Re: [Foundation-l] Board Resolution: Openness
On 12 April 2011 12:02, David Gerard wrote: > > I just tried editing an article on en:wp on my shiny new BlackBerry > 9300. (Which can browse Wikipedia just fine.) It was ridiculously > annoying and I'm not sure I'd bother fixing typos I spotted in casual > reading. > > (At least Vector worked in that version of the BlackBerry browser ...) > > Does anyone here edit any of the WMF wikis, or any other wiki, on > their phone much? What's it like, and what's the phone? I edit, infrequently, from my Droid Pro. It's actually not too gruesome, because the whole phone is optimized for text input. (The Pro is the so-called Blackberry killer, the one with the excellent physical keyboard.) It's not fun, due mostly to the small screen size, but it's possible. I do quick time-sensitive wiki-tasks from it and I occasionally fix typos, but I would never attempt a complicated article edit. Stepping back a bit -- for anyone who doesn't know, mobile is a second-level priority for the Wikimedia Foundation right now (behind Rich Text Editor and new editor retention). You can read more here: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Product_Whitepaper. Gist is, we want to support both low-end and high-end phones and connections, and do some experimentation with mobile contribution mechanisms -- minor edits, image uploads, article ratings, and that kind of thing. Basically the kind of thing Quim Gil was talking about, below >> On 12 April 2011 19:46, Quim Gil wrote: > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Projects/App_Features_&_Roadmap > * "Share this" like WikiNews does. > * Watch an article - simple way to get readers progressively involved. > * Patrol a new article - could be suggested by the app. > * Geotag an article - maybe there is a way to offer suggestions. > * Assess the relevance / importance of an article - app could suggest > * Upload and embed a picture to a page - implementation might be tricky. > * Add a comment in the discussion page - rather than applying templates > directly. > * Let SuggestBot to suggest me a mobile task - (with some fine tuning of > the bot this could be a stand-alone mobile app in itself) > * Spellchecking - highly automated, engine tbd. Thanks, Sue ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board Resolution: Openness
On 12 April 2011 21:17, Quim Gil wrote: > About tricky UIs, they can be improved for mobile use. Please take the > time filing feature requests and your proposals at > https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/ I strongly suspect this is in the class of problem which is not going to achieve good solutions by people annoyed by the mobile interface filing incremental ad-hoc bugs. Thus, this response does not in fact seem to demonstrate awareness of the likely scope of the problem. So please don't take it the wrong way when I say that your answer comes across as glib. Rather, it is in the class of problems that will require focused attention from a designer who understands UI issues and can focus attention on the vexed issue of designing a mobile editing interface that, as a whole, is actually functional and usable. This may require actual focused assignment of resources, i.e., spending money. If we can do it by sheer brilliance, great! But if that were feasible, it would have happened already. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board Resolution: Openness
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 20:02 +0100, ext David Gerard wrote: > On 12 April 2011 19:46, Quim Gil wrote: > > > In fact Wikimedia content is also popular among mobile users (directly > > or through apps), but what about mobile contributions? > > > I just tried editing an article on en:wp on my shiny new BlackBerry Did you read the rest of my (admittedly long) email, where I was saying precisely that there are many potential contributions not related with editing that could be done from mobile devices? http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Projects/App_Features_&_Roadmap Pasted here for convenience: * "Share this" like WikiNews does. * Watch an article - simple way to get readers progressively involved. * Patrol a new article - could be suggested by the app. * Geotag an article - maybe there is a way to offer suggestions. * Assess the relevance / importance of an article - app could suggest * Upload and embed a picture to a page - implementation might be tricky. * Add a comment in the discussion page - rather than applying templates directly. * Let SuggestBot to suggest me a mobile task - (with some fine tuning of the bot this could be a stand-alone mobile app in itself) * Spellchecking - highly automated, engine tbd. About tricky UIs, they can be improved for mobile use. Please take the time filing feature requests and your proposals at https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/ Thanks! -- Quim ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board Resolution: Openness
