Re: [Foundation-l] Akahele: Omidyar venturing out
Hoi, This is the Foundation-l not the Wikipedia-en list. Applying policies of one project is rather arbitrary. Thanks, GerardM 2009/9/2 John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Anthonywikim...@inbox.org wrote: Once again I have to ask, this time in a different forum... Is there any procedure to get those vicious personal attacks taken out of the publicly viewable history? I am gobsmacked that you are asking this here and saying that you haven't received answers when you asked in a different forum (which forum?). Removal of vicious personal attacks depends on the nature of them. If they are potentially libelous, suppression[1] can be used. In other cases, poor mans oversight[2] is often used by admins and oversight volunteers. 1. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight 2. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Poor_man%27s_oversight -- John Vandenberg ___ 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] 31 august, 20 years of our national holiday Our romanian language in Moldova, mo.wikipedia still in cyrillic !
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 07:04, Mark Williamsonnode...@gmail.com wrote: I thought the previous consensus was that this project was to be moved to a different domain - although outright deletion has been suggested by quite a few people I can't see where that was ever agreed to. Stats briefing: 51 active, 850 registered editors, 401 content pages and total 2300 pages, 31 uploaded files. Looks like it's not really inactive, so I'd agree to move it to mo-cyr or something, there seem to be demand for it. grin ps: MarkGerard, thanks for the background! I guess then as a language it ought to go together with Romanian. The real problem is that I'm not sure whether the editors from this two region could work together at all, like obviously mo admins should be sysopped on ro wp, etc... Not sure whether any parties would like that to see to happen. :-P ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Akahele: Omidyar venturing out
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Gerard Meijssengerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, This is the Foundation-l not the Wikipedia-en list. Applying policies of one project is rather arbitrary. I (correctly) assumed that Anthony needed guidance to the oversight-l list to deal with an En.Wp problem, so I pointed him to the applicable policy page on the applicable project. I could have pointed him to the meta policy page, but that page is a lot of unnecessary reading for someone who wants to know how to request oversight on En.Wp. -- John Vandenberg ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 31 august, 20 years of our national holiday Our romanian language in Moldova, mo.wikipedia still in cyrillic !
Hoi, The word deprecated in this context does not mean that it is wrong, it means that it is best not to use it. In standards like this they use the word in order to allow for the continued use in situations where a change is not easy. In the Wikimedia Foundation we have several instances that are more problematic then the use of the mo code. As we chose not to remedy situations that are explicitly wrong, there is no technical reason to change this code. Thanks, GerardM 2009/9/2 Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 07:04, Mark Williamsonnode...@gmail.com wrote: I thought the previous consensus was that this project was to be moved to a different domain - although outright deletion has been suggested by quite a few people I can't see where that was ever agreed to. Stats briefing: 51 active, 850 registered editors, 401 content pages and total 2300 pages, 31 uploaded files. Looks like it's not really inactive, so I'd agree to move it to mo-cyr or something, there seem to be demand for it. grin ps: MarkGerard, thanks for the background! I guess then as a language it ought to go together with Romanian. The real problem is that I'm not sure whether the editors from this two region could work together at all, like obviously mo admins should be sysopped on ro wp, etc... Not sure whether any parties would like that to see to happen. :-P ___ 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] Universal Library
Yann Forget wrote: I started a proposal on the Strategy Wiki: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Building_a_database_of_all_books_ever_published IMO this should be a join project between Openlibrary and Wikimedia. Again, I don't understand why. What exactly is missing in OpenLibrary? Why does it need to be a new, joint project? The page says There is currently no database of all books ever published freely available. But OpenLibrary is a project already working towards exactly that goal. It's not done yet, and its methods are not yet fully developed. But neither would your new joint project be, for a very long time. Wikipedia is also far from complete, far from containing the sum of all human knowledge. But that doesn't create a need to start entirely new encyclopedia projects. It only means more contributors are needed in the existing Wikipedia. -- Lars Aronsson (l...@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 31 august, 20 years of our national holiday Our romanian language in Moldova, mo.wikipedia still in cyrillic !
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 08:29, Mark Williamsonnode...@gmail.com wrote: It certainly should, ideally, be the same Wikipedia - in my opinion the ideal situation would have a converter on ro.wp. However, I don't think most Romanian Wikipedians would approve of this (as I mentioned earlier in the thread). A worrying sidenote: cheking the page http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Moldovan_Wikipedia#Motion_to_end_discussion seem to reveal that most of the people go for deletion of the mowp are Romanians. Would they support to have old mowp admins as rowp admins, wouldn't they? g ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] 31 august, 20 years of our national holiday Our romanian language in Moldova, mo.wikipedia still in cyrillic !
