Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor temporary opt-out
Yes, the signal tends to be lost in the noise. Cheers, Peter - Original Message - From: Kevin Wayne Williams kwwilli...@kwwilliams.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 11:10 PM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor temporary opt-out Op 2013/08/06 13:05, Peter Southwood schreef: This is Wikipedia, there are always a small number who make a lot of noise. I think that's part of the problem: any change hits a nerve *somewhere*, so even when it's a real problem, observers are likely to dismiss it as being just more of the same. KWW ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] A proposal towards a multilingual Wikipedia
Love it!
2013/8/7, Denny Vrandečić denny.vrande...@wikimedia.de:
I have been thinking about this for a while, and now finally managed to
write it down as a proposal. Details are on meta on the following link,
below is the intro to the proposal:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/A_proposal_towards_a_multilingual_Wikipedia
I tried to anticipate some possible questions and provide answers on the
page. Besides that, I obviously hope that Wikimania could provide a place
to start this conversation. And yes, I am aware that the proposal would
lead to a very restrictive solution, but imagine what good it already could
achieve! And since it is not meant to replace anything, but enrich our
current projects... well, read for yourself.
Cheers,
Denny
Wikipedia provides knowledge in more than 200 languages. Whereas a small
number of languages are fortunate enough to have a large Wikipedia, many of
the language editions are far away from providing a comprehensive
encyclopedia by any measure. There are several approaches towards closing
this gap, mostly focusing on increasing the number of contributors to the
small language editions or to improve the provision of automatic or
semi-automatic translations of articles. Both are viable. In the following
we present a proposal for a different approach, which is based on the idea
of multilingual Wikipedia.
Imagine a small extension to the template system, where a template call
like *{{F12}}* would not be expanded by a call to the template
Template:F12, but rather to Template:F12/en, i.e. the template name with
the selected language code of the reader of the page. A template call such
as *{{F12:Q64|Q5519|Q183}}* can be expanded by Template:F12/en into *“Berlin
is the capital of Germany.”* and by Template:F12/de into *“Berlin ist die
Hauptstadt Deutschlands.”* (in the example, the template parameters Q5119,
Q64 and Q183 refer to the Wikidata items for capital, Berlin and Germany
respectively, which the templates query for the label in the respective
language). Sentence by sentence could be created in order to provide for a
simple article.
That wiki would consist of *content*, i.e. the article pages, possibly just
a simple series of template calls, and *frames*, i.e. the templates that
lexicalize the parameters of a given template call into a sentence (Note
that “sentence” here should not be considered literally. It could be a
table, an image, anything). The implementation of the frames can be done in
normal wiki template syntax, in Lua, in a novel mechanism, or a mix of
these. This would be up to the communities creating them.
Read the rest here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/A_proposal_towards_a_multilingual_Wikipedia
--
Project director Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] An idea that may improve Wikipedia's fundraising
Actually, an offline version of WIkipedia, though useful in remote locations and for secure-internet areas like schools (or prisons), is probably not as desirable as copies of specific content, such as a Wikipedia dump of the Paleontology portal or something like that. For people who wish to create informative apps (such as museum curators) using Wikipedia content, it might be interesting to be able to order a chunk of static data, such as everything we have on Monet (in all languages: https://wikimania2013.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/Improve-an-artist If a template exists for specific dump-creation, it might be useful to have this be a paid service, where the product is not necessarily one dump on a dvd, but a hyperlink to a specific dump that can be updated periodically (once a year maybe?). 2013/8/6, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com: Matthew Walker wrote: Technology limitations aside, there are two things we throw around in the team a lot; that we should not give the impression that a user *must* pay to use a WMF property, and that we will never ever do gift premiums. Hi Matt. This sounds a bit like Fundraising principles or similar. Are these documented anywhere (e.g. on Meta-Wiki)? If not, I think it'd be great to start a page. :-) MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] A proposal towards a multilingual Wikipedia
This may work very fine for little stubs about repetitive stuff, like the
introductions of cities (location, population, foundation date, country,
etc). But, how will that work for the rest of sections of Berlin (history,
geography, politics...)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin
2013/8/7 Denny Vrandečić denny.vrande...@wikimedia.de
I have been thinking about this for a while, and now finally managed to
write it down as a proposal. Details are on meta on the following link,
below is the intro to the proposal:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/A_proposal_towards_a_multilingual_Wikipedia
I tried to anticipate some possible questions and provide answers on the
page. Besides that, I obviously hope that Wikimania could provide a place
to start this conversation. And yes, I am aware that the proposal would
lead to a very restrictive solution, but imagine what good it already could
achieve! And since it is not meant to replace anything, but enrich our
current projects... well, read for yourself.
Cheers,
Denny
Wikipedia provides knowledge in more than 200 languages. Whereas a small
number of languages are fortunate enough to have a large Wikipedia, many of
the language editions are far away from providing a comprehensive
encyclopedia by any measure. There are several approaches towards closing
this gap, mostly focusing on increasing the number of contributors to the
small language editions or to improve the provision of automatic or
semi-automatic translations of articles. Both are viable. In the following
we present a proposal for a different approach, which is based on the idea
of multilingual Wikipedia.