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 3:02 PM, David Gerard wrote: > On 12 April 2011 19:46, Quim Gil wrote: > > > In fact Wikimedia content is also popular among mobile users (directly > > or through apps), but what about mobile contributions? > > I just tried editing an article on en:wp on my shiny new BlackBerry > 9300. (Which can browse Wikipedia just fine.) It was ridiculously > annoying and I'm not sure I'd bother fixing typos I spotted in casual > reading. > > (At least Vector worked in that version of the BlackBerry browser ...) > > Does anyone here edit any of the WMF wikis, or any other wiki, on > their phone much? What's it like, and what's the phone? I've edited a number of times from an iPhone (both 3G and 4). It's doable, in principle -- at least for basic editing -- but I wouldn't describe it as a very user-friendly experience. One particular issue I've encountered is that multi-line input fields (i.e. standard MediaWiki edit boxes) are fairly difficult to work with on the iOS Safari interface; scrolling through the field is either extremely slow or doesn't work at all. This isn't as big a deal when editing articles; but for talk pages -- where one normally intends to reply at the bottom of a section -- the scrolling required can quickly become prohibitively time-consuming. (I'm not sure whether it would be possible to have the edit field auto-scroll to the bottom of the available text, at least for certain mobile devices. Alternately, LiquidThreads might solve the problem as well, assuming we ever get them.) Kirill ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board Resolution: Openness
> I just tried editing an article on en:wp on my shiny new BlackBerry > 9300. (Which can browse Wikipedia just fine.) It was ridiculously > annoying and I'm not sure I'd bother fixing typos I spotted in casual > reading. > > (At least Vector worked in that version of the BlackBerry browser ...) > > Does anyone here edit any of the WMF wikis, or any other wiki, on > their phone much? What's it like, and what's the phone? I've edited the occasional talk page on en.wp from my Android. However, it's really difficult - the size of the pages means there's loads of scrolling, it's difficult to find the right place, and Wiki markup requires lots of fiddly special characters which are difficult to locate on a mobile touch keyboard. To be honest, these are all problems that affect editing from a desktop as well, unless you're used to it. Wiki markup is simple if the article contains only headings and text. But if the article contains images, conversion templates, infoboxes and reference tags it can easily appear to be a barrage of incomprehensible code. And we rely heavily on square and curly brackets, pipe characters and tildes which most people probably never otherwise use on their keyboards. Chris(The Land) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board Resolution: Openness
I tried it about half a dozen times on my HTC desire. The user experience is truly dreadful, and I'm not trying it again. Op 12 apr. 2011 21:02 schreef "David Gerard" het volgende: > On 12 April 2011 19:46, Quim Gil wrote: > >> In fact Wikimedia content is also popular among mobile users (directly >> or through apps), but what about mobile contributions? > > > I just tried editing an article on en:wp on my shiny new BlackBerry > 9300. (Which can browse Wikipedia just fine.) It was ridiculously > annoying and I'm not sure I'd bother fixing typos I spotted in casual > reading. > > (At least Vector worked in that version of the BlackBerry browser ...) > > Does anyone here edit any of the WMF wikis, or any other wiki, on > their phone much? What's it like, and what's the phone? > > > - d. > > ___ > 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] Board Resolution: Openness
On 12 April 2011 19:46, Quim Gil wrote: > In fact Wikimedia content is also popular among mobile users (directly > or through apps), but what about mobile contributions? I just tried editing an article on en:wp on my shiny new BlackBerry 9300. (Which can browse Wikipedia just fine.) It was ridiculously annoying and I'm not sure I'd bother fixing typos I spotted in casual reading. (At least Vector worked in that version of the BlackBerry browser ...) Does anyone here edit any of the WMF wikis, or any other wiki, on their phone much? What's it like, and what's the phone? - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board Resolution: Openness
On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 10:36 -0700, ext Sue Gardner wrote: > We do all see the world from where we sit, and we interact with the > people we already know ... so, experienced editors will be more > exposed to the kinds of concerns shared by other experienced editors, > and those concerns will instinctively resonate more for them. Fully agree. About "from where we sit", 5 and 10 years ago Wikimedia was basically 'a sitting user experience' both for readers and contributors, just like any other online project at that time. This defines the vocal community we have today, but things have changed and now communities like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and etc can't be conceived without all the users and contributors doing whatever NOT sitting in front of a computer. In fact Wikimedia content is also popular among mobile users (directly or through apps), but what about mobile contributions? After a decade swimming in free software development communities one can't avoid seeing the parallelism on this and on another important topic: - Editing is not the only way of contributing, therefore it's good to think explicitly of 'contributors' beyond 'editors', and think of contributions that don't require editing. Which is parallel to the well known - Developing is not the only way of contributing, therefore it's good to think explicitly of 'contributors' beyond 'developers', and think of contributions that don't require coding. A very promising land can be found precisely (paradoxically?) in the crossroads between editors and developers. Editing is mainly a manual