Re: [Foundation-l] Guidelines for the use of iframes?

[Erik Moeller]

HR recently switched to an externally hosted applicant tracking system
called Jobvite. It's sadly proprietary, but very feature-rich and used
by many tech companies, including e.g. Mozilla. Basically the previous
process was for candidates to be dumped in a shared inbox, where
recruiters and hiring managers would have to keep track of them with
the aid of tracking spreadsheets and lots of emails. An ATS automates
a lot of the tracking and workflows, and helps ensure that people
don't get dropped. It also sends hiring managers reminders to submit
all the required hiring documentation, etc. So in general it's a good
thing, although we sometimes curse at aspects of its UI.

The rationale for the iframe is to automate the job listings on the
WMF site and surface the various Jobvite features.

Yes, that means that the user's browser will contact hire.jobvite.com
when loading the page (although all its resources will be loaded in
the context of the iframe). AFAICT the main issue here is to clarify
in the footer that job applications and job descriptions are run
through an external service called Jobvite and subject to the Jobvite
privacy policy, to avoid any confusion.

Whether the iframe is a good idea still remains to be seen. Jobvite
makes it unnecessarily hard to link to JDs directly (because their
ideology is that everyone should come through some social media
funnel, I think), and the navigation is heavily JS dependent right
now. So we might want to switch back to a hybrid format. The job pages
are also still actively being re-designed, and the setup might change
significantly in coming weeks.

Erik
-- 
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: https://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] Guidelines for the use of iframes?

[MZMcBride]

K. Peachey wrote:
> That should be reverted right now per our privacy policy and any
> others on site. No different than share button usage.

As far as I've come to understand it, it's a matter of whether Jobvite's
privacy policy is compatible with Wikimedia's:

* https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy
* http://recruiting.jobvite.com/privacy-policy.php

I don't know the answer, but I imagine someone will be along in short order
to clarify.

MZMcBride



___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Guidelines for the use of iframes?

[K. Peachey]

That should be reverted right now per our privacy policy and any
others on site. No different than share button usage.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Stopping the presses: Britannica to stop printing books

[Keegan Peterzell]

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Ray Saintonge  wrote:
>
> I don't think that copying articles is the way to go.  If the two projects
> have separate articles on the same subjects that's still a very good thing.
> They can still maintain their "professional" standards, whatever that
> means. The reader can compare the two and draw his own conclusions.
>
>
I don't agree.  Once copied back to Wikipedia the articles are open for
continued editing and expanding- for better or worse.  Then we have a
comprehensive comparison between the article as it was when taken from
Wikipedia, what it looked like when rewritten and given back, and the
current state. It could make for an interesting paper.   I don't think that
the Catalan Wikipedia just protects the articles and leaves them as done,
do they?

-- 
~Keegan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] sad news

[phoebe ayers]

Those of you who have been around for a few years may remember
user:Tlogmer, aka Ben Yates -- co-author with Charles Matthews and I
on "How Wikipedia Works."

I got an email from his mother this morning with the very sad news
that Ben passed away yesterday. I do not know the details. He was in
his 20s and lived in Michigan, USA.

There will be a memorial service in Michigan on Friday; contact me if
you want that information. His userpages are
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tlogmer
and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tlogmer

For several years Ben wrote a blog about Wikipedia that was incisive
and widely read. Older posts can be found here:
http://wikip.blogspot.com/

He also designed the Wikimania logo with the two "w"s; originally
designed for Wikimania 2006, we use it to this day:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimania_%28spacing%29.png

Ben was a skilled artist and designer and was responsible for all of
the figures in "How Wikipedia Works." He also designed posters and
graphic materials for Wikimania and proposed many other merchandise
designs to promote Wikipedia.

He was funny, smart, and shy; I never had a bad interaction with him.
I worked with him intensively for many months but never got a chance
to meet him in person, but I counted him as a friend long after we
finished the book. He will be missed.

If you have any comments that you would like to be given to his family
or read at the service, please post them on Ben's talk page or send to
me directly. Wikimedia was meaningful to Ben, and it would mean a lot
to let his mom that people cared about her son as a colleague and
friend.

thanks,
-- Phoebe

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Stopping the presses:, Britannica to stop printing books

[Svip]

On 14 March 2012 17:34, Robin McCain  wrote:

> I find it bizarre that inclusion of information of local importance is
> encouraged in the internationalized local language wikipediae but
> discouraged in the U.S. English wikipedia.

What U.S. English Wikipedia?  I have read plenty of articles in
English on that Wikipedia.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Stopping the presses:, Britannica to stop printing books

[Robin McCain]

I don't think it is pity to reduce an 800 word article down to under 200 
words. Instead of something readable you end up either with a Who's Who 
entry - filled with insider abbreviations and obscure wording that must 
be decoded or something so bland it has no value to anyone intrested 
enough to look it up.