Imagine a small extension to the template system, where a template call
like *{{F12}}* would not be expanded by a call to the template
Template:F12, but rather to Template:F12/en, i.e. the template name with
the selected language code of the reader of the page. A template call such
as *{{F12:Q64|Q5519|Q183}}* can be expanded by Template:F12/en into
*“Berlin
is the capital of Germany.”* and by Template:F12/de into *“Berlin ist die
Hauptstadt Deutschlands.”* (in the example, the template parameters Q5119,
Q64 and Q183 refer to the Wikidata items for capital, Berlin and Germany
respectively, which the templates query for the label in the respective
language). Sentence by sentence could be created in order to provide for a
simple article.
That wiki would consist of *content*, i.e. the article pages, possibly just
a simple series of template calls, and *frames*, i.e. the templates that
lexicalize the parameters of a given template call into a sentence (Note
that “sentence” here should not be considered literally. It could be a
table, an image, anything). The implementation of the frames can be done in
normal wiki template syntax, in Lua, in a novel mechanism, or a mix of
these. This would be up to the communities creating them.
Read the rest here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/A_proposal_towards_a_multilingual_Wikipedia
--
Project director Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] A proposal towards a multilingual Wikipedia
I thought so myself, but then I did a bit of research to figure out the
state of natural language generation. I could not find easily a current
state of the art, but I found this list of examples on the KPML website
that is linked from the proposal, they are from 1998:
http://www.fb10.uni-bremen.de/anglistik/langpro/kpml/genbank/R3b12-English/Docu/ENGLISH-reuters-mismatches-19981209/index.html
http://www.fb10.uni-bremen.de/anglistik/langpro/kpml/genbank/R3b12-English/Docu/ENGLISH-nigel-exerciseset-mismatches-19981209/index.html
There are examples like:
Analysts say that the private position is far more sensible, because it
leads to much needed capital for European computer and semiconductor
companies, while giving them a toehold in the lucrative Japanese domestic
market.
Because of its importance, any reaction of the sixty people whose
televisions are attached to the system is monitored closely.
Since they managed it 15 years ago, I believe we can do it too. At least
try and fail.
Even if the complexity of our sentences does not raise that high, it seems
to me that there is plenty of content that would be beneficial to make
available.
Cheers,
Denny
2013/8/7 Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada emi...@gmail.com
This may work very fine for little stubs about repetitive stuff, like the
introductions of cities (location, population, foundation date, country,
etc). But, how will that work for the rest of sections of Berlin (history,
geography, politics...)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin
2013/8/7 Denny Vrandečić denny.vrande...@wikimedia.de
I have been thinking about this for a while, and now finally managed to
write it down as a proposal. Details are on meta on the following link,
below is the intro to the proposal:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/A_proposal_towards_a_multilingual_Wikipedia
I tried to anticipate some possible questions and provide answers on the
page. Besides that, I obviously hope that Wikimania could provide a place
to start this conversation. And yes, I am aware that the proposal would
lead to a very restrictive solution, but imagine what good it already
could
achieve! And since it is not meant to replace anything, but enrich our
current projects... well, read for yourself.
Cheers,
Denny
Wikipedia provides knowledge in more than 200 languages. Whereas a small
number of languages are fortunate enough to have a large Wikipedia, many
of
the language editions are far away from providing a comprehensive
encyclopedia by any measure. There are several approaches towards closing
this gap, mostly focusing on increasing the number of contributors to the
small language editions or to improve the provision of automatic or
semi-automatic translations of articles. Both are viable. In the
following
we present a proposal for a different approach, which is based on the
idea
of multilingual Wikipedia.
Imagine a small extension to the template system, where a template call
like *{{F12}}* would not be expanded by a call to the template
Template:F12, but rather to Template:F12/en, i.e. the template name with
the selected language code of the reader of the page. A template call
such
as *{{F12:Q64|Q5519|Q183}}* can be expanded by Template:F12/en into
*“Berlin
is the capital of Germany.”* and by Template:F12/de into *“Berlin ist die
Hauptstadt Deutschlands.”* (in the example, the template parameters
Q5119,
Q64 and Q183 refer to the Wikidata items for capital, Berlin and Germany
respectively, which the templates query for the label in the respective
language). Sentence by sentence could be created in order to provide for
a
simple article.
That wiki would consist of *content*, i.e. the article pages, possibly
just
a simple series of template calls, and *frames*, i.e. the templates that
lexicalize the parameters of a given template call into a sentence (Note
that “sentence” here should not be considered literally. It could be a
table, an image, anything). The implementation of the frames can be done
in
normal wiki template syntax, in Lua, in a novel mechanism, or a mix of
these. This would be up to the communities creating them.
Read the rest here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/A_proposal_towards_a_multilingual_Wikipedia
--
Project director Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
Re: [Wikimedia-l] A proposal towards a multilingual Wikipedia
Thanks for sharing your very interesting ideas. While I am not fully
support your idea of implementation, I share your basic view of the need
and think some of the concepts you introduce has a very high potential
to better utilize the power of us having many versions.