task, requiring a higher community involvement as your edits grow. Software won't write articles for you anytime soon, but it can help channeling the unilateral input of zillion users doing each a small contribution. Busy editors know where that input is most needed and in which form it's more useful for the project. Inspired developers can make these contribution tools seamless and even fun to use - and rewarding. Mobile devices are very promising in this sense. People spend huge amounts of fragmented times checking/posting online stuff and playing mobile games, in situations that are *not* in-front-of-my-laptop-again. Many of them would welcome to use some of that time doing something more useful to the World, as long as it's not demanding and doesn't require sitting in-front-of-my-laptop-again. There is a collection of proposed casual mobile contributions at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Projects/App_Features_% 26_Roadmap#New_features . Editors are encouraged to have a look, add more use cases, help prioritizing those features and of course bring amazing ideas. With a bit of luck (and persistence) those features will end up in mobile apps used by a massive and diverse wave of new contributors. A % of those users will have a curiosity to get involved beyond the almost unconscious one-hand mobile contributions, and hopefully they will receive another hand from the established editors to get them enrolled in one of the many interesting tasks and projects around. -- Quim ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board Resolution: Openness
> You can see it in this Google spreadsheet here: > https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Aq_nhKkb7L-OdG5uWlJLT25TZkZ3MzdSeUNqZnZqY2c&hl=en&authkey=CP3O_PgO > -- it's publicly viewable but not editable. Brilliant! One point though, every item on that list has a meta solution of better information regarding how Wikipedia editing works and better understanding by the editor of their own emotions, and, of course, determination to not be a victim of your own emotions, or those of others. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Board Resolution: Openness
On 9 April 2011 20:21, Andrew Garrett wrote: > I don't mean to minimise the importance of keeping our established > users happy and free from harassment, but I want to caution against > the biases that we will undoubtedly have in considering our focus. > > Anecdotally, we tend to hear a lot more about established users > picking up and leaving, because these are our friends — we work with > them, chat with them on IRC, and whatever else. But for every story we > hear about an established user leaving because of harassment, there > are ten new-ish users who encounter the same hostile environment and > stop editing without all the pomp and ceremony that necessarily > accompanies the departure of a popular or well-known member of the > community. > > So let's make sure we deal with the factors that make our overall > editing environment conducive to hostile conduct. I don't want to see > us fall into the trap of thinking only about long-term established > users who are harassed in the long term, rather than the newer users > who don't get a chance to be harassed in the long term because they > pick up and leave straight away. Thanks Andrew: this is an important comment and I'm glad you made it. We do all see the world from where we sit, and we interact with the people we already know ... so, experienced editors will be more exposed to the kinds of concerns shared by other experienced editors, and those concerns will instinctively resonate more for them. This isn't a problem necessarily, it just means that we all need to try hard to imagine the world through other people's eyes, to listen to what other people say, and to not over-generalize from our own experiences and the experiences of our friends. To that end .. with help from others on the staff, a few weeks ago I took a crack at creating a framework for understanding the kinds of problems faced by editors at various stages of their 'life-cycle.' You can see it in this Google spreadsheet here: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Aq_nhKkb7L-OdG5uWlJLT25TZkZ3MzdSeUNqZnZqY2c&hl=en&authkey=CP3O_PgO -- it's publicly viewable but not editable. There's also this spreadsheet, which people may find interesting: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Aq_nhKkb7L-OdFdzTG1KTUxVeXBOS0hhdWZMVmtxNUE&hl=en&authkey=CNK2oI8G -- it's a documentation of all the decline theories I know about it, tested against the available research. Also publicly viewable, also not editable. Both of these are just first stabs... probably they will want to be moved to wiki pages and further fleshed out. But not by me: my table-making skills aren't up to the task :-) Thanks, Sue ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Vandal obscene redirect from Toolserver