No, they most certainly would not. However it's a bit of a moot point as if I recall correctly there were only 1 or 2 admins and they've both left since. Mark On 9/1/09, Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 08:29, Mark Williamsonnode...@gmail.com wrote: It certainly should, ideally, be the same Wikipedia - in my opinion the ideal situation would have a converter on ro.wp. However, I don't think most Romanian Wikipedians would approve of this (as I mentioned earlier in the thread). A worrying sidenote: cheking the page http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Moldovan_Wikipedia#Motion_to_end_discussion seem to reveal that most of the people go for deletion of the mowp are Romanians. Would they support to have old mowp admins as rowp admins, wouldn't they? g ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- skype: node.ue ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Universal Library
Not only can the OpenLibrary do it perfect well without us. considering our rather inconsistent standards, they can probably do it better without us. We will just get in the way. There is sufficient missing material in every Wikipedia, sufficient lack of coverage of areas outside the primary language zone and in earlier periods, sufficient unsourced material; sufficient need for updating articles, sufficient potentially free media to add, sufficient needed imagery to get; that we have more than enough work for all the volunteers we are likely to get. To duplicate an existing project is particularly unproductive when the other project is doing it better than we are ever going to be able to. Yes, there are people here who could do it or learn to do it--but I think everyone here with that degree of bibliographic knowledge would be much better occupied in sourcing articles. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 2:21 AM, Lars Aronssonl...@aronsson.se wrote: Yann Forget wrote: I started a proposal on the Strategy Wiki: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Building_a_database_of_all_books_ever_published IMO this should be a join project between Openlibrary and Wikimedia. Again, I don't understand why. What exactly is missing in OpenLibrary? Why does it need to be a new, joint project? The page says There is currently no database of all books ever published freely available. But OpenLibrary is a project already working towards exactly that goal. It's not done yet, and its methods are not yet fully developed. But neither would your new joint project be, for a very long time. Wikipedia is also far from complete, far from containing the sum of all human knowledge. But that doesn't create a need to start entirely new encyclopedia projects. It only means more contributors are needed in the existing Wikipedia. -- Lars Aronsson (l...@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se ___ 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] 31 august, 20 years of our national holiday Our romanian language in Moldova, mo.wikipedia still in cyrillic !
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 1:18 AM, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote: It's more complex than that I think. mo was deleted from the list of ISO codes relatively recently; when the Wiki was created it was a valid ISO code. Like I said, it is a complex issue. Also, from what I have heard (and this may be incorrect), the US Library of Congress deleted the MO code without consulting with any Moldovan authority which seems inappropriate. Imagine the outcry if those experts were to delete SR, HR, and BS codes in favor of SH without consulting any local authority? Mark Funny you should mention deleting SR, HR, and BS. At Wiktionary this very issue was voted on. An inside group favored the eliminations based on the linguistic argument that the various overlapping dialects (which don't correspond well to national borders) and on the valuable contributions in other areas of the principal admin advocating the elimination. A great deal of nastiness accompanied the vote, which failed due to the participation of new Wiktionary contributors. These contributors have now made sure that they have made 50 edits so as to qualify under proposed new voting qualification rules also under vote. The issue has been somewhat divisive. The point is that it in some cases language is an aspect of national identity. We are very lucky when an international authority (the ISO) makes a decision which we can choose to rely on instead of getting involved in matters generating such anger. There does seem to be a clear trend in some places for wikipedia and wiktionary to become national rather than linguistic in their focus. I have noted the very low influence of Indian English contributors on Wiktionary despite their being one of the largest groups of English speakers and having some distinct vocabulary and distinct grammatical details to their variety of English. The situation contrasts with that for, say, Australia. I wonder whether that is attributable to a similar phenomenon -- Dennis C. During Cynolatry is tolerant so long as the dog is not denied an equal divinity with the deities of other faiths. - Ambrose Bierce http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cynolatry ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Commons reaches 5 million files
Around 11:46 UTC we reached 5 million files on Commons! Not quite sure which file is the 5th million, but this is one of the candidates: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kj%C3%B8benhavnsposten_28_nov_1838_side_1.jpg Thanks everyone for making Commons such as a fantastic project, and creating the world's largest repository of free images! -- Hay ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons reaches 5 million files
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Hay (Husky)hus...@gmail.com wrote: Around 11:46 UTC we reached 5 million files on Commons! Not quite sure which file is the 5th million, but this is one of the candidates: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kj%C3%B8benhavnsposten_28_nov_1838_side_1.jpg Does anyone else get a broken image at that url? Mathias ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons reaches 5 million files