I have put in my feedback on the talkpage and hope there will be a
possibility to evolve this concept further in some type of workgroup. I
also see an interesting relation to the talk of machine translation
where I believe we can do a lot very quickly if we limit the vocabulary
to be included in such a tool
Anders
Denny Vrandečić skrev 2013-08-07 02:20:
I have been thinking about this for a while, and now finally managed to
write it down as a proposal. Details are on meta on the following link,
below is the intro to the proposal:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/A_proposal_towards_a_multilingual_Wikipedia
I tried to anticipate some possible questions and provide answers on the
page. Besides that, I obviously hope that Wikimania could provide a place
to start this conversation. And yes, I am aware that the proposal would
lead to a very restrictive solution, but imagine what good it already could
achieve! And since it is not meant to replace anything, but enrich our
current projects... well, read for yourself.
Cheers,
Denny
Wikipedia provides knowledge in more than 200 languages. Whereas a small
number of languages are fortunate enough to have a large Wikipedia, many of
the language editions are far away from providing a comprehensive
encyclopedia by any measure. There are several approaches towards closing
this gap, mostly focusing on increasing the number of contributors to the
small language editions or to improve the provision of automatic or
semi-automatic translations of articles. Both are viable. In the following
we present a proposal for a different approach, which is based on the idea
of multilingual Wikipedia.
Imagine a small extension to the template system, where a template call
like *{{F12}}* would not be expanded by a call to the template
Template:F12, but rather to Template:F12/en, i.e. the template name with
the selected language code of the reader of the page. A template call such
as *{{F12:Q64|Q5519|Q183}}* can be expanded by Template:F12/en into *“Berlin
is the capital of Germany.”* and by Template:F12/de into *“Berlin ist die
Hauptstadt Deutschlands.”* (in the example, the template parameters Q5119,
Q64 and Q183 refer to the Wikidata items for capital, Berlin and Germany
respectively, which the templates query for the label in the respective
language). Sentence by sentence could be created in order to provide for a
simple article.
That wiki would consist of *content*, i.e. the article pages, possibly just
a simple series of template calls, and *frames*, i.e. the templates that
lexicalize the parameters of a given template call into a sentence (Note
that “sentence” here should not be considered literally. It could be a
table, an image, anything). The implementation of the frames can be done in
normal wiki template syntax, in Lua, in a novel mechanism, or a mix of
these. This would be up to the communities creating them.
Read the rest here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/A_proposal_towards_a_multilingual_Wikipedia
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] A proposal towards a multilingual Wikipedia
Most times the best approach is a compilation of several approaches.
Perhaps we can use the Denny system for the little introduction of articles
(for example: geography, biographies) and optional automatic translation
for the rest of the article.
I mean, if you follow a red link in a little Wikipedia, it loads the i18n
template + wikidata bits, so you have a brief summary about the topic. Then
you can save that live generated stub, and expand it (using
autotraslation from other WIkipedia).
2013/8/7 Anders Wennersten m...@anderswennersten.se
Thanks for sharing your very interesting ideas. While I am not fully
support your idea of implementation, I share your basic view of the need
and think some of the concepts you introduce has a very high potential to
better utilize the power of us having many versions.
I have put in my feedback on the talkpage and hope there will be a
possibility to evolve this concept further in some type of workgroup. I
also see an interesting relation to the talk of machine translation where I
believe we can do a lot very quickly if we limit the vocabulary to be
included in such a tool
Anders
Denny Vrandečić skrev 2013-08-07 02:20:
I have been thinking about this for a while, and now finally managed to
write it down as a proposal. Details are on meta on the following link,
below is the intro to the proposal:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/A_proposal_towards_a_**
multilingual_Wikipediahttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/A_proposal_towards_a_multilingual_Wikipedia
I tried to anticipate some possible questions and provide answers on the
page. Besides that, I obviously hope that Wikimania could provide a place
to start this conversation. And yes, I am aware that the proposal would
lead to a very restrictive solution, but imagine what good it already
could
achieve! And since it is not meant to replace anything, but enrich our
current projects... well, read for yourself.
Cheers,
Denny
Wikipedia provides knowledge in more than 200 languages. Whereas a small
number of languages are fortunate enough to have a large Wikipedia, many
of
the language editions are far away from providing a comprehensive
encyclopedia by any measure. There are several approaches towards closing
this gap, mostly focusing on increasing the number of contributors to the
small language editions or to improve the provision of automatic or
semi-automatic translations of articles. Both are viable. In the following
we present a proposal for a different approach, which is based on the idea
of multilingual Wikipedia.
Imagine a small extension to the template system, where a template call
like *{{F12}}* would not be expanded by a call to the template
Template:F12, but rather to Template:F12/en, i.e. the template name with
the selected language code of the reader of the page. A template call such
as *{{F12:Q64|Q5519|Q183}}* can be expanded by Template:F12/en into
*“Berlin
is the capital of Germany.”* and by Template:F12/de into *“Berlin ist die
Hauptstadt Deutschlands.”* (in the example, the template parameters Q5119,
Q64 and Q183 refer to the Wikidata items for capital, Berlin and Germany
respectively, which the templates query for the label in the respective
language). Sentence by sentence could be created in order to provide for a
simple article.
That wiki would consist of *content*, i.e. the article pages, possibly
just
a simple series of template calls, and *frames*, i.e. the templates that
lexicalize the parameters of a given template call into a sentence (Note
that “sentence” here should not be considered literally. It could be a
table, an image, anything). The implementation of the frames can be done
in
normal wiki template syntax, in Lua, in a novel mechanism, or a mix of
these. This would be up to the communities creating them.
