want. Plus, and particularly if the experts on arthistory (or sites with arrangements similar to those contemplated by the original poster) are academic... We always gain when we increase our penetration among content experts. So the question really should be, what of this would be to our disadvantage? Nathan -- Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Top posters, special edition
2009/2/19 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com: Sometime in the past year I stopped posting the top posters list because it was seen as not useful and perhaps encouraging the type of behavior it was, in fact, meant to discourage. Even so, I thought I might post this special edition of top posters. The numbers come from Erik Zachte's list page, and sum posts for the top 25 posters from Jan 08 to Feb 09. Thomas Dalton 753 That's the result of having to write a master's thesis! Actually, I think that list is very positive - we have 25 people all posting at least an average of 5 posts a day. That's a large, active community. 753 emails is a frightening number (I don't know how I've sent that many...) but as a proportion of total emails sent, it's not that high. (I can't find the exact number of total posts - where is this list page of which you speak?) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] mirroring a portion of the wikipedia
2009/2/19 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com: So the question really should be, what of this would be to our disadvantage? It's very difficult to set up technically, for a start. Live mirroring of existing content isn't too hard, but sorting out editing would be a nightmare. We presumably wouldn't want everyone editing under the same account (we are generally opposed to role accounts, so I would imagine we would be opposed to this kind of group account as well), which means we need some way for the mirror site to authenticate accounts with the Wikimedia servers, which is a security nightmare (I expect it can be done, but it would require some effort). We would need to deal with edit conflicts caused by delays in the mirroring (which would be sure to happen from time to time), again, not impossible, but it requires effort. There needs to be a significant advantage for it to be worth all that effort, and I don't see one. If people want easy access to references, etc. they can use custom skins and scripts - they are far easier to write than live mirroring software. You could even make a skin that looks just like the other site if you really wanted to. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Top posters, special edition
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: That's the result of having to write a master's thesis! Actually, I think that list is very positive - we have 25 people all posting at least an average of 5 posts a day. That's a large, active community. 753 emails is a frightening number (I don't know how I've sent that many...) but as a proportion of total emails sent, it's not that high. (I can't find the exact number of total posts - where is this list page of which you speak?) Your posts constitute 2.4% of the total number of posts to the list since its creation in 2004, according to this page. [1] There are six people that have posted more than you (including GerardM), but you began posting in Feb 07 while the next most recent of those six (GerardM) began posting in Jan of 2005. As for 25 people averaging 5 posts per day... Only the top 3 average more than one post per day. You mean as a whole, I suppose? Nathan [1] http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/foundation-l.html ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] status of the licensing update
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:24 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: The GFDL has problems which need to be fixed. If the relicensing under CC-BY-SA occurs, that's much less likely to happen. I spent 3 years trying to get the GFDL fixed. Would you like me to forward you all of the We'll get back to you later emails? The sooner we are no longer at the mercy of Richard Stallman, the better. Nothing you can say about the new licensing terms will change my mind about that. I'd much rather see a switch to the GSFDL, with some sort of clause added to that license allowing combining of history lines into a single line listing all significant authors, in the case of an MMORPG (or whatever it is the FSF has chosen for the codeword for Wikipedia). See above. Ryan Kaldari ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Top posters, special edition
2009/2/19 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com: On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: That's the result of having to write a master's thesis! Actually, I think that list is very positive - we have 25 people all posting at least an average of 5 posts a day. That's a large, active community. 753 emails is a frightening number (I don't know how I've sent that many...) but as a proportion of total emails sent, it's not that high. (I can't find the exact number of total posts - where is this list page of which you speak?) Your posts constitute 2.4% of the total number of posts to the list since its creation in 2004, according to this page. [1] There are six people that have posted more than you (including GerardM), but you began posting in Feb 07 while the next most recent of those six (GerardM) began posting in Jan of 2005. As for 25 people averaging 5 posts per day... Only the top 3 average more than one post per day. You mean as a whole, I suppose? Sorry, somehow I managed to do the sum for 1 month, not 13 months... not sure how (that's why one should also sanity check results...)! My point stands, my maths is just nonsense. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Top posters, special edition