On 3/14/2012 4:41 PM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:

Dear Robin,

There are several reasons for making a text not too long. Pity with
the reader is one of them.
My point here is that even Brittanica is inherently very English 
centric. Why should an obscure ficticious 17th century event in the U.K. 
be of more value than an equally obscure event in Honduras (or 
wherever)? If I were living in Honduras, I'd be much more interested in 
MY local history - which is quite likely to be relevant to my situation 
instead of something in a country I'd never visited. Inverting the 
situation - If I visit the U.K. I want to be able to access information 
on the event in the U.K. but I don't care about Honduras.  This is an 
ordinary person's perspective - not that of a scholar searching for 
obscure information wherever it may be.



I personally try to be reluctant with generalizations about Wikipeda
language versions. They usually are not true. It's often like the
thing that the grass in the neighbour's yard is greener.


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Stopping the presses: Britannica to stop printing books

[Ray Saintonge]

On 03/14/12 2:29 PM, Joan Goma wrote:


Catalan Wikipedia has about 10 times more pageviews than them. If they use
a free license and use a wiki then their professionals can copy our best
articles and review them and we can copy their content. 7,8% of their
page-views go there from Catalan Wikipedia.

They have 350.000 articles and Catalan Wikipedia 360.000 but there are
about 120.000 articles that are not the same. If we copy from them the
articles we don't have then Catalan Wikipedia can grow to 480.000 articles
suddenly and page-views can grow about 15%. Copied articles have to contain
links to the source and acknowledge authors. Their traffic can easily be
duplicated.


I don't think that copying articles is the way to go.  If the two 
projects have separate articles on the same subjects that's still a very 
good thing. They can still maintain their "professional" standards, 
whatever that means. The reader can compare the two and draw his own 
conclusions.



So their balance is affected by:
*Save costs by using free software.
*Save costs and grow faster by reusing contents from wikipedia.
*More than duplicate income from advertisement.
*Possibility to increase their incomes from governmental aids and grants by
publishing using free licenses.

Summing up all this the impact in profits is huge. I tried to convince them
one year ago but until now I have not succeeded. I think the main barrier
is fear to some for profit company copying their content and exploiting it
commercially like them.


Indeed! You are presenting them with a counter-intuitive business model. 
If they believe in an expert reviewed project they still have to market 
it that way.



But don't worry. I can be very persistent.


I've noticed. :-)

Ray

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Stopping the presses:, Britannica to stop printing books

[Ziko van Dijk]

Dear Robin,

There are several reasons for making a text not too long. Pity with
the reader is one of them.

I personally try to be reluctant with generalizations about Wikipeda
language versions. They usually are not true. It's often like the
thing that the grass in the neighbour's yard is greener.

Kind regards
Ziko



Robin:
I find it bizarre that inclusion of information of local importance is
encouraged in the internationalized local language wikipediae but
discouraged in the U.S. English wikipedia.  So events of local
interest in a town in Romania are desirable but the same cannot be
said of a similar event in San Jose, California.




2012/3/14 Robin McCain :
> Why did the articles in Brittania keep getting shorter? Because printing on
> paper costs money. Storage on the Internet is  free by comparison. - So why
> do our editors insist on reducing what might be an interesting article down
> to something so brief it might as well be on paper in a book that will be
> recycled in a few years - or deleting content completely?
>
> This whole idea of editing for brevity and notability came from the
> TRADITIONAL encyclopedia business...  Wikipedia was supposed to be the
> opposite - big enough to include anything of importance to people.
>
> It is socially and historically interesting to compare very old edition of
> Brittanica to a newer edition. For example: an entry on battleships would
> evolve from a discussion of wooden ships powered by sail that enforced
> seapower of an empire to sidewheelers, to iron ships fired by coal to the
> current thinking that battleships are too expensive. In an online
> encyclopedia it is possible to include all these articles side by side into
> a section on the evolution of battleships.
>
> I find it bizarre that inclusion of information of local importance is
> encouraged in the internationalized local language wikipediae but
> discouraged in the U.S. English wikipedia.  So events of local interest in a
> town in Romania are desirable but the same cannot be said of a similar event
> in San Jose, California.
>
> On 3/14/2012 1:15 AM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
>>
>> But I started getting frustrated with them when I was about 12 or 13,
>> because the shorter articles rarely answered the questions I had, and I
>> never happened t be looking up something with one of the longer
>> articles...
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l



-- 

---
Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland
dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter
http://wmnederland.nl/
---

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Guidelines for the use of iframes?