Read the rest here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/A_proposal_towards_a_**
multilingual_Wikipediahttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/A_proposal_towards_a_multilingual_Wikipedia
__**_
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**lists.wikimedia.orgwikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=**unsubscribe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Communication plans for community engagement
On 06.08.2013 20:03, Nathan wrote: I'll take on faith that anti-Americanism doesn't explain why you jump to this conclusion when there are many that make more sense, but how do you explain then the fact that the English Wikipedia (which, presumably, has a similar North American bias) is having a very similar reaction as the Dutch? Not commenting on the topic of the thread, is there any data around to show that the English Wikipedia is mainly written by North Americans (aka residents of the US and Canada)? Seems to me that it is likely to be the case but not 100% obvious. Cheers Yaroslav ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Communication plans for community engagement
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ruwrote: Not commenting on the topic of the thread, is there any data around to show that the English Wikipedia is mainly written by North Americans (aka residents of the US and Canada)? Seems to me that it is likely to be the case but not 100% obvious. The answer would be best answered topically. I have data that shows Australian content tends to be maintained by Australians. When you start looking at some things on the very specific gradient, other nationalistic editing patterns appear. During the London Olympics and Paralympics, there was a large number of UK editors contributing to articles about ALL London Olympic and Paralympic sports. Boccia articles I have found are often updated by Poles. Equestrian has a large number of British contributors. Sincerely, Laura Hale -- twitter: purplepopple blog: ozziesport.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] A proposal towards a multilingual Wikipedia
Thank you, Anders. Yes, I published the idea in order to garner feedback
and further evolve it. It is by no means ready-perfect-finished, it is
rather really just a first draft. So suggestions, constructive critique,
and improvements are obviously extremely welcome. --
2013/8/7 Anders Wennersten m...@anderswennersten.se
Thanks for sharing your very interesting ideas. While I am not fully
support your idea of implementation, I share your basic view of the need
and think some of the concepts you introduce has a very high potential to
better utilize the power of us having many versions.
I have put in my feedback on the talkpage and hope there will be a
possibility to evolve this concept further in some type of workgroup. I
also see an interesting relation to the talk of machine translation where I
believe we can do a lot very quickly if we limit the vocabulary to be
included in such a tool
Anders
Denny Vrandečić skrev 2013-08-07 02:20:
I have been thinking about this for a while, and now finally managed to
write it down as a proposal. Details are on meta on the following link,
below is the intro to the proposal:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/A_proposal_towards_a_**
multilingual_Wikipediahttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/A_proposal_towards_a_multilingual_Wikipedia
I tried to anticipate some possible questions and provide answers on the
page. Besides that, I obviously hope that Wikimania could provide a place
to start this conversation. And yes, I am aware that the proposal would
lead to a very restrictive solution, but imagine what good it already
could
achieve! And since it is not meant to replace anything, but enrich our
current projects... well, read for yourself.
Cheers,
Denny
Wikipedia provides knowledge in more than 200 languages. Whereas a small
number of languages are fortunate enough to have a large Wikipedia, many
of
the language editions are far away from providing a comprehensive
encyclopedia by any measure. There are several approaches towards closing
this gap, mostly focusing on increasing the number of contributors to the
small language editions or to improve the provision of automatic or
semi-automatic translations of articles. Both are viable. In the following
we present a proposal for a different approach, which is based on the idea
of multilingual Wikipedia.
Imagine a small extension to the template system, where a template call
like *{{F12}}* would not be expanded by a call to the template
Template:F12, but rather to Template:F12/en, i.e. the template name with
the selected language code of the reader of the page. A template call such
as *{{F12:Q64|Q5519|Q183}}* can be expanded by Template:F12/en into
*“Berlin
is the capital of Germany.”* and by Template:F12/de into *“Berlin ist die
Hauptstadt Deutschlands.”* (in the example, the template parameters Q5119,
Q64 and Q183 refer to the Wikidata items for capital, Berlin and Germany
respectively, which the templates query for the label in the respective
language). Sentence by sentence could be created in order to provide for a
simple article.
That wiki would consist of *content*, i.e. the article pages, possibly
just
a simple series of template calls, and *frames*, i.e. the templates that
lexicalize the parameters of a given template call into a sentence (Note
that “sentence” here should not be considered literally. It could be a
table, an image, anything). The implementation of the frames can be done
in
normal wiki template syntax, in Lua, in a novel mechanism, or a mix of
these. This would be up to the communities creating them.
Read the rest here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/A_proposal_towards_a_**
multilingual_Wikipediahttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/A_proposal_towards_a_multilingual_Wikipedia
__**_
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**lists.wikimedia.orgwikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=**unsubscribe
--
Project director Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] A proposal towards a multilingual Wikipedia
Obviously, this system should be only used as far as it carries. I don't
know how far it might carry us - it might fail miserably, and not get
beyond the Rome is a city. Rome is in Italy. Rome is known for The
Colosseum, coffee and Vatican City (state). stage. It might lead to a
glorious future, where we really create an open source system that allows
everyone to write in every language and express a wide range of human
thought.