Hoi, I am glad that you did not count the number of times that I blogged on one of my blogs. Have a read and tell me where you think I make most sense ... http://ulltmategerardm.blogspot.com http://omegawiki.blogspot.com http://extensiontesting.blogspot.com/ Thanks, GerardM 2009/2/19 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com Sometime in the past year I stopped posting the top posters list because it was seen as not useful and perhaps encouraging the type of behavior it was, in fact, meant to discourage. Even so, I thought I might post this special edition of top posters. The numbers come from Erik Zachte's list page, and sum posts for the top 25 posters from Jan 08 to Feb 09. Thomas Dalton 753 GerardM 738 David Gerard 450 Ray Saintonge 405 Anthony 403 Milos Rancic 381 geni 359 Anthere 323 Dan Rosenthal 316 Chad 311 Nathan 283 Mark Williamson 276 Andrew Whitworth 273 Geoffrey Plourde 253 Erik Moeller 229 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 224 effe iets anders 220 Mike Godwin 197 Robert Rohde 188 Gregory Maxwell 182 Michael Bimmler 167 Michael Snow 161 Yaroslav M. Blanter 154 Brian 152 Of interest is that Thomas Dalton was the top poster in 8 of 14 months, and GerardM in 4. That is dedication, certainly. Nathan -- Your donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://www.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] mirroring a portion of the wikipedia
I hope you realize that doesn't make any sense. If the WMF didn't exist, how could it host anything at all? skype: node.ue 2009/2/19 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com: Hoi, The French Wikipedia may pre-date the WMF but the hosting of the French Wikipedia has always been done by the WMF. So your argument is a bit flaky. Thanks, GerardM 2009/2/19 Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com The French Wikipedia wasn't created by the Foundation. skype: node.ue 2009/2/18 basedrop based...@gmail.com: Hello Thomas and thanks for your response. I would point out that the foundation created a French version, hosted it on French servers, in the French language because they saw the benefit of delivering something to a specific constituency. I don't have a particular need to have the art history portion of the wiki editable for my users at my domain. I have the specialized users at my site, I'd like to take advantage of that aggregation of specialized users to the benefit of the wiki.If you guys don't have an API for me, I'm o.k. with that. Web content is becoming more integrated across multiple platforms and domains. People can post to Facebook from twitter. People can check Gmail from POP3 clients. People can post to a blog, and the data will instantly replicate over multiple blogs around the world. I can pull data from multiple sources and aggregate it with an rss feed reader. This is the direction content and the web is heading. Bring the users to one domain, and keep the content within that domain can be called the walled garden approach. It is not a bad one, when you have a need to control the users (e.g. facebook,) and the content. In the case of the wiki, I'd suggest a more democratic approach of bringing the wiki to the people. You already do that with a push version of the wiki, I'm just suggesting you take it one step further and make it editable. Imagine sections of the wiki, right where the experts are aggregated. Space.com hosting a concurrent version of the astronomy section. Technology at slashdot.org. Law at nolo.com... you get the drift. You guys consider this. In the mean time I'll build up my site and my user base. If there is a way to integrate in the future, I'll do that. I'm going to shoot for using openID, so this is just another reason for you guys to consider the use of openID as well. Michael -Original Message- From: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Dalton Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 3:57 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] mirroring a portion of the wikipedia 2009/2/18 basedrop based...@gmail.com: Hello, I'm not sure if this is the place to pose this question, if not could you respond with the proper place. I'm building out a social networking site centered around an art and arthistory theme. I would like to display a real time dynamic version of the arthistory section of the wikipedia at my domain. Possible, but unlikely to happen, I'm afraid. There is little to be gained for us compared to you just sending people to the main site. I would like for my users to be able to edit this section at my domain. I don't think that's possible - at best all the edits would be from a single account, and we don't really like group accounts. My domain is arthistory.com. I am hoping to be able to provide a lot of acedemic and specialty users to this section via my site. I think we could both benefit from this relationship. My users have direct access to the arthistory section of