works fine here... 2009/9/2 Mathias Schindler mathias.schind...@gmail.com On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Hay (Husky)hus...@gmail.com wrote: Around 11:46 UTC we reached 5 million files on Commons! Not quite sure which file is the 5th million, but this is one of the candidates: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kj%C3%B8benhavnsposten_28_nov_1838_side_1.jpg Does anyone else get a broken image at that url? Mathias ___ 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] Commons reaches 5 million files
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 10:58 PM, Mathias Schindlermathias.schind...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Hay (Husky)hus...@gmail.com wrote: Around 11:46 UTC we reached 5 million files on Commons! Not quite sure which file is the 5th million, but this is one of the candidates: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kj%C3%B8benhavnsposten_28_nov_1838_side_1.jpg Does anyone else get a broken image at that url? Mathias Nope, just make sure your browser is rendering the third character in the file name properly. -Peachey ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons reaches 5 million files
effe iets anders wrote: works fine here... That's b/c the image was reverted. See file history. 2009/9/2 Mathias Schindler mathias.schind...@gmail.com On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Hay (Husky)hus...@gmail.com wrote: Around 11:46 UTC we reached 5 million files on Commons! Not quite sure which file is the 5th million, but this is one of the candidates: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kj%C3%B8benhavnsposten_28_nov_1838_side_1.jpg Does anyone else get a broken image at that url? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons reaches 5 million files
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 3:03 PM, effe iets anderseffeietsand...@gmail.com wrote: works fine here... The broken version was reverted, it is now working again. In case you want to test it, see the version history or get the following file: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/a/af/20090902125937!Kj%C3%B8benhavnsposten_28_nov_1838_side_1.jpg From a PR perspective, taking this image as the 5millionth one is a desaster, the only positive aspect is that it is honest to take that one instead of a shiny picture. Mathias ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons reaches 5 million files
How do we know this picture is the 5th million? Just for curiosity, does anyone know what is the scanned paper about? []'s, Tom -- http://blogdotom.wordpress.com/sobre ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons reaches 5 million files
Mathias Schindler wrote: From a PR perspective, taking this image as the 5millionth one is a desaster, the only positive aspect is that it is honest to take that one instead of a shiny picture. Perhaps not so much, as it happened to be a first page of the newspaper. And I guess it is still better than the 2millionth file ;) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons reaches 5 million files
Hello, On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Mathias Schindlermathias.schind...@gmail.com wrote: From a PR perspective, taking this image as the 5millionth one is a desaster, the only positive aspect is that it is honest to take that one instead of a shiny picture. Nah, we can use it to make a case for Wikisource and encourage libraries to provide high-quality scans! -- Guillaume Paumier [[m:User:guillom]] http://www.gpaumier.org ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons reaches 5 million files
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Everton Zanella Alvarengaeverton...@gmail.com wrote: How do we know this picture is the 5th million? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#5.000.000 And again, this is just a guess by Platonides. Apparently it could also be: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sollies_Ville_-_Valp_-_P1200358.JPG -- Hay ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Universal Library
Lars Aronsson wrote: Yann Forget wrote: I started a proposal on the Strategy Wiki: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Building_a_database_of_all_books_ever_published IMO this should be a join project between Openlibrary and Wikimedia. Again, I don't understand why. What exactly is missing in OpenLibrary? Why does it need to be a new, joint project? The page says There is currently no database of all books ever published freely available. But OpenLibrary is a project already working towards exactly that goal. It's not done yet, and its methods are not yet fully developed. But neither would your new joint project be, for a very long time. Wikipedia is also far from complete, far from containing the sum of all human knowledge. But that doesn't create a need to start entirely new encyclopedia projects. It only means more contributors are needed in the existing Wikipedia. You just give again the same arguments, to which I have answered. Did you read my answer? Regards, Yann -- http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons reaches 5 million files
-Original Message- From: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Nikola Smolenski Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 6:33 AM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Commons reaches 5 million files Mathias Schindler wrote: From a PR perspective, taking this image as the 5millionth one is a desaster, the only positive aspect is that it is honest to take that one instead of a shiny picture. Perhaps not so much, as it happened to be a first page of the newspaper. And I guess it is still better than the 2millionth file ;) I would also like to note, this image is a shiny example of the new annotations feature! Cary ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Universal Library