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 18:29, Aryeh Gregor wrote: > On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Milos Rancic wrote: >> As admin (but not Toolserver admin), the sense of rules similar to " >> excuses such as 'the rules didn't say I can't do this' will be >> ignored." is obvious to me and it means "don't make troubles". Having >> a redirect to a Wikipedia page is not "making troubles". > > That is for the toolserver admins to decide, not you. It is not > helpful for you to discourage people from complaining to the > toolserver admins, particularly not on false grounds. I have no > strong opinion on whether this particular complaint is legitimate, but > any user who thinks the toolserver is being misused should definitely > bring it to the attention of the toolserver admins, such as by posting > to toolserver-l (if they want it to be public) or > ts-adm...@wikimedia.org (if they want it to be private). > >> This issue could be discussed more and I am not saying that the best >> way for making directory listing forbidden is to make such redirect. >> However, raising this issue at foundation-l is more about making >> troubles than having such redirect. > > Even if that's the case, it is still entirely incorrect to say "Server > admins usually prefer not to do anything in relation to personal files > if it is not a security problem and if they don't have court order." > The toolserver is not a place where users can do whatever they feel > like as long as they don't cause too much trouble. The admins are > perfectly willing to step in and stop toolserver users from doing > anything that they feel is out of line. > > That said, foundation-l is indeed not the correct place to have this > discussion, and further discussion should occur on toolserver-l (which > was originally CCd as well as foundation-l). The toolserver is not > run by the Wikimedia Foundation, but by Wikimedia Deutschland, which > is a separate entity, so a discussion on foundation-l isn't as likely > to reach the right people. With a couple of not so important notes for this case, it could be said that we agree. And I see that possible interpretation of my construct "server admins" is beyond what i meant. I used it as a general term, I didn't mean exactly "Toolserver admins". And word "usually" has its meaning there. (BTW, I don't remember any court order made to Toolserver.) Everything else inside of my email was exactly because of complaint at foundation-l, not at places described at relevant places. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Vandal obscene redirect from Toolserver
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Milos Rancic wrote: > As admin (but not Toolserver admin), the sense of rules similar to " > excuses such as 'the rules didn't say I can't do this' will be > ignored." is obvious to me and it means "don't make troubles". Having > a redirect to a Wikipedia page is not "making troubles". That is for the toolserver admins to decide, not you. It is not helpful for you to discourage people from complaining to the toolserver admins, particularly not on false grounds. I have no strong opinion on whether this particular complaint is legitimate, but any user who thinks the toolserver is being misused should definitely bring it to the attention of the toolserver admins, such as by posting to toolserver-l (if they want it to be public) or ts-adm...@wikimedia.org (if they want it to be private). > This issue could be discussed more and I am not saying that the best > way for making directory listing forbidden is to make such redirect. > However, raising this issue at foundation-l is more about making > troubles than having such redirect. Even if that's the case, it is still entirely incorrect to say "Server admins usually prefer not to do anything in relation to personal files if it is not a security problem and if they don't have court order." The toolserver is not a place where users can do whatever they feel like as long as they don't cause too much trouble. The admins are perfectly willing to step in and stop toolserver users from doing anything that they feel is out of line. That said, foundation-l is indeed not the correct place to have this discussion, and further discussion should occur on toolserver-l (which was originally CCd as well as foundation-l). The toolserver is not run by the Wikimedia Foundation, but by Wikimedia Deutschland, which is a separate entity, so a discussion on foundation-l isn't as likely to reach the right people. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Vandal obscene redirect from Toolserver
On 04/12/2011 04:45 PM, Jason donovan wrote: > I'm sorry but I don't see the wisdom in antagonizing someone for bringing a > legitimate concern to this list. It might not be the right place and he did > copy the message to toolserver-l but telling him "to stop using > toolserver...if you have problem with profanity on user's main personal > page." does not seem right. > > It almost seems like you're defending this person on toolserver or the idea > of having profanity on a user's "main personal page". I didn't say "stop using Toolserver", but "stop using the page created by user on which profanity he complains". If I am on the place of that Toolserver user and someone brings one joke at so visible level as "abuse", I would delete both pages: a joke and a useful one. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] nth largest site on the Internet, and what we should measure ourselves by instead