I am personally hesitant about automatic translations, and whether we can
achieve the coverage (in language pairs) and the quality (of Wikipedia).
But that is only my opinion. A hybrid approach, if we can support it and
build it, would obviously be the safest bet, as both endeavors are rather
risky. I see a lot of possible space for a hybrid system, as you describe
it.
One advantage of my proposal is that it's cost is rather small. For
supporting translation I haven't seen yet a sufficiently sketched proposal
that allows to estimate the potential cost and potential benefit.
Cheers,
Denny
2013/8/7 Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada emi...@gmail.com
Most times the best approach is a compilation of several approaches.
Perhaps we can use the Denny system for the little introduction of articles
(for example: geography, biographies) and optional automatic translation
for the rest of the article.
I mean, if you follow a red link in a little Wikipedia, it loads the i18n
template + wikidata bits, so you have a brief summary about the topic. Then
you can save that live generated stub, and expand it (using
autotraslation from other WIkipedia).
2013/8/7 Anders Wennersten m...@anderswennersten.se
Thanks for sharing your very interesting ideas. While I am not fully
support your idea of implementation, I share your basic view of the need
and think some of the concepts you introduce has a very high potential to
better utilize the power of us having many versions.
I have put in my feedback on the talkpage and hope there will be a
possibility to evolve this concept further in some type of workgroup. I
also see an interesting relation to the talk of machine translation
where I
believe we can do a lot very quickly if we limit the vocabulary to be
included in such a tool
Anders
Denny Vrandečić skrev 2013-08-07 02:20:
I have been thinking about this for a while, and now finally managed to
write it down as a proposal. Details are on meta on the following link,
below is the intro to the proposal:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/A_proposal_towards_a_**
multilingual_Wikipedia
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/A_proposal_towards_a_multilingual_Wikipedia
I tried to anticipate some possible questions and provide answers on the
page. Besides that, I obviously hope that Wikimania could provide a
place
to start this conversation. And yes, I am aware that the proposal would
lead to a very restrictive solution, but imagine what good it already
could
achieve! And since it is not meant to replace anything, but enrich our
current projects... well, read for yourself.
Cheers,
Denny
Wikipedia provides knowledge in more than 200 languages. Whereas a small
number of languages are fortunate enough to have a large Wikipedia, many
of
the language editions are far away from providing a comprehensive
encyclopedia by any measure. There are several approaches towards
closing
this gap, mostly focusing on increasing the number of contributors to
the
small language editions or to improve the provision of automatic or
semi-automatic translations of articles. Both are viable. In the
following
we present a proposal for a different approach, which is based on the
idea
of multilingual Wikipedia.
Imagine a small extension to the template system, where a template call
like *{{F12}}* would not be expanded by a call to the template
Template:F12, but rather to Template:F12/en, i.e. the template name with
the selected language code of the reader of the page. A template call
such
as *{{F12:Q64|Q5519|Q183}}* can be expanded by Template:F12/en into
*“Berlin
is the capital of Germany.”* and by Template:F12/de into *“Berlin ist
die
Hauptstadt Deutschlands.”* (in the example, the template parameters
Q5119,
Q64 and Q183 refer to the Wikidata items for capital, Berlin and Germany
respectively, which the templates query for the label in the respective
language). Sentence by sentence could be created in order to provide
for a
simple article.
That wiki would consist of *content*, i.e. the article pages, possibly
just
a simple series of template calls, and *frames*, i.e. the templates that
lexicalize the parameters of a given template call into a sentence (Note
that “sentence” here should not be considered literally. It could be a
table, an image, anything). The implementation of the frames can be done
in
normal wiki template syntax, in Lua, in a novel mechanism, or a mix of
these. This
[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Thursday, 10-14:00 – Chapters Dialogue Session
Forwarding this from wikimania-l, sorry for crossposting. Cheers, Nicole -- Forwarded message -- From: Nicole Ebber nicole.eb...@wikimedia.de Date: 7 August 2013 21:15 Subject: Thursday, 10-14:00 – Chapters Dialogue Session To: Wikimania general list (open subscription) wikimani...@lists.wikimedia.org Dear Wikimaniacs, we have recently kicked-off the Chapters Dialogue project (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chapters_Dialogue) and are inviting all of you who are interested in Wikimedia chapters goals, needs and stories to our working session: Tomorrow, Thursday from 10:00 - 14:00 in room M104 at PolyU. Chapters Dialogue is a structured assessment of chapters needs, goals and stories combined with a stakeholder survey. It will not only allow us to reflect the status quo of our roles and relationships, but will enable us to actively shape them in the future. First, we will introduce the project and talk about goals, methodology and the process. Then we will present key questions of the questionnaire (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chapters_Dialogue#Draft_research_questions_for_the_Chapters_Dialogue) and host an open discussion round where you can provide feedback, add topics and questions to the questionnaire, contribute ideas for the process and exchange with other participants. This session addresses chapters, staff and board of the Wikimedia Foundation, members of the FDC, AffCom and WCA and of course everybody who is interested in the topic. Chapters can get directly in touch with us and arrange appointments for interviews (either during Wikimania or for our interview-tour that will take place from September to December). Come and join us, we are looking forward to meeting you! Cheers, Nicole and Kira -- Nicole Ebber International Affairs Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin Tel. +49 30 219158 26-0 http://wikimedia.de Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985. -- Nicole Ebber International Affairs Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin Tel. +49 30 219158 26-0 http://wikimedia.de Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Communication plans for community engagement
