Re: [Foundation-l] List of Wikimedia projects and languages
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 04:27, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote: 2011/7/11 Thomas Goldammer tho...@googlemail.com How many people don't understand any Wikipedia today? Of those who can read at all, probably much less than 1%. The problem are those people who can't read. For persons who can't read it's far better to learn reading first in their own language. For many of these languages, teaching someone to read in their native language would first require inventing a written form for that language, and then creating a body of literature. Many languages have no literary tradition, and the only written material is linguistic studies by outsiders. -- Mark Wagner ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Request: WMF commitment as a long term cultural archive?
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 16:11, Neil Harris n...@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote: Tape is -- still -- your friend here. Flip the write-protect after writing, have two sets of off-site tapes, one copy of each in each of two secure and widely separated off-site locations run by two different organizations, and you're sorted. The mechanics of the backup are largely irrelevant. What matters are the *policies*: what data do you back up, when do you back it up, how often do you test your backups, and so on. Once you've got that sorted out, it doesn't really matter whether you're storing the backups on tape, remote servers, or magic pixie dust. -- Mark Wagner ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:33, Still Waterising stillwateris...@gmail.com wrote: I can accept that Commons may not fit under the definition of secondary producer. However, when Wikipedians choose a sexually explicit image from Commons, the crop it and add a caption, this may fall under the selection or alteration of the communication exception. You're misunderstanding the word operators here. The only people who matter for the selection or alteration of the communication are the Wikimedia Foundation: the board members and the foundation employees. Everyone else, no matter what on-site title they have, is simply a user of the site. -- Mark [[User:Carnildo]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 18:20, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: Given that several Commons admins had dropped out, and bearing in mind the clean-up campaign called for by the board and Jimbo, I put in an RFA at Commons, saying I would help clean up pornographic images *that are not in use by any project*. The result so far: 14 Opposes, 1 Support. You get the same result if you nominate a pornographic image for deletion. Andreas I can't say I'm surprised. The ham-handed way that Jimbo started the cleanup, and the resulting backlash, has effectively scuttled any real progress on reducing the amount of non-educational sexual material on Commons. If similar incidents elsewhere are anything to go by, it'll be two to three years before serious discussion of the subject will be possible. -- Mark [[User:Carnildo]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 15:15, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de wrote: For me, this statement is at the first line a support for Jimmy's effort. It is a soft push from the board to the community to move in a direction. The problem is that what Jimmy is doing on Commons isn't a soft push. It's a whack across the head with a spiked club, by someone who doesn't have good aim. -- Mark [[en:User:Carnildo]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] How much of Wikipedia is vandalized? 0.4% of Articles
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 14:10, Anthonywikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: My point (which might still be incorrect, of course) was that an analysis based on 30,000 randomly selected pages was more informative about the English Wikipedia than 100 articles about serving United States Senators. Any automated method of finding vandalism is doomed to failure. I'd say its informativeness was precisely zero. Greg's analysis, on the other hand, was informative, but it was targeted at a much different question than Robert's. if one chooses a random page from Wikipedia right now, what is the probability of receiving a vandalized revision The best way to answer that question would be with a manually processed random sample taken from a pre-chosen moment in time. As few as 1000 revisions would probably be sufficient, if I know anything about statistics, but I'll let someone with more knowledge of statistics verify or refute that. The results will depend heavily on one's definition of vandalism, though. I did this in an informal fashion in 2005 during my hundred article surveys. Of the 503 pages I looked at, only one was clearly vandalized the first time I looked at it, so I'd say a thousand samples is probably too small to get any sort of precision on the vandalism rate. -- Mark Wagner [[User:Carnildo]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Info/Law blog: Using Wikisource as an Alternative Open Access Repository for Legal Scholarship
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 14:35, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote: Brian wrote: That is against the law. It violates Google's ToS. I'm mostly complaining that Google is being Very Evil. There is nothing we can do about it except complain to them. Which I don't know how to do - they apparently believe that the plain text versions of their books are akin to their intellectual property and are unwilling to give them away. How is violating Google's ToS against the law? The verdict in _United States v. Lori Drew_ appears to set a precedent that violating a site's Terms of Service is a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. It's not a very strong precedent, but it's still there. -- Mark [[en:User:Carnildo]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reuse policy
2009/6/15 Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu: Дана Monday 15 June 2009 23:20:10 Brian написа: I'm not going to get into any more of a tit-for-tat with you (seriously - its my last post), but I do not claim to have legal counsel. As you would expect, however, both CC and WMF do. The best you could possibly hope to do is listen to their advice since this is unlikely to ever go to court. Additionally, if you wish to contribute to the projects you must contribute according to the intention and correct interpretation of the license. A user's interpretation of the license may or may not be in line with the correct view. If it is not, they should not contribute. That's all I have. You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. I think we've found part of the problem: that's from the GNU GPL. Wikipedia is licensed under the GNU FDL. -- Mark [[en:User:Carnildo]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 13:44, Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com wrote: I don't have much to add, but I want to voice my strong agreement. Some sort of serious effort to reach out to the many users who don't share the outlook of our more-libertarian-than-the-general-population community is long overdue. I agree only so long as such outreach does not interfere with my more-libertarian-than-the-general-population use of the website. -- Mark [[en:User:Carnildo]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Long-term archiving of Wikimedia content
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 08:29, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: However, most information isn't lost because of disaster, it is lost because people don't think they need it any more and delete/destroy it. Can we trust whoever is around in the future to continue to preserve the history dumps they've backed up? You seem to be stuck in the expensive copies mindset of data preservation: since making copies is difficult, it makes sense to be concerned about who will have custody of those copies, and how they will go about guarding them. But making copies of Wikipedia *isn't* difficult: it costs 39 cents to make a copy of Enwiki's current article text on a hard drive, or 68 cents to burn it to a dual-layer DVD. Instead of making a single copy, protecting it from every conceivable harm, entrusting it to a guardian, and hoping he doesn't get bored with the task, make millions copies and spread them around the world. Most of these will be lost or destroyed, but the sheer number ensures that some will wind up in the hands of people who are interested in preserving them. -- Mark [[en:user:Carnildo]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Alternating sitenotices is kinda confusing
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 18:40, Casey Brown cbrown1023...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Mark Wagner carni...@gmail.com wrote: I just hope you guys settle down on something soon. I'm tired of playing whack-a-mole with the sitenotices. Hmm? This is the only time we changed it. :-) The cookies expire after a week, if you're referring to the notices re-appearing. Since I regularly access Wikipedia from four different computers, that would explain why I'm swatting a sitenotice every day or two. -- Mark [[en:User:Carnildo]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Alternating sitenotices is kinda confusing
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 13:30, Casey Brown cbrown1023...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Brianna Laugher brianna.laug...@gmail.com wrote: Could we please have both at once We now have a combined notice running. Hopefully, this is a better way of doing it (even though it's not as pretty). I just hope you guys settle down on something soon. I'm tired of playing whack-a-mole with the sitenotices. -- Mark [[en:User:Carnildo]] ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] dumps
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 15:48, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: One of the academics I am speaking of wrote the textbook on natural language processing. He has a 3TB raid cluster. Of course, for about a thousand dollars you can create a bigger raid cluster than that using the new 2TB drives, but funding comes and goes. Using 1TB hard drives and a bit of creativity, you can build a 9TB storage server for that $1000. Disk space is getting cheaper all the time, and it's one of those cases where you can save a small fortune by building the computer yourself. -- Mark ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