Re the argument that we should trumpet ourselves as, or even be be concerned as to whether we are the 5th largest site on the Internet. Our remit is to make the world's knowledge freely available to all, and the Internet is by far the most important medium we use to do that. If fewer people were using the Internet, or fewer Internet users were visiting our sites, then yes that should worry us. At present we seem to be growing at the same rate as the Internet, if that changed it would be interesting to know why. If it was just 100 million people watching two hours a week less terrestrial TV and two hours a week more web TV and BBC Iplayer, and as a result our share of Internet time going down, then that would be interesting, though not very relevant. Our position in the league table of largest sites does not matter, is out of our control and does not reflect our success as an organisation. If a grand merger of various porn sites meant that a porn site replaced us as the fifth site on the internet, but Wikimedia, Wikipedia, and porn all had the same share of the Internet as before, it would neither compromise our mission nor be a problem to us. Equally if some UN based anti trust measure forced Google to break into three equal sized chunks, would we care that we dropped into 7th place with the three babyGoogles in positions 2, 3 and 4? There are plenty of metrics that would measure our success, our size relative to an assortment of search engines and social media networks tells us more about google and Facebook's success vis a vis their competitors than it tells us anything about us. What is damaging about the "fifth largest website" claim is that people pay more attention to the things that they measure success by. I'd be more interested in: 1 Of the literate (or potentially literate) members of the Human race, what percentage visited one or more of our sites in the last 30, and 90 days (I hope we can all agree that the under 5s are outside our remit, though I suspect it would be difficult to agree whether our target audience is 80 or 90% of humanity). 2 If we commissioned an outside body to check 1,000 random facts on Wikipedia every month. How accurate would we be? And after a few months, what would the trend be? If we remain a top ten site, or frankly a top fifty site, other people will notice and comment on that. We don't need to, instead we should measure and define ourselves in ways that more closely reflect our mission. WereSpielChequers > Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:29:49 +0200 > From: "Federico Leva (Nemo)" > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Outdated manual > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > > Message-ID: <4da4299d.1040...@gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > MZMcBride, 12/04/2011 02:32: >>> If WMF websites happened to be overtaken by Ask.com or some other >>> website, it would be good to be forced to change the habit of how we >>> describe them. >> >> If you use more generic language, the likelihood of needing to update that >> language later decreases. > > Yes, and my point is that it would be a bad thing: it's better if you're > forced to consider it a problem (as it would be). > > Nemo > > ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Vandal obscene redirect from Toolserver
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Milos Rancic wrote: > On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 15:53, Aryeh Gregor > wrote: > > You're mistaken. The toolserver has strict rules: > > > > https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Rules > > > > Using toolserver access in a manner that does not further the > > toolserver's goals (or, indeed, hinders them) is a misappropriation of > > donated resources and will be dealt with harshly. More than a few > > users' accounts have been shut down for abuse. Even if something is > > not specifically against the rules, toolserver roots reserve the right > > to prohibit or penalize it ex post facto at their discretion. As the > > rules say: "The toolserver is not a wiki and excuses such as 'the > > rules didn't say I can't do this' will be ignored." > > > > Since this isn't urgent, I'll leave it for more active admins to deal > > with. However, I would not be at all surprised if the user was asked > > to take down the redirect, at the very least. > > As admin (but not Toolserver admin), the sense of rules similar to " > excuses such as 'the rules didn't say I can't do this' will be > ignored." is obvious to me and it means "don't make troubles". Having > a redirect to a Wikipedia page is not "making troubles". > > This issue could be discussed more and I am not saying that the best > way for making directory listing forbidden is to make such redirect. > However, raising this issue at foundation-l is more about making > troubles than having such redirect. > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > I'm sorry but I don't see the wisdom in antagonizing someone for bringing a legitimate concern to this list. It might not be the right place and he did copy the message to toolserver-l but telling him "to stop using toolserver...if you have problem with profanity on user's main personal page." does not seem right. It almost seems like you're defending this person on toolserver or the idea of having profanity on a user's "main personal page". Jason ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Vandal obscene redirect from Toolserver