wikipedia, the wikipedia gets access to my users who are experts in the field. We would very much like to encourage your users to edit Wikipedia, but it really would be much easier for us if they just came to our site. Is there some reason why they particularly need to be doing it from your site? I understand you can get a feed of the wikipedia, and also a database dump, but I'm looking for a more real time and dynamic connection (without just putting the wikipedia in an iframe.) I don't know of anything like that being done before. If it's just one section of the site you could probably mirror it pretty well by crawling it once a day or so - we don't like people crawling the whole site, but one section shouldn't be a problem. If you want it completely up-to-date then you need to access the Wikipedia servers for each request, so you might as well just be on wikipedia.org I'd also prefer if I could use openID or some way of repurposing my user's registration to duel register with my site and with wikipedia, and create a login session for both simultaneously. I'm sorry, we don't use openID on Wikipedia. It has been suggested,
Re: [Foundation-l] mirroring a portion of the wikipedia
Isn't that what outsourcing is... skype: node.ue 2009/2/19 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com: Hoi, It is not outsourcing at all. Quite the contrary, it would be people from elsewhere, people who are likely to be trusted from elsewhere editing our content from somewhere else as well. In essence it would be an ultimate mash up. Thanks, GerardM 2009/2/19 Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com Was it ever on French servers? That aside: the two situations are entirely different. This proposal is effectively outsourcing a section of Wikipedia to some experts in the field. That's entirely unlike the Foundation deciding to add an additional language for Wikipedia to appear in. Playing devil's advocate here...it could honestly be an interesting idea. Provided the account on their end is attached to an account on our end (with no IPs, so no worries of using as a proxy), it could be entirely do-able. Editing can be done remotely via the API and content can be drawn down to their copies. Other than the live mirroring issue, it's entirely doable. -Chad On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 2:37 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote: Hoi, The French Wikipedia may pre-date the WMF but the hosting of the French Wikipedia has always been done by the WMF. So your argument is a bit flaky. Thanks, GerardM 2009/2/19 Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com The French Wikipedia wasn't created by the Foundation. skype: node.ue 2009/2/18 basedrop based...@gmail.com: Hello Thomas and thanks for your response. I would point out that the foundation created a French version, hosted it on French servers, in the French language because they saw the benefit of delivering something to a specific constituency. I don't have a particular need to have the art history portion of the wiki editable for my users at my domain. I have the specialized users at my site, I'd like to take advantage of that aggregation of specialized users to the benefit of the wiki.If you guys don't have an API for me, I'm o.k. with that. Web content is becoming more integrated across multiple platforms and domains. People can post to Facebook from twitter. People can check Gmail from POP3 clients. People can post to a blog, and the data will instantly replicate over multiple blogs around the world. I can pull data from multiple sources and aggregate it with an rss feed reader. This is the direction content and the web is heading. Bring the users to one domain, and keep the content within that domain can be called the walled garden approach. It is not a bad one, when you have a need to control the users (e.g. facebook,) and the content. In the case of the wiki, I'd suggest a more democratic approach of bringing the wiki to the people. You already do that with a push version of the wiki, I'm just suggesting you take it one step further and make it editable. Imagine sections of the wiki, right where the experts are aggregated. Space.com hosting a concurrent version of the astronomy section. Technology at slashdot.org. Law at nolo.com... you get the drift. You guys consider this. In the mean time I'll build up my site and my user base. If there is a way to integrate in the future, I'll do that. I'm going to shoot for using openID, so this is just another reason for you guys to consider the use of openID as well. Michael -Original Message- From: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Dalton Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 3:57 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] mirroring a portion of the wikipedia 2009/2/18 basedrop based...@gmail.com: Hello, I'm not sure if this is the place to pose this question, if not could you respond with the proper place. I'm building out a social networking site centered around an art and arthistory theme. I would like to display a real time dynamic version of the arthistory section of the wikipedia at my domain. Possible, but unlikely to happen, I'm afraid. There is little to be gained for us compared to you just sending people to the main site. I would like for my users to be able to edit this section at my domain. I don't think that's possible - at best all the edits would be from a single account, and we don't really like group accounts. My domain is arthistory.com. I am hoping to be able to provide a lot of acedemic and specialty users to this section via my site. I think we could both benefit from this relationship. My users have direct access to the arthistory
