Re: [Foundation-l] advertising craigslist
Domas Mituzas midom.li...@... writes: Erik, The Craig Newmark banner is currently running at 20% on the English Wikipedia. How much known is Craigslist outside of US, in other English speaking countries, or countries where English is used as second/primary language on the web? :) I for one have never heart of Craigslist before and I don't think I have heart anybody talking about it before in real life. What particularly annoys me, is that the banner invites people to to click on them, but when I click on it I get to the Dutch donation page, which does not answer my question at all Why Craig of Craigslist urges me to support Wikipedia. Bryan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Making Wikimedia Commons less frightening
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 10:03 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: Lars Aronsson wrote: Finn Rindahl wrote If there was more active admins, we could have done our job better - especially when it comes to take the necessary time to communicate with the other users who need help. The only way as I see it to actually get volunteers to work at Commons is to build a community feeling at commons like in other projects. You need a community feeling among admins, so they can learn to know and trust each other and collaborate against individual admins who abuse their rights (which surely will happen occasionally). And you need to foster a community feeling between admins and regular/occasional/beginner users. But I doubt that the latter is possible. If it fails, I wouldn't blame you. Trust is the key to success in any of these projects. Presumably the current admins on Commons have built that trust among themselves, but to the extent of being a closed community, Aspiring to join a closed community requires a person to comply with the norms and standards of that closed community until it is satisfied that the supplicant is fully compliant. This strongly discourages any kind of innovative behaviour or individuality, and protects the received wisdom of the controllers. Trust is indeed the key. But that trust needs to come from from both sides. I agree that Commons should work into getting more trusted by other projects, but it certainly should also work the other way around, other projects should at least try to get trusted by Commons. Every once in a while users from other projects come by claiming What? Why do you follow the law of XYZ country? That is ridiculous, we should boycot Commons! That is certainly not helpful in building trust. (exaggerated and not specifically pointed at anybody) I wrote a lot of messages ago that it was all about language. Perhaps it's not, but it's more about culture and misunderstandings. Some people do not understand that the rules on their own project are not universal. Then they get warnings or their images are deleted, and they get hostile at Commons admins, and Commons admins get hostile at them and eventually we end up in the current we-versus-them situation. Perhaps we should step back from making comments like I try to avoid Commons at much as possible and Your kind of people is exactly what we don't need on Commons. We don't need this story to become a self fulfilling prophecy, if it hasn't happened already. Bryan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Making Wikimedia Commons less frightening
On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 11:31 PM, Lars Aronsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But as soon as it comes to image uploading, an area where the elderly have decades of photos to contribute, we're sending our beginners off to Wikimedia Commons. Even if the menues and most templates are localized in every major language, this is not true of the admin community there. If a beginner fails to fill out all details of free licensing, their user talk page will receive an image deletion request in English. Even if there is a translated version of that notification, the user's explanation in a local language might not be understood by the admins. If the user has good credentials that are easily verified (retired schoolteacher, museum manager, ...) and has built a solid reputation in the local language Wikipedia, a Commons admin from another language might not fully understand this. I can think of two solutions here. One is to simply have more multi-project admins. Wikimedia ought to be one big community with a commons goal. Unfortunately (but not unsurprisingly) Wikimedia has been separated into many different islands separated by language borders, which are very hard to open up. Commons was born as a multilingual project, but in that aspect has failed I believe. Another solution is to make image uploading much more transparent. Uploading from the local wiki should be possible without needing to browse to Commons. I cannot see unfortunately how we should handle messaging in that case, but it would certainly make it easier to communicate and monitor users. I do not believe that returning to local uploading is a solution. It will simply mean that the problem of categorizing images, deleting copyright violations and similar will move to local projects where obviously less attention will be paid to them. Adding to this, a culture of deletionism and arrogance has infested Wikimedia Commons in the last year or two. So many copyright violations and half-free images are deleted, that little attention is paid to the individual contributors. The focus is on the image, not on the user. That is certainly true. I have noticed myself that if you patrol new uploads for some time your threshold for deleting or marking as bad image is going down. It is then time to stop doing that for a while. What I am wondering is how we can change the focus from the image to user. What fundamental changes should be made for this? This system is also an open target for abuse. Sometimes deletions are requested anonymously or without substantial reasons, but this is not preceived as a problem. Only copyright violations are preceived as a problem. Every system where anybody can make edits is inherently an open target for abuse. The question is how we deal with abuse. I actually currently do not know how we handle this. Do you have any examples? Bryan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] EN Wikipedia Editing Statistics
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:29 AM, Nikola Smolenski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday 01 December 2008 04:09:11 Robert Rohde wrote: On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Neil Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is the data replicated anywhere outside the Tampa data centre (such as in Amsterdam or Seoul)? If not, just one fire, flood or hurricane could destroy the entire en: Wikipedia. There are database mirrors of every wiki, including en, as part of the toolserver cluster in Amsterdam. Unfortunately, enwiki mirror doesn't include article text :( Are you sure about that? Last time I checked the text databases were shared between all wikimedia project and thus replicated all at once or not at all. Bryan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] wikipedia.de shut down
Apparently the German portal on wikipedia.de has been shut down after a legal case. Is there any more information on this? http://www.wikipedia.de/ Bryan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