[MZMcBride]

https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?oldid=79658&action=edit

This page is currently loading an  from .
Besides banishing the pretty green lock icon in Chrome (due to the mixture
of http and https), as far as I understand it, the use of an  like
this exposes user data (such as a user's IP address) of every visitor to any
page where the frame is loaded. That is, whoever is running hire.jobvite.com
will be able to track who has viewed the page where this template is loaded
on wikimediafoundation.org on their own server/in their own server logs.

Are there policies or guidelines surrounding the use of s like this?
Typically the tag is banned on Wikimedia wikis, but wikimediafoundation.org
allows raw HTML.

I know other activities such as loading Google Analytics in site-wide
JavaScript have been shot down due to concerns of third parties tracking
users, but this is a separate case with fewer privacy implications, I think.

Thoughts?

MZMcBride



___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Commons as a project provides a service to any and all projects. It does
have its own community but as Commons is a shared resource it is similar
but not the same in its autonomy. This should be obvious .
Thanks,
Gerard

On 13 March 2012 08:23, Ray Saintonge  wrote:

> On 03/09/12 9:39 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 2:16 AM, Ray Saintonge
>>  wrote:
>>
>>  On 03/08/12 2:20 AM, Theo10011 wrote:
>>>
>>>  The other issue is morality and responsibility. I don't think any
 executives or board members should make a statement about that video.
 It's
 a stated policy that they are not responsible for the content on the
 project. To hold them legally or morally responsible, for what 100,000
 contributors might do at any given point, is unrealistic and
 unreasonable.
 They can not be held liable for actions of vandals, as much as of
 community
 members who upload media in good faith. Depending on how you perceive
 this,
 who does have some responsibility is the community itself. It governs
 itself, has its own rules about content, WMF regularly points to it in
 cases of content dispute.


  This raises an important point about the role of the board, and of

>>> staff.  The status of an ISP implies blindness to content.  The more it
>>> assumes editorial rights, the more it puts its role as an ISP into
>>> question.  It does not know about these contents until it receives a
>>> properly formulated demand to take something down, at which point it must
>>> act according to law.  Third parties who just happen to feel offended by
>>> some material tend to approach these matters with a strong bias, which
>>> may
>>> or may not reflect the reality of the law. Such people need to be
>>> informed
>>> of the proper legal channels with the assurance of knowing that
>>> management
>>> will abide with the law without itself being a tryer of the facts.
>>>
>> Why is it that the instinctive Wikimedia response to a problem is always
>> burying one's head in the sand and hoping that the problem will go
>> away? For goodness' sake. Sue has blogged her views about editorial
>> judgment. The Board is in the habit of passing resolutions on project
>> content. And in one of these, the Board decided last year that we would
>> have an image filter, and instructed Sue to install one. To turn around
>> now
>> and say that all of this is something the Board can't even so much as
>> *comment* on, when they've gave specific management instructions on this
>> last year, is ludicrous.
>>
>>  It's not at all question of burying one's head in the sand. It's a
> question of the communities solving their own problems. Serious injustices
> are a common occurrence in the communities, but a community is diminished
> when it has to run to mother-WMF's apron strings to solve its problems.
> Some communities will implement filters, others not; that's fine.
> Eventually, each community will find its own balanced solution.
>
> Ray
>
>
> __**_
> 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

[Foundation-l] CBC getting rid of physical archives

[James Heilman]

If there is anyone who wishes to take this on in the name of Wikimedia
Canada I would be supportive. I know we have a few members in Vancouver who
may be interested.

-- 
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] CBC getting rid of physical archives(but not digitising all of them)

[geni]

On 14 March 2012 19:27, Tom Morris  wrote:
> Wow, if only there were another public service broadcaster who
> stupidly decided to chuck away their physical archives for cost
> reasons and then rapidly came to regret it afterwards.
>
> What's that broadcaster called? I'm pretty sure the name only had a
> Levenshtein distance of 1 from 'CBC'.
>
> Oh yeah, the BBC.

In fairness they were in a slightly different legal situation and
technological level.

> That's the BBC of "wiping Doctor Who episodes to reuse tape" fame.

Ah you've not had dealings with the hardcore of the Dr Who fans. I
understand that claim is considered questionable.


> If the CBC were to follow the BBC's folly, that would be tragic and
> utterly stupid.

Different situations. The BBC's stuff was its in house productions.
Going by the description on the petition most of the CBC stuff is
stuff from third parties that can at a pinch be purchases on the open
market.


-- 
geni

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Stopping the presses: Britannica to stop printing books

[Joan Goma]

>From: Thomas Dalton 

>
> On 14 March 2012 09:40, Joan Goma  wrote:
> > Unfortunatelly they still not realize that if published using a free
> > licence compatible with Wikipedeia their income would be even 15 times
> > larger.
>
> Would it? Can you explain how that business model would work? There
> are ways of making money by producing free content, but I can't quite
> see how it would work in this context.
>


I tried to do the exercise with Enciclopèdia Catalana.[1] I couldn't fine
tune the figures because they didn't gave me the details. But some rough
calculations came from the following assumptions.