Re: [Foundation-l] Top posters, special edition
Thomas Dalton 753 GerardM 738 David Gerard 450 Ray Saintonge 405 Anthony 403 Milos Rancic 381 geni 359 Anthere 323 Dan Rosenthal 316 Chad 311 Nathan 283 Mark Williamson 276 Andrew Whitworth 273 Geoffrey Plourde 253 Erik Moeller 229 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 224 effe iets anders 220 Mike Godwin 197 Robert Rohde 188 Gregory Maxwell 182 Michael Bimmler 167 Michael Snow 161 Yaroslav M. Blanter 154 Brian 152 Of interest is that Thomas Dalton was the top poster in 8 of 14 months, and GerardM in 4. That is dedication, certainly. And trying to split it over the home projects we get 15 en.wp 2 nl.wp 1 sr.wp 1 fr.wp 1 en.wb 1 fi.wp 1 de.wp 1 ru.wp 2 WMF employees (sorry if I got somebody's home project wrong) Cheers Yaroslav ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Top posters, special edition
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: I still hold the crown on Wikipedia-l. Whatever happened to that list, anyways? Pretty much no decisions are made at the Wikipedia level. They're either made at the foundation level or the individual project one. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] mirroring a portion of the wikipedia
2009/2/19 Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com: I think you are significantly overestimating the difficulty. We already have an API [1] and similar tools that allow one to accomplish many similar tasks. For example, calling ?action=render will give you a llive HTML version of any current page that could be wrapped in a external site's own framing and stylesheets (though one would need to rewrite the url roots in most cases). The API already has tools for logging in and out while authenticating against WMF servers. And there is even a write API, though I believe that is currently disabled on the main sites. Ideally, you would want to authenticate in a way that doesn't give the middle-man access to plaintext Wikimedia passwords. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] A funny coincidence
Michael Snow escribió: I suppose I should bring it with me whether I spend it or not. Anyway, I'm looking forward to Wikimania, and seeing any of you that are able to make it. --Michael Snow You should bring it and not spend it. I foresee you will be asked about them there :-) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] mirroring a portion of the wikipedia
Robert Rohde wrote: True, though under the current system a middle man in position of a user authentication token could do exactly the same things to Wikimedia as someone with the plaintext password. Which is a short way of saying our system has never been built with much security in mind. -Robert Rohde You could make them authenticate against wikipedia and send edits directly to wikipedia (eg. AJAX). With no password handling from the other site*. However, it still places the remote site in a place where it is able to automatically revert a page or perform an edit on wikipedia without the (wikipedia logged-in) visitor even noticing it. basedrop: My advice is to just include the content, making the edit link point to wikipedia instead of trying to integrate edition into your site. *If you integrate wikipedia login with the external site, how would you prevent the external site to change to a 'grab password' system? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Top posters, special edition
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Wikipedia-l is still a good place to discuss Wikipedia related issues regardless of language. I've seen some interesting discussions take place there over the last couple of months. It's still quite useful. Cary Mark Williamson wrote: I still hold the crown on Wikipedia-l. Whatever happened to that list, anyways? skype: node.ue 2009/2/19 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com: On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote: That's the result of having to write a master's thesis! Actually, I think that list is very positive - we have 25 people all posting at least an average of 5 posts a day. That's a large, active community. 753 emails is a frightening number (I don't know how I've sent that many...) but as a proportion of total emails sent, it's not that high. (I can't find the exact number of total posts - where is this list page of which you speak?) Your posts constitute 2.4% of the total number of posts to the list since its creation in 2004, according to this page. [1] There are six people that have posted more than you (including GerardM), but you began posting in Feb 07 while the next most recent of those six (GerardM) began posting in Jan of 2005. As for 25 people averaging 5 posts per day... Only the top 3 average more than one post per day. You mean as a whole, I suppose? Nathan [1] http://www.infodisiac.com/Wikipedia/ScanMail/foundation-l.html -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJneU6yQg4JSymDYkRAo/lAKCxju/9hNYCnGO2YRPPWDoJBiSIFwCghXIG f52eq5orPbhESd9Igq9PKlY= =VcoT -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
