Re: [Foundation-l] I didn't know we're on the BBC!
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote: I've just discovered that the BBC's music site [1] is using our content for their biographies of musicians/bands [2]. This makes me happy. [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/ [2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/faqs#why_is_the_bbc_using_wikipedia Marvelous! They appear to be using just the lead section from our articles, and then from Musicbrainz.org they're pulling the metadata (band members, collaborations) and external links list. Examples (they use the same unfortunate url scheme as musicbrainz...) The Beatles http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/b10bbbfc-cf9e-42e0-be17-e2c3e1d2600d Ludwig van Beethoven http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/1f9df192-a621-4f54-8850-2c5373b7eac9 Portishead http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/8f6bd1e4-fbe1-4f50-aa9b-94c450ec0f11 - It's not fully automated. They're missing a few obscure bands (that we and musicbrainz have the relevant content for) such as Lullatone. Also they're occasionally missing Wikipedia's content when we've disambiguated the page name, such as Solex http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/e064f6f6-76a8-4efe-a94b-09bec8942347 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solex_%28musician%29 On the other hand, they have pages for artists that we don't cover yet, such as Ogurusu Norihide. - Relatedly, all their album reviews (including items from c.2002) seem to be released under CC BY-NC-SA - Separately, I tried to send the BBC this bug report, but the webform refused to send because is not plain text... Gah! Maybe someone here can pass it along to their webmaster? Broken link in FAQ: The link here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/faqs#what_happens_if_wikipedias_vandalised currently points to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_vandalism which is incorrect. It should point to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism Thanks for the pointer, Bod. Quiddity ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Your abuse of moderator status
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote: On 26 June 2010 14:44, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Jeffrey Peters 17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu wrote: Austin, Maybe you didn't realize but I am the top organizer of Wikiversity. Wikiversity has a top organizer? What does that mean? According to Ottava, he is in charge of Wikiversity - sort of its equivalent of Jimmy. He says the position was created through all of his hard work and dedication. Huh? How so? http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=Ottava+Rimalang=enwiki=wikiversity http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributionslimit=250target=Ottava+Rima Citation required (for everything mentioned above). ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Along with Vector, a new look for changes to the Wikipedia identity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DragonHawk/2010_logo#Comparison That's the clearest demonstration of the difference in size. New and Old compared. Both images are 250pixels wide. They should be basically equal, but are not. Those 2 images also clearly show the difference in detail, and why people are calling the new logo flat, and the middle-line too distinct. The unbalanced problem, is possibly due to the location of the individual glyphs within each separate puzzle piece. Previously, the glyphs were more in line with each other (the glyphs were almost parallel horizontally, if the globe was rotated to be straight). The new logo changes that, and places the glyphs in a distinct zigzag, up and down, around each horizontal band. This unbalance however is something that we might just need to get used to. A rotating animation might make it clearer what the intention is. The size and flatness however are severe problems. Hope that helps. Quiddity On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Jay Walsh jwa...@wikimedia.org wrote: Thanks, Lodewijk We've seen a lot of comments about the size of the puzzle globe, and I don't disagree that it might benefit from being increased in size slightly. I feel this might also affect the overall contrast and definition. The whole usability team is collecting feedback on this, and part of that is the overall shape and size of the identity. Thanks jay ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
Some people like to enumerate all the points, that other people might take to be assumable/implied/given. This might be disparagingly labeled as an amazing capacity for stating the blindingly obvious. It is a common symptom of various types of youth. I find the contributions of the two participants being discussed, plus Geoffrey, to be generally unhelpful in gaining a deeper understanding of any issue. Partially because they say nothing new, partially because they treat the discussion more like IRC/IM than email, partially for the other reasons already mentioned by others. I'm going to take this opportunity to attempt to setup the username filtering/blacklisting that many people have suggested, to see if that drastically improves the signal/noise ratio. I'd also be interested in how Birgitte's suggestion would work out, if adopted by everyone here: I wonder if no one responds to [...] for a month how much he will continue to post. Quiddity On 8/30/09, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Anders Wennersten anders.wenners...@bonetmail.com wrote: I am for the moment active in some 15 wikimedia mailgroups. I have compared the working on foundation-l with internal-l for instance and find that almost the same topics are up with very much the same people and arguments, but where on internal a complicated issue can take 20-30 mails whereafter often some type a consensus is reached , I find on foundation-l some 200-300 mail in the same subject with no firm conclusion. I'm sure you'd find the same sort of thing if you compared a town hall meeting in North Korea with a town hall meeting in New Hampshire. I wouldn't take very much comfort in that. Anthony, I'm not sure they ever have community meetings of any sort in North Korea, but generally a New England town meeting is a lot like Wikipedia. People who have a long history of being unconstructive blowhards are generally ignored. Fred ___ 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] Request for your input: biographies of living people
http://www.onelook.com/?w=encomium a formal expression of praise http://www.onelook.com/?w=hagiography a biography that idealizes or idolizes the person (especially a person who is a saint) http://www.onelook.com/?w=saccharine overly sweet On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 4:19 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, What is: * encomium * hagiographical * saccharine sentiment PS You lost me. Thanks, GerardM 2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com While I find it impossible to disagree with your characterization of the current situation in any depth, and for sentimental reasons don't wish to engage teh view expressed by Jimmy Wales above your reply; I am bound to note that this state of affairs does present a certain historical irony, in that Criticism and controversy sections did not originate as a way of starting a biasing against a person whom the article was about, but as a way of keeping the main body of the biographical wholly hagiographical, and all the seamy sides being able to be rebutted in the controversy section, with none of the encomiums and even the worst saccharine sentiments in the hagiographical portion challenged at all by even the gentlest critical glance. Yes, we won't be removing that sourced information, just moving it out of the way of the main flow of our sweet article about this wonderful person. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:27 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/3/4 quiddity pandiculat...@gmail.com: http://www.onelook.com/?w=encomium a formal expression of praise http://www.onelook.com/?w=hagiography a biography that idealizes or idolizes the person (especially a person who is a saint) http://www.onelook.com/?w=saccharine overly sweet *cough* you mean, of course: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/encomium http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hagiography http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/saccharine *hums innocently* but no, not until we implement wikidata will Wiktionary not make me cringe slightly... http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata I might have linked to omegawiki.org too, if any of those words existed there... Are these two still at all likely to merge? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OmegaWiki or have the ... copying and pasting these lists from one language Wiktionary to another was inefficient and error-prone ... problems been solved since I last read up on this? q ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