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 15:53, Aryeh Gregor wrote: > You're mistaken. The toolserver has strict rules: > > https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Rules > > Using toolserver access in a manner that does not further the > toolserver's goals (or, indeed, hinders them) is a misappropriation of > donated resources and will be dealt with harshly. More than a few > users' accounts have been shut down for abuse. Even if something is > not specifically against the rules, toolserver roots reserve the right > to prohibit or penalize it ex post facto at their discretion. As the > rules say: "The toolserver is not a wiki and excuses such as 'the > rules didn't say I can't do this' will be ignored." > > Since this isn't urgent, I'll leave it for more active admins to deal > with. However, I would not be at all surprised if the user was asked > to take down the redirect, at the very least. As admin (but not Toolserver admin), the sense of rules similar to " excuses such as 'the rules didn't say I can't do this' will be ignored." is obvious to me and it means "don't make troubles". Having a redirect to a Wikipedia page is not "making troubles". This issue could be discussed more and I am not saying that the best way for making directory listing forbidden is to make such redirect. However, raising this issue at foundation-l is more about making troubles than having such redirect. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Vandal obscene redirect from Toolserver
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 8:59 AM, Milos Rancic wrote: > You can stop using http://toolserver.org/~kalan/arb10/ if you have > problems with profanity on user's main personal page. > > Server admins usually prefer not to do anything in relation to personal > files if it is not a security problem and if they don't have court order. You're mistaken. The toolserver has strict rules: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Rules Using toolserver access in a manner that does not further the toolserver's goals (or, indeed, hinders them) is a misappropriation of donated resources and will be dealt with harshly. More than a few users' accounts have been shut down for abuse. Even if something is not specifically against the rules, toolserver roots reserve the right to prohibit or penalize it ex post facto at their discretion. As the rules say: "The toolserver is not a wiki and excuses such as 'the rules didn't say I can't do this' will be ignored." Since this isn't urgent, I'll leave it for more active admins to deal with. However, I would not be at all surprised if the user was asked to take down the redirect, at the very least. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Vandal obscene redirect from Toolserver
On 04/12/2011 02:51 PM, Shadow His wrote: > http://toolserver.org/~kalan is redirected to Russian Wikipedia article «Хуй > (значения)». This is very incorrect redirect («Хуй» («Khuy») in Russian mean > obscene word, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mat_(Russian_profanity) ) and > in fact a vandalism: this toolserver account contains statistics about Arbcom > elections (example: http://toolserver.org/~kalan/arb10/), and this redirect > mean «russian arbitrators is khuy». > > Owner of this Tollserver account does not respond to abuse reports in-wiki. > > Please delete redirect and replace it with standard TOC or blank page. You can stop using http://toolserver.org/~kalan/arb10/ if you have problems with profanity on user's main personal page. Server admins usually prefer not to do anything in relation to personal files if it is not a security problem and if they don't have court order. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Vandal obscene redirect from Toolserver
Hello. http://toolserver.org/~kalan is redirected to Russian Wikipedia article «Хуй (значения)». This is very incorrect redirect («Хуй» («Khuy») in Russian mean obscene word, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mat_(Russian_profanity) ) and in fact a vandalism: this toolserver account contains statistics about Arbcom elections (example: http://toolserver.org/~kalan/arb10/), and this redirect mean «russian arbitrators is khuy». Owner of this Tollserver account does not respond to abuse reports in-wiki. Please delete redirect and replace it with standard TOC or blank page. -- His Shadow. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Outdated manual
MZMcBride, 12/04/2011 02:32: >> If WMF websites happened to be overtaken by Ask.com or some other >> website, it would be good to be forced to change the habit of how we >> describe them. > > If you use more generic language, the likelihood of needing to update that > language later decreases. Yes, and my point is that it would be a bad thing: it's better if you're forced to consider it a problem (as it would be). Nemo ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] The Signpost – Volume 7, Issue 15 – 11 April 2011
News and notes: Editor retention; Malayalam loves Wikimedia; Wikimedia reports; brief news http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-04-11/News_and_notes In the news: What if experts just want to get their links into Wikipedia?; brief news http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-04-11/In_the_news Recent research: Research literature surveys; drug reliability; editor roles; BLPs; Muhammad debate analyzed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-04-11/Recent_research WikiProject report: WikiProject Japan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-04-11/WikiProject_report Features and admins: The best of the week http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-04-11/Features_and_admins Arbitration report: Two cases close - what does the Coanda decision tell us? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-04-11/Arbitration_report Technology report: The Toolserver explained; brief news http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-04-11/Technology_report Single page view http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single PDF version http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-04-11 -- Wikipedia Signpost Staff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