Catalan Wikipedia has about 10 times more pageviews than them. If they use
a free license and use a wiki then their professionals can copy our best
articles and review them and we can copy their content. 7,8% of their
page-views go there from Catalan Wikipedia.

They have 350.000 articles and Catalan Wikipedia 360.000 but there are
about 120.000 articles that are not the same. If we copy from them the
articles we don't have then Catalan Wikipedia can grow to 480.000 articles
suddenly and page-views can grow about 15%. Copied articles have to contain
links to the source and acknowledge authors. Their traffic can easily be
duplicated.

So their balance is affected by:
*Save costs by using free software.
*Save costs and grow faster by reusing contents from wikipedia.
*More than duplicate income from advertisement.
*Possibility to increase their incomes from governmental aids and grants by
publishing using free licenses.

Summing up all this the impact in profits is huge. I tried to convince them
one year ago but until now I have not succeeded. I think the main barrier
is fear to some for profit company copying their content and exploiting it
commercially like them.

But don't worry. I can be very persistent. Sooner or later they will go out
from the dark side of force.

 [1] http://www.enciclopedia.cat/fitxa_v2.jsp?NDCHEC=0030866
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] CBC getting rid of physical archives(but not digitising all of them)

[Marc Riddell]

on 3/14/12 1:54 PM, Kim Bruning at k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:

> "The CBC is getting rid of its physical music collections in Vancouver and
> other sites across the country, a treasure
> trove of over 100,000 artifacts amassed over decades. Valuable, rare and
> historic recordings on vinyl and tape will be
> destroyed or dispersed, lost to all of us forever. "
> 
> http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/save-cbc-music-archives
> 
> Is this accurate news? If so, can we (eg: commons/wikisource) help?
> 
> sincerely,
> Kim Bruning

Kim,

I just found this:

http://calgary.openfile.ca/blog/curator-blog/curated-news/2012/calgary-music
-store-buys-entire-music-archive-cbc-calgary

Marc



___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] CBC getting rid of physical archives(but not digitising all of them)

[Tom Morris]

On 14 March 2012 17:54, Kim Bruning  wrote:
> "The CBC is getting rid of its physical music collections in Vancouver and 
> other sites across the country, a treasure
> trove of over 100,000 artifacts amassed over decades. Valuable, rare and 
> historic recordings on vinyl and tape will be
> destroyed or dispersed, lost to all of us forever. "
>
> http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/save-cbc-music-archives
>
> Is this accurate news? If so, can we (eg: commons/wikisource) help?
>

Wow, if only there were another public service broadcaster who
stupidly decided to chuck away their physical archives for cost
reasons and then rapidly came to regret it afterwards.

What's that broadcaster called? I'm pretty sure the name only had a
Levenshtein distance of 1 from 'CBC'.

Oh yeah, the BBC.

That's the BBC of "wiping Doctor Who episodes to reuse tape" fame. The
BBC recorded film of Winston Churchill speaking, and it was only
recovered because a secretary from Conservative Central Office managed
to get a copy of it and hid it in her flat.

Who are now taking part in a very sophisticated digital archiving process:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Archives

If the CBC were to follow the BBC's folly, that would be tragic and
utterly stupid.

-- 
Tom Morris


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Stopping the presses: Britannica to stop printing books

[phoebe ayers]

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 5:22 PM, phoebe ayers  wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Samuel Klein  wrote:
>> 2010's 32-volume set will be its last.  (Now I want to get one, to
>> replace my old set!)  Future versions will be digital only.
>>
>> http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/after-244-years-encyclopaedia-britannica-stops-the-presses/?smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/mar/13/encyclopedia-britannica-halts-print-publication
>>
>
> I don't use it in print, haven't for years, and have been expecting
> something like this for a while, but am still surprisingly saddened by
> it too; there's something about the shelf of volumes that encapsulates
> the world's knowledge that sort of symbolizes the whole idea of a
> library to me.
>
> I've been asked to write a short editorial about this development from
> a Wikipedian's perspective and am curious about (and would love to
> include) other Wikimedian experiences -- did you use print
> encyclopedias as a kid? Was a love of print encyclopedias part of your
> motivation or interest in becoming a Wikipedian? Is there any value in
> them still? Will you miss it?

All,

This has been one of our best threads in a long, long time :) Thank
you all for sharing your stories.