Yaroslav M. Blanter, 07/08/2013 13:27: Not commenting on the topic of the thread, is there any data around to show that the English Wikipedia is mainly written by North Americans (aka residents of the US and Canada)? Seems to me that it is likely to be the case but not 100% obvious. Nathan said a bias, not mainly written, but yes: http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportPageEditsPerLanguageBreakdown.htm 40 % USA, 17 % UK (to be taken with a grain of salt). Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Communication plans for community engagement
Ah, I believe these are editor's edit-measurements based on IP address, which is something quite different from base of operation. I tend to edit pages geo-located in the US when I visit those places, and I imagine many others not based in the US do the same. The same holds for all other countries as well. 2013/8/7, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com: Yaroslav M. Blanter, 07/08/2013 13:27: Not commenting on the topic of the thread, is there any data around to show that the English Wikipedia is mainly written by North Americans (aka residents of the US and Canada)? Seems to me that it is likely to be the case but not 100% obvious. Nathan said a bias, not mainly written, but yes: http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportPageEditsPerLanguageBreakdown.htm 40 % USA, 17 % UK (to be taken with a grain of salt). Nemo ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Communication plans for community engagement
On 8/7/13 4:22 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: Yaroslav M. Blanter, 07/08/2013 13:27: Not commenting on the topic of the thread, is there any data around to show that the English Wikipedia is mainly written by North Americans (aka residents of the US and Canada)? Seems to me that it is likely to be the case but not 100% obvious. Nathan said a bias, not mainly written, but yes: http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportPageEditsPerLanguageBreakdown.htm 40 % USA, 17 % UK (to be taken with a grain of salt). If you adjust by population, somewhat interestingly, the U.S. has the lowest per-capita editing rate among anglophone countries. But it ends up at the top in absolute edits because of the large size of its population. Here are the per-capita editing ratios compared to the U.S., based on the numbers above: 1. UK: 2.1x times as many edits per capita 2. New Zealand: 1.8x 3. Australia: 1.5x 4. Canada: 1.4x 5. USA: 1.0x [baseline] -Mark ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor temporary opt-out
Yes, it should be made clear that opt out will always be an acceptable user preference. On Aug 6, 2013 7:26 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:35 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Todd Allen wrote: [comments about VisualEditor] Hi Todd. Thank you for writing this e-mail. Unfortunately I don't have a particularly unified reply to write here, but I can offer five thoughts. Regarding the specific issue you mention (the labeling of the user preference), I think there should be at least a little recognition that much more than half of the battle was getting this user preference re-added, supported for future VisualEditor releases, and appropriately positioned under the Editing user preferences tab rather than the Gadgets user preferences tab. Now that we've made forward progress on those fronts, re-labeling the user preference is a simple matter of editing the page MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-betatempdisable. Broadly, looking at your e-mail, I wonder what your thoughts are on the extent to which one wiki, even the golden goose, can dictate Wikimedia Foundation product engineering and development. While the English Wikipedia is certainly a formidable force, do you think it should be capable, through an on-wiki discussion, of setting or changing high-level priorities and their implementation strategies? If so, why and how? I started https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Improvements to discuss actionable improvements that can be made right now related to VisualEditor and its deployment. Please participate. :-) And I started https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/VisualEditor/Complaints to examine the pattern of complaints related to VisualEditor. Finally, and somewhat related to the complaints page, I've been thinking lately about the British and the Irish and the nature of insurgencies. I believe the VisualEditor team is now viewed by many on the English Wikipedia (and other wikis) as an occupying force. Consequently, this has created an insurgency composed of long-time editors. This isn't meant to be hyperbolic: nobody is rioting in the streets or planning warfare (yet). However, the anger felt by many in the editing community toward the VisualEditor team is very real and very worrying, as is the seemingly heavy-handed way in which VisualEditor has been deployed. Just a few weeks ago, VisualEditor was receiving accolades for the way in which it had been slowly and thoughtfully developed and deployed. However, seemingly arbitrary deadlines and a few key bad decisions have greatly hurt it. The wounds are deep, but it remains to be seen whether they will be fatal. MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe MzMcBride, Thanks for the response, and the thoughtful questions. Since they're rather different, I'll answer them in turn. My concern on the user preference is not what we call it. Rather, it's on what we intend to do with it; namely, remove it after the VE beta is done (and for many of us, WMF's project managers have shown remarkably poor judgment in properly determining what's done or ready). Even if VE worked well, I'm the type of person who uses a bash command shell in preference to a GUI most of the time (and go nuts when I'm required to use Windows for work), and I'm just not interested in the visual editor. For me personally, it's nothing I'll ever use. By all means, offer the GUI to whoever will find it useful, but I want a way to make sure it's not sucking up resources every time I edit. But despite this, once they say it's ready, we're getting it crammed down our throats, like it or not. Even the name of the page, betatempdisable, indicates that once again, the ability to disable this thing will be taken out of where it belongs, and once again volunteers will have to use their time to develop and maintain a gadget because WMF just can't resist saying We say it's READY, and you will have it there whether or not you ever plan to use it! As to dictat(ing) to WMF, well, in the most technical sense, no one has any say at all. WMF pays the bills and the devs, so WMF can, whenever it wants, override what en.wikipedia or any other project tells it. So we know WMF -can- override en.wikipedia, or any other project. The question, then, is whether they should. This is a volunteer project, where comparable to the user base, a relatively small group of volunteer users does the bulk of the work on creating and maintaining the site's content. Anonymous and drive-by editors are allowed to help, they often do, and that's appreciated. We should do what we can to make it easier for them to, but not at the