Hello, I have already answered some of these arguments earlier. David Goodman wrote: Not only can the OpenLibrary do it perfect well without us. considering our rather inconsistent standards, they can probably do it better without us. We will just get in the way. The issue is not if OpenLibrary is doing it perfect well without us, even if that were true. Currently what OpenLibrary does is not very useful for Wikimedia, and partly duplicate what we do. Wikimedia has also important assets which OL doesn't have, and therefore a collaboration seems obviously beneficial for both. There is sufficient missing material in every Wikipedia, sufficient lack of coverage of areas outside the primary language zone and in earlier periods, sufficient unsourced material; sufficient need for updating articles, sufficient potentially free media to add, sufficient needed imagery to get; that we have more than enough work for all the volunteers we are likely to get. To duplicate an existing project is particularly unproductive when the other project is doing it better than we are ever going to be able to. Yes, there are people here who could do it or learn to do it--but I think everyone here with that degree of bibliographic knowledge would be much better occupied in sourcing articles. It is clear that you didn't even read my proposal. Please do before emitting objections. http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Building_a_database_of_all_books_ever_published I specifically wrote that my proposal is not necessarily starting a new project. I agree that working with Open Library is necessary for such project, but I also say if Wikimedia gets involved, it would be much more successful. What you say here is completely the opposite how Wikimedia projects work, i.e. openness, and that's just what is missing in Open Library. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. Regards, Yann -- http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Commons reaches 5 million files
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Cary Bassc...@wikimedia.org wrote: -Original Message- From: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Nikola Smolenski Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 6:33 AM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Commons reaches 5 million files Mathias Schindler wrote: From a PR perspective, taking this image as the 5millionth one is a desaster, the only positive aspect is that it is honest to take that one instead of a shiny picture. Perhaps not so much, as it happened to be a first page of the newspaper. And I guess it is still better than the 2millionth file ;) I would also like to note, this image is a shiny example of the new annotations feature! I agree, the scroll-over annotation and translation looks brilliant to my taste. Thanks, Pharos Cary ___ 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] Universal Library
I have read your proposal. I continue to be of the opinion that we are not competent to do this. Since the proposal says, that this project requires as much database management knowledge as librarian knowledge, it confirms my opinion. You will never merge the data properly if you do not understand it. You suggest 3 practical steps 1. an extension for finding a book in OL is certainly doable--and it has been done, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Book_sources]. 2. an OL field, link to WP -- as you say, this is already present. 3. An OL field, link to Wikisource.A very good project. It will be they who need to do it. Agreed we need translation information--I think this is a very important priority. It's not that hard to do a list or to add links that will be helpful, though not exact enough to be relied on in further work. That's probably a reasonable project, but it is very far from a database of all books ever published But some of this is being done--see the frWP page for Moby Dick: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moby_Dick (though it omits a number of the translations listed in the French Union Catalog, http://corail.sudoc.abes.fr/xslt/DB=2.1/CMD?ACT=SRCHAIKT=8063SRT=RLVTRM=Moby+Dick] I would however not warrant without seeing the items in hand, or reading an authoritative review, that they are all complete translations. The English page on the novel lists no translations; perhaps we could in practice assume that the interwiki links are sufficient. Perhaps that could be assumed in Wiksource also? David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Yann Forgety...@forget-me.net wrote: Hello, I have already answered some of these arguments earlier. David Goodman wrote: Not only can the OpenLibrary do it perfect well without us. considering our rather inconsistent standards, they can probably do it better without us. We will just get in the way. The issue is not if OpenLibrary is doing it perfect well without us, even if that were true. Currently what OpenLibrary does is not very useful for Wikimedia, and partly duplicate what we do. Wikimedia has also important assets which OL doesn't have, and therefore a collaboration seems obviously beneficial for both. There is sufficient missing material in every Wikipedia, sufficient lack of coverage of areas outside the primary language zone and in earlier periods, sufficient unsourced material; sufficient need for updating articles, sufficient potentially free media to add, sufficient needed imagery to get; that we have more than enough work for all the volunteers we are likely to get. To duplicate an existing project is particularly unproductive when the other project is doing it better than we are ever going to be able to. Yes, there are people here who could do it or learn to do it--but I think everyone here with that degree of bibliographic knowledge would be much better occupied in sourcing articles. It is clear that you didn't even read my proposal. Please do before emitting objections. http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Building_a_database_of_all_books_ever_published I specifically wrote that my proposal is not necessarily starting a new project. I agree that working with Open Library is necessary for such project, but I also say if Wikimedia gets involved, it would be much more successful. What you say here is completely the opposite how Wikimedia projects work, i.e. openness, and that's just what is missing in Open Library. David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. Regards, Yann -- http://www.non-violence.org/ | Site collaboratif sur la non-violence http://www.forget-me.net/ | Alternatives sur le Net http://fr.wikisource.org/ | Bibliothèque libre http://wikilivres.info | Documents libres ___ 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