This is what I was working on, it just went up on the site 5 minutes ago:
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/03/14/britannica-define-outdated/if-you-liked-britannica-youll-love-wikipedia

Thank you so much to Nathan for letting me use his quote, and to SJ
for a little midnight copyediting help -- it was short notice :) I
would have including more quotes but I was already 100 words over
limit, lol!

But reading this thread made me think that there is actually a much
longer piece that could be written with all of these anecdotes about
encyclopedias -- I'd love to work on an essay about our experiences.
Maybe on meta, if anyone else is interested.

thanks,
phoebe

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] CBC getting rid of physical archives(but not digitising all of them)

[Kim Bruning]

"The CBC is getting rid of its physical music collections in Vancouver and 
other sites across the country, a treasure
trove of over 100,000 artifacts amassed over decades. Valuable, rare and 
historic recordings on vinyl and tape will be
destroyed or dispersed, lost to all of us forever. "

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/save-cbc-music-archives

Is this accurate news? If so, can we (eg: commons/wikisource) help?

sincerely,
Kim Bruning

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Stopping the presses:, Britannica to stop printing books

[Robin McCain]

Why did the articles in Brittania keep getting shorter? Because printing 
on paper costs money. Storage on the Internet is  free by comparison. - 
So why do our editors insist on reducing what might be an interesting 
article down to something so brief it might as well be on paper in a 
book that will be recycled in a few years - or deleting content completely?


This whole idea of editing for brevity and notability came from the 
TRADITIONAL encyclopedia business...  Wikipedia was supposed to be the 
opposite - big enough to include anything of importance to people.


It is socially and historically interesting to compare very old edition 
of Brittanica to a newer edition. For example: an entry on battleships 
would evolve from a discussion of wooden ships powered by sail that 
enforced seapower of an empire to sidewheelers, to iron ships fired by 
coal to the current thinking that battleships are too expensive. In an 
online encyclopedia it is possible to include all these articles side by 
side into a section on the evolution of battleships.


I find it bizarre that inclusion of information of local importance is 
encouraged in the internationalized local language wikipediae but 
discouraged in the U.S. English wikipedia.  So events of local interest 
in a town in Romania are desirable but the same cannot be said of a 
similar event in San Jose, California.


On 3/14/2012 1:15 AM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:

But I started getting frustrated with them when I was about 12 or 13,
because the shorter articles rarely answered the questions I had, and I
never happened t be looking up something with one of the longer articles...


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Stopping the presses: Britannica to stop printing books

[David Gerard]

On 14 March 2012 12:50, Michael Peel  wrote:
> On 14 Mar 2012, at 12:21, Russavia wrote:

>> Interesting news indeed.
>> Lead's one to wonder when WMF will launch it's first printed
>> encyclopaedia. Perhaps a 2013 Citation Needed edition is in the works?

> Something like this:
> http://www.labnol.org/internet/wikipedia-printed-book/9136/
> ?
> (And that's just ~400 FA's...)


I would say the Schools Wikipedia - Andrew Cates' DVD version. It's
hugely popular with teachers around the world.


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Stopping the presses: Britannica to stop printing books

[Thomas Dalton]

On 14 March 2012 09:40, Joan Goma  wrote:
> Unfortunatelly they still not realize that if published using a free
> licence compatible with Wikipedeia their income would be even 15 times
> larger.

Would it? Can you explain how that business model would work? There
are ways of making money by producing free content, but I can't quite
see how it would work in this context.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Stopping the presses: Britannica to stop printing books

[Michael Peel]

On 14 Mar 2012, at 12:21, Russavia wrote:

> Interesting news indeed.
> 
> Lead's one to wonder when WMF will launch it's first printed
> encyclopaedia. Perhaps a 2013 Citation Needed edition is in the works?

Something like this:
http://www.labnol.org/internet/wikipedia-printed-book/9136/
?

(And that's just ~400 FA's...)

Mike


___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Stopping the presses: Britannica to stop printing books

[Nikola Smolenski]

On 14/03/12 13:17, Milos Rancic wrote:

There is ~20 volumes Serbian Encyclopedia in progress, likely to be
finished around 2050. I have no idea what would be the purpose of that


Milos, please. It will likely be finished around 2025.


paper encyclopedia at that time, but I know that it is getting
significant money from Serbian authorities.


Again, please. They only receive a quarter of million euros per year.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Stopping the presses: Britannica to stop printing books

[Russavia]

Interesting news indeed.

Lead's one to wonder when WMF will launch it's first printed
encyclopaedia. Perhaps a 2013 Citation Needed edition is in the works?