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor temporary opt-out
This perspective is not a productive one for building and maintaining a community. You need to have a better way of granting legitimacy to people's concerns while being able to discern histrionics. Generally the optimal easy is to have there be a pathway by which the complainants have to fix the problem to the satisfaction of their strongest opposition. On Aug 6, 2013 1:04 PM, Peter Southwood peter.southw...@telkomsa.net wrote: To me it looks like a fairly small number of editors are making a fairly large amount of noise, A very small number making a disproportionately large amount, and a much larger number, probably the majority, have not even bothered to comment at all. I also have not analysed the numbers, but to me it looks like the numbers who have made one liner comments that they approve is probably the same order of magnitude as the number who protest incessantly. This is Wikipedia, there are always a small number who make a lot of noise. After a while fewer people take them seriously. I start to get the impression that there are now some people who have invested so much effort into making a big deal of this that they now feel obliged to make an even bigger deal so they can feel justified in doing so. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe the numbers do indicate a wdespread and deep seated sense of alienation. Maybe not. Time will probably tell, and hey, someone who is prepared to approach the analysis scientifcally may get a dissertation out of it. Stranger things have happened.. I also think the approach was flawed, but I appreciate the reasons and I am prepared to assume good faith. Cheers, Peter - Original Message - From: Kevin Wayne Williams kwwilli...@kwwilliams.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**orgwikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 9:02 PM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor temporary opt-out I've made no claim about most long-term editors, but any perusal of the two RFCs and the Feedback page would demonstrate that there's a fairly large group. Or are you arguing that deploying bug-ridden software that corrupts articles, hangs browsers, crashes unexpectedly, and doesn't have sufficient features to edit basic articles is somehow OK as long the site survives the disruption? Even if it can be shown that development knew that was the case prior to deployment, and chose to deploy it anyway? KWW Op 2013/08/06 10:54, Peter Southwood schreef: Evidence that most long term editors are frothing at the mouth would be a good start, evidence that the rollout of VE has had a significant impact on long term editor retention, either way, even evidence that WP is in rapid decline that is in any way related to VE, positively or negatively, Cheers, Peter - Original Message - From: Kevin Wayne Williams kwwilli...@kwwilliams.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**orgwikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 6:14 PM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor temporary opt-out Op 2013/08/06 9:07, Peter Southwood schreef: Do you have data to back up your claims? Peter What do you need? Evidence that Wikipedia has survived for years? Evidence that its decline is not so rapid as to indicate an emergency situation? Quotes from Erik where he states that he disrupted English Wikipedia in order to create a test bed? The first two are judgement calls, for the third there's an embarrassment of riches. Let me know what you need. KWW - Original Message - From: Kevin Wayne Williams kwwilli...@kwwilliams.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**orgwikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 4:51 PM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor temporary opt-out Op 2013/08/05 23:44, MZMcBride schreef: This leaves us to consider the biggest question: opt-in vs. opt-out. Erik and James are both quite smart, they are true Wikimedians, and they make reasonable points about choosing opt-out over opt-in. This is the point on which we fundamentally disagree. Their argument for 'opt-out' is based solely upon the quality and quantity of testing that it affords to VE. VE is not a mission-critical feature: while we have concerns about Wikipedia's sustainability, there's no question that it has survived for years and will survive for years more. The stability of the site is much more important than testing this code, and the testing strategy of presenting it as if it was functioning software and seeing what people did with it wasn't a reasonable decision: it was completely and absolutely irresponsible. KWW __**_ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/** mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor temporary opt-out
Histrionics is generally not a productive policy either. It gets tedious after a while. Cheers Peter - Original Message - From: The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2013 6:54 PM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor temporary opt-out This perspective is not a productive one for building and maintaining a community. You need to have a better way of granting legitimacy to people's concerns while being able to discern histrionics. Generally the optimal easy is to have there be a pathway by which the complainants have to fix the problem to the satisfaction of their strongest opposition. On Aug 6, 2013 1:04 PM, Peter Southwood peter.southw...@telkomsa.net wrote: To me it looks like a fairly small number of editors are making a fairly large amount of noise, A very small number making a disproportionately large amount, and a much larger number, probably the majority, have not even bothered to comment at all. I also have not analysed the numbers, but to me it looks like the numbers who have made one liner comments that they approve is probably the same order of magnitude as the number who protest incessantly. This is Wikipedia, there are always a small number who make a lot of noise. After a while fewer people take them seriously. I start to get the impression that there are now some people who have invested so much effort into making a big deal of this that they now feel obliged to make an even bigger deal so they can feel justified in doing so. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe the numbers do indicate a wdespread and deep seated sense of alienation. Maybe not. Time will probably tell, and hey, someone who is prepared to approach the analysis scientifcally may get a dissertation out of it. Stranger things have happened.. I also think the approach was flawed, but I appreciate the reasons and I am prepared to assume good faith. Cheers, Peter - Original Message - From: Kevin Wayne Williams kwwilli...@kwwilliams.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**orgwikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 9:02 PM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor temporary opt-out I've made no claim about most long-term editors, but any perusal of the two RFCs and the Feedback page would demonstrate that there's a fairly large group. Or are you arguing that deploying bug-ridden software that corrupts articles, hangs browsers, crashes unexpectedly, and doesn't have sufficient features to edit basic articles is somehow OK as long the site survives the disruption? Even if it can be shown that development knew that was the case prior to deployment, and chose to deploy it anyway? KWW Op 2013/08/06 10:54, Peter Southwood schreef: Evidence that most long term editors are frothing at the mouth would be a good start, evidence that the rollout of VE has had a significant impact on long term editor retention, either way, even evidence that WP is in rapid decline that is in any way related to VE, positively or negatively, Cheers, Peter - Original Message - From: Kevin Wayne Williams kwwilli...@kwwilliams.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**orgwikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 6:14 PM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor temporary opt-out Op 2013/08/06 9:07, Peter Southwood schreef: Do you have data to back up your claims? Peter What do you need? Evidence that Wikipedia has survived for years? Evidence that its decline is not so rapid as to indicate an emergency situation? Quotes from Erik where he states that he disrupted English Wikipedia in order to create a test bed? The first two are judgement calls, for the third there's an embarrassment of riches. Let me know what you need. KWW - Original Message - From: Kevin Wayne Williams kwwilli...@kwwilliams.com To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**orgwikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 4:51 PM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor temporary opt-out Op 2013/08/05 23:44, MZMcBride schreef: This leaves us to consider the biggest question: opt-in vs. opt-out. Erik and James are both quite smart, they are true Wikimedians, and they make reasonable points about choosing opt-out over opt-in. This is the point on which we fundamentally disagree. Their argument for 'opt-out' is based solely upon the quality and quantity of testing that it affords to VE. VE is not a mission-critical feature: while we have concerns about Wikipedia's sustainability, there's no question that it has survived for years and will survive for years more. The stability of the site is much more important than testing this code, and the testing strategy of presenting it as if it was functioning software and seeing what people did with it wasn't a reasonable decision: it was completely and
[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] This Month in GLAM: July 2013
*This Month in GLAM* is a monthly newsletter documenting recent happenings within the GLAM project, such as content donations, residencies, events and more. GLAM is an acronym of *G*alleries, *L*ibraries, *A*rchives and *M*useums. You can find more information on the project at glamwiki.org. *This Month in GLAM – Issue VII, Volume III – July 2013* -- Australia and New Zealand report: No letup from Libraries http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/July_2013/Contents/Australia_and_New_Zealand_report Italy report: Libraries! http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/July_2013/Contents/Italy_report Mexico report: Wiki Loves Monuments meeting in Mexico City; Volunteers of Puebla and Fotofestin gets in the contest http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/July_2013/Contents/Mexico_report Spain report: IPC Athletic World Championships http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/July_2013/Contents/Spain_report UK report: Art Nouveau Rosalind Franklin http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/July_2013/Contents/UK_report USA report: 20,000 high quality photographs for Art History enthusiasts http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/July_2013/Contents/USA_report Special story: An archive with many stories to tell http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/July_2013/Contents/Special_story Open Access report: Media Importer; File of the Day http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/July_2013/Contents/Open_Access_report Wiki Loves Monuments report: Wiki Loves Monuments is coming http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/July_2013/Contents/Wiki_Loves_Monuments_report Calendar: August's GLAM events http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/July_2013/Contents/Events -- Single page view http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/July_2013/Single Twitter http://twitter.com/ThisMonthinGLAM Work on the next edition http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter/Newsroom -- The *This Month in GLAM* team http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Newsletter ___ Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Updates from the WMF Grantmaking department
As for the FDC/annual plan grants, that would require for them to be recognised Wikimedia partner orgs in the new affiliation model, right? Nemo Unless I am mistaken, it would, yeah. I'm assuming that Anasuya is hoping that they would be able to achieve affcom recognition in their partnership grant funded period of operation so that they could apply for FDC funding going forward. Thanks for the question, Nemo (and for the response, Kevin). I think this is one of the issues I hope to work out with AffCom and others in the months to come - whether local organisations like CIS (in India) become recognised as Wikimedia partner organisations. My understanding was that the original premise in the affiliation model may have been to consider global organisations as partner organisations in this fashion, but we need to confirm how the model will work now that we have some real life examples. In any case, we'll make sure to figure out the appropriate way to establish the legitimacy and eligibility of orgaisations such as these so that they can apply to the FDC for annual plan funding going forward. Stay tuned. :-) Anasuya -- ***Anasuya Sengupta Senior Director of Grantmaking Wikimedia Foundation* * * Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! Support Wikimedia https://donate.wikimedia.org/ ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