Russavia



On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 6:49 AM, Samuel Klein  wrote:
> 2010's 32-volume set will be its last.  (Now I want to get one, to
> replace my old set!)  Future versions will be digital only.
>
> http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/after-244-years-encyclopaedia-britannica-stops-the-presses/?smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/mar/13/encyclopedia-britannica-halts-print-publication
>
> Britannica president Jorge Cauz notes that their revenue from the
> online encyclopedia was already 15x that of the print version -- 15%
> of their total, compared to 1%.  Most of their revenue for years has
> come from other targeted educational materials.  As he says in the
> Guardian,
>
> "Today our digital database is much larger than what we can fit in the
> print set. And it is up to date because we can revise it within
> minutes anytime we need to, and we do it many times each day."
>
> SJ.
>
> ___
> 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] Stopping the presses: Britannica to stop printing books

[Milos Rancic]

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 03:00, Samuel Klein  wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter  wrote:
>>>
>> No, I think there were only like three big universal encyclopaedias still
>> being printed (Britannica, Brockhaus, and Russian Encyclopaedia?), unless I
>> am confusing things.
>
> There's also World Book in English, the biggest seller of print
> encyclopedias (aimed at high-school students).
> And Barsa in Portuguese.
>
> And there are a few encyclopedias like Sarvavijnanakosam  (in
> Malayalam) being written from the ground up for the first time, volume
> by volume... presumably they will print a copy of each volume for
> completion, even as they move their work online.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarvavijnanakosam
> http://mal.sarva.gov.in

There is ~20 volumes Serbian Encyclopedia in progress, likely to be
finished around 2050. I have no idea what would be the purpose of that
paper encyclopedia at that time, but I know that it is getting
significant money from Serbian authorities.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Stopping the presses: Britannica to stop printing books

[Domas Mituzas]

> did you use print encyclopedias as a kid? 

Oh yes. I especially loved #6 of Lithuanian Soviet Encyclopedia 
http://lt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaizdas:Lietuviskoji_tarybine_enciklopedija_resize.jpg
 - L* had airplanes and M* had automobiles ;)
B* had whales (hence my obsession with Exploding Whale article nowadays ;-) 
Scanning the volumes and looking for interesting articles was sure one of 
activities :)

I had a dream of buying a Britannica set once I have my own home. 
Unfortunately, getting my new home somehow also aligned with me finding 
Wikipedia, and on a very first glance I knew I had to work on this thing, in 
one way or another.

And indeed, any other book back in the day that would satisfy the curiosity was 
eagerly consumed, but nowadays online world gives us way more opportunities. 
Paper encyclopedias were the easiest to reach back in the day (Wikipedia is 
easiest to reach online source now, right? :)

Cheers,
Domas
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Stopping the presses: Britannica to stop printing books

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Samuel Klein, 14/03/2012 03:00:

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter  wrote:



No, I think there were only like three big universal encyclopaedias still
being printed (Britannica, Brockhaus, and Russian Encyclopaedia?), unless I
am confusing things.


There's also World Book in English, the biggest seller of print
encyclopedias (aimed at high-school students).
And Barsa in Portuguese.


Treccani still publishes several reductions, in 1, 2, 3 or 10 volumes (+ 
digital version on USB drive). http://www.treccani.it/catalogo 
http://www.nuovatreccani.it
They still use door-to-door selling to people who want something pretty 
to put on thei shelves.


Nemo

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Stopping the presses: Britannica to stop printing books

[Chris Keating]

> I think what you might be remembering is that they used to sell them via a
> sales force who went door to door. They announced a few years back that
> they were stopping that.
>
>
And, indeed, it was the reliance on the sales force that killed off
Britannica in the late-80s/early-90s when Encarta came along...

http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/greenstein/images/htm/Research/Cases/EncyclopaediaBritannica.pdf
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Stopping the presses: Britannica to stop printing books

[Ray Saintonge]

On 03/13/12 3:58 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:

On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 22:54:48 +, Thomas Dalton
wrote:

I thought they had already stopped... I'm sure I remember an
announcement like this a year or two ago... does anyone know what it
is I'm remembering?

No, I think there were only like three big universal encyclopaedias still
being printed (Britannica, Brockhaus, and Russian Encyclopaedia?), unless I
am confusing things.


I think that the announcement from a couple years ago was from Brockhaus.

Ray

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Stopping the presses: Britannica to stop printing books

[Joan Goma]

> From: Samuel Klein 
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>
> Cc: Wikipedia list ,   English
>Wikipedia 
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Stopping the presses: Britannica to stop
>printingbooks
> Message-ID:
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> 2010's 32-volume set will be its last.  (Now I want to get one, to
> replace my old set!)  Future versions will be digital only.
>
>
> http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/after-244-years-encyclopaedia-britannica-stops-the-presses/?smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/mar/13/encyclopedia-britannica-halts-print-publication
>
> Britannica president Jorge Cauz notes that their revenue from the
> online encyclopedia was already 15x that of the print version -- 15%
> of their total, compared to 1%.  Most of their revenue for years has
> come from other targeted educational materials.  As he says in the
> Guardian,
>
> "Today our digital database is much larger than what we can fit in the
> print set. And it is up to date because we can revise it within
> minutes anytime we need to, and we do it many times each day."
>
> SJ.
>

Unfortunatelly they still not realize that if published using a free
licence compatible with Wikipedeia their income would be even 15 times
larger.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Stopping the presses: Britannica to stop printing books

[Chris Keating]

I had a small encyclopedia at home (only one volume, but a massive volume)
and there was a copy of Britannica in the local library and, later, at
secondary school.

But I started getting frustrated with them when I was about 12 or 13,
because the shorter articles rarely answered the questions I had, and I
never happened t be looking up something with one of the longer articles...

(all of this was a good few years the Internet took off...)

Chris
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Stopping the presses: Britannica to stop printing books

[Neil Babbage]

I think what you might be remembering is that they used to sell them via a 
sales force who went door to door. They announced a few years back that they 
were stopping that.
 

--Original Message--
From: Yaroslav M. Blanter
Sender: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
ReplyTo: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Stopping the presses: Britannica to stop
printing books
Sent: 13 Mar 2012 22:58

On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 22:54:48 +, Thomas Dalton

wrote:
> I thought they had already stopped... I'm sure I remember an
> announcement like this a year or two ago... does anyone know what it
> is I'm remembering?
> 
No, I think there were only like three big universal encyclopaedias still
being printed (Britannica, Brockhaus, and Russian Encyclopaedia?), unless I
am confusing things.

Cheers
Yaroslav



___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


Neil / QuiteUnusual@Wikibooks
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Stopping the presses: Britannica to stop printing books

[Amir E. Aharoni]

2012/3/14 David Gerard :
> On 14 March 2012 05:16, Béria Lima  wrote:
>
>> I will actually look for a copy of the 15th edition (for sentimental
>> reasons) to buy before they get too rare and too expensive :D Of course I
>> will miss it! If Britannica is gone we will need to start printing
>> Wikipedia ;-)
>
>
> I see old sets of Britannica and other encyclopedias cheap on eBay.
> The catch is usually "buyer must collect" :-)

The rather wonderful 34-volume Encyclopedia Hebraica can easily be
found on a popular Israeli "free giveaway" site with the same
condition... and at a lot of garbage containers :,,(

Even though it was last updated in 1980, i have all the volumes right
near my working desk and i actually open it at least once a month to
actually find information.

--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Stopping the presses: Britannica to stop printing books

[THURNER rupert]

I did use a very old "konversationslexikon" as a child, mainly for the
pictures. With our children this got replaced now by online resources. And
no, not by wikipedia, but by YouTube. And every time I spend 15 minutes to
find a video to illustrate something it makes me a little sad that we as a
group are not able to do it better and create something which would save my
time to search for it.

I edit wikipedia so it will save my time when I will search for something
(even the same thing) in future.

Rupert.

Am 14.03.2012 01:22 schrieb "phoebe ayers" :
>
> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Samuel Klein  wrote:
> > 2010's 32-volume set will be its last.  (Now I want to get one, to
> > replace my old set!)  Future versions will be digital only.
> >
> >
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/after-244-years-encyclopaedia-britannica-stops-the-presses/?smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto
> >
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/mar/13/encyclopedia-britannica-halts-print-publication
> >
>
> I don't use it in print, haven't for years, and have been expecting
> something like this for a while, but am still surprisingly saddened by
> it too; there's something about the shelf of volumes that encapsulates
> the world's knowledge that sort of symbolizes the whole idea of a
> library to me.
>
> I've been asked to write a short editorial about this development from
> a Wikipedian's perspective and am curious about (and would love to
> include) other Wikimedian experiences -- did you use print
> encyclopedias as a kid? Was a love of print encyclopedias part of your
> motivation or interest in becoming a Wikipedian? Is there any value in
> them still? Will you miss it?
>
> cheers,
> -- phoebe
>
> ___
> 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] [WikiEN-l] Stopping the presses: Britannica to stop printing books

[Béria Lima]

Sure, that isn't the problem ;) go to USA is *so* cheap those days ;)

I was actually about to go request the one from my old school, they should
give the book to the only girl who read the full school library right? ;)
(well, 80% but I left before graduate from  High School, so I might had got
the mark ;) )
_
*
*

*[image: Inline images 1]*

*Béria Lima*

* *

* Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano.*



*Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho.* **







*
** *


On 14 March 2012 04:55, David Gerard  wrote:

> On 14 March 2012 05:16, Béria Lima  wrote:
>
> > I will actually look for a copy of the 15th edition (for sentimental
> > reasons) to buy before they get too rare and too expensive :D Of course I
> > will miss it! If Britannica is gone we will need to start printing
> > Wikipedia ;-)
>
>
> I see old sets of Britannica and other encyclopedias cheap on eBay.
> The catch is usually "buyer must collect" :-)
>
>
> - 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] [WikiEN-l] Stopping the presses: Britannica to stop printing books

[David Gerard]

On 14 March 2012 05:16, Béria Lima  wrote:

> I will actually look for a copy of the 15th edition (for sentimental
> reasons) to buy before they get too rare and too expensive :D Of course I
> will miss it! If Britannica is gone we will need to start printing
> Wikipedia ;-)


I see old sets of Britannica and other encyclopedias cheap on eBay.
The catch is usually "buyer must collect" :-)


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Stopping the presses: Britannica to stop printing books

[David Gerard]

On 14 March 2012 07:33, rupert THURNER  wrote:

> I did use a very old "konversationslexikon" as a child, mainly for the
> pictures. With our children this got replaced now by online resources. And
> no, not by wikipedia, but by YouTube. And every time I spend 15 minutes to
> find a video to illustrate something it makes me a little sad that we as a
> group are not able to do it better and create something which would save my
> time to search for it.


My daughter is 4yo and dinosaur-mad. THANK YOU WIKIPEDIA FOR EXISTING.
(I haven't broken the news to her yet that dinosaurs probably didn't
actually go "RAW!" She does know lots of them had feathers, and
that birds are a type of dinosaur.)

She's also madly into interesting fish (a side-effect of watching The
Octonauts on CBeebies), and I love the fact that I can go onto YouTube
and find a minute-long amateur video of pretty much any fish that's
videoable. So what we need is to encourage those people to put their
amateur videos under a free licence.


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Stopping the presses: Britannica to stop printing books

[David Gerard]

On 14 March 2012 00:22, phoebe ayers  wrote:

> I've been asked to write a short editorial about this development from
> a Wikipedian's perspective and am curious about (and would love to
> include) other Wikimedian experiences -- did you use print
> encyclopedias as a kid? Was a love of print encyclopedias part of your
> motivation or interest in becoming a Wikipedian? Is there any value in
> them still? Will you miss it?


Big time. I used to read encyclopedias all the time as a kid. I
picture my audience as a Wikipedia writer as a bright ten- to
twelve-year-old kid who knows nothing about anything yet but wants to
- writing for my past self. My grandmother bought them for me -
various mediocre encyclopedias sold in newsagents at one volume a week
in the late '70s. Doing this pretty much wrecked her attempts to make
me religious ... amazing what the power to be allowed to know things
can do.

The problem with Britannica as a print encyclopedia is that ... pretty
much no-one read or used it. People compare Wikipedia to Britannica,
but I think they're comparing the real Wikipedia in front of them with
a fantasy ideal Britannica they don't actually use and won't have
looked at since they were in school. If they were lucky enough to be
at a school with a copy. Wikipedia is the first encyclopedia ever
that's actually popular.

I suspect a lot of us started as huge encyclopedia nerds and still
think of Britannica as the gold standard we aspire to. Even if we
haven't looked at it in years either.


- d.

___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Stopping the presses: Britannica to stop printing books

[rupert THURNER]

I did use a very old "konversationslexikon" as a child, mainly for the
pictures. With our children this got replaced now by online resources. And
no, not by wikipedia, but by YouTube. And every time I spend 15 minutes to
find a video to illustrate something it makes me a little sad that we as a
group are not able to do it better and create something which would save my
time to search for it.

Rupert.
Am 14.03.2012 01:22 schrieb "phoebe ayers" :

> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Samuel Klein  wrote:
> > 2010's 32-volume set will be its last.  (Now I want to get one, to
> > replace my old set!)  Future versions will be digital only.
> >
> >
> http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/after-244-years-encyclopaedia-britannica-stops-the-presses/?smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto
> >
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/mar/13/encyclopedia-britannica-halts-print-publication
> >
>
> I don't use it in print, haven't for years, and have been expecting
> something like this for a while, but am still surprisingly saddened by
> it too; there's something about the shelf of volumes that encapsulates
> the world's knowledge that sort of symbolizes the whole idea of a
> library to me.
>
> I've been asked to write a short editorial about this development from
> a Wikipedian's perspective and am curious about (and would love to
> include) other Wikimedian experiences -- did you use print
> encyclopedias as a kid? Was a love of print encyclopedias part of your
> motivation or interest in becoming a Wikipedian? Is there any value in
> them still? Will you miss it?
>
> cheers,
> -- phoebe
>
> ___
> 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