A tool which pops up asking for a URL, author and date would be a rich
source of bad references. We should rather be looking at ways to get
references to books and journal articles. Web references should be
the exception rather than the rule, because the vast majority of
websites are not WP:RS.
On 2 November 2011 21:43, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Stephen Bain
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 2:30 AM, Dominic McDevitt-Parks
> > wrote:
> >> While I am impressed by everyone's ability to turn this into yet another
> >> discussion of the image filter,
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Stephen Bain wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 2:30 AM, Dominic McDevitt-Parks
> wrote:
>> While I am impressed by everyone's ability to turn this into yet another
>> discussion of the image filter, how about if we don't do that just this
>> once? :-)
>
> Yes, this i
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Kul Wadhwa wrote:
> 2) A conspiracy to push Wikipedia at the expense of the sister projects
>
> In regards to #1, although I'm somewhat aware of the discussions
> around the image filter, this is not affecting how we are approaching
> this Initiative. Not at all.
"a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all
knowledge"
Of course it's for any Wikimedia project, Dominic. We are talking about free
knowledge. And Wikimedia Foundation, in all activities, all, have one thing in
common: free the knowledge. Make a world with ever
Dominic McDevitt-Parks wrote:
> On 2 November 2011 13:54, Kul Wadhwa wrote:
>> 2) A conspiracy to push Wikipedia at the expense of the sister projects
>>
>>
>> In regards to #2, there is no conspiracy here. We've been quite open
>> about this. Yes, there is more of an emphasis on Wikipedia but i
Loving these discussions about newbie recuitment.
This tool have to be available for everyone, not as a gagdet for logged users.
Mostly newbies don't even know what is a gagdet. This have to be available to
IPs and all users.
The idea by clicking in ''citation needed'' was the first great one h
4:59 PST, sorry. It's been a very, very long day.
On 2 November 2011 18:45, Oliver Keyes wrote:
> So, to correct then - 23:59 UTC, which is 23:59 GMT and 4:59 UTC :P.
>
>
> On 2 November 2011 14:31, Oliver Keyes wrote:
>
>> Duly noted ;p.
>>
>>
>> On 2 November 2011 04:34, Theo10011 wrote:
>>
I expanded the WP:QUICKREF page to discuss available tools. While
ProveIT (created by Georgia Tech) is a gadget that is available to all
logged in users in Preferences -> Gadgets, it's not available to
others, new users are unlikely to know about it, and it doesn't add
prompts to add a reference in
On 2 November 2011 21:41, Nathan wrote:
> I knew it looked so obvious someone must've already tried to do it.
> See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ProveIt.jpg and
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ProveIt_GT. This is a GUI reference
> adding interface that shows up while editing (i.e., afte
In reference to people wanting to be nicer to newbies, (and next to the obvious
step of us really needing
to make it more frelling obvious that YES YOU CAN EDIT)
... that doesn't help much if the entire community has come down with adminitis
and kicks anyone who
tries to edit out of the wiki an
I knew it looked so obvious someone must've already tried to do it.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ProveIt.jpg and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ProveIt_GT. This is a GUI reference
adding interface that shows up while editing (i.e., after you click
"edit this page.") It's a gadget curre
On 2 November 2011 21:28, Nathan wrote:
> To explain what I mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:QUICKREF
YES. We need this horribly urgently.
It should also pop up when someone clicks on a "[citation needed]" tag
- that's a blue link that looks like a direct invitation, after all.
-
To explain what I mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:QUICKREF
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Nathan wrote:
> A button or link that says "Add a reference?" that brings up a box
> with several lines, labelled "URL" "Source" "Author" "Date". Click
> "Ok" and the reference is inserted, no
On 2 November 2011 13:54, Kul Wadhwa wrote:
>
> 2) A conspiracy to push Wikipedia at the expense of the sister projects
>
>
> In regards to #2, there is no conspiracy here. We've been quite open
> about this. Yes, there is more of an emphasis on Wikipedia but it goes
> back to WMF's prioritizatio
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 02:08:24PM +0100, Svip wrote:
> On 31 October 2011 12:55, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
>
> > What's the impact of changes like
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Tagline&diff=20130615&oldid=17050524
> > ?
>
> Thank you for that, that was hilarious to
A button or link that says "Add a reference?" that brings up a box
with several lines, labelled "URL" "Source" "Author" "Date". Click
"Ok" and the reference is inserted, no ref syntax or other ugly
interface necessary.
Put it automatically at the end of a paragraph or somewhere else,
maybe even in
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/wikipedia_is_a_mess_wikipedians_say_1_in_20_articl.php
Now, we have a lot of work to do, it's obviously encyclopedic and it
would be hard to get really wrong.
What needs to be in place to make it possible to recruit newbies for
the task of referencing things?
So, to correct then - 23:59 UTC, which is 23:59 GMT and 4:59 UTC :P.
On 2 November 2011 14:31, Oliver Keyes wrote:
> Duly noted ;p.
>
>
> On 2 November 2011 04:34, Theo10011 wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 12:45 AM, Oliver Keyes
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hey guys
>> >
>> > Brandon, Howie, Fabrice a
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 7:14 AM, Möller, Carsten wrote:
> The changes of the terms is another one. The German version was published
> at the end of the discussion on meta.
Sorry if there wasn't wider announcement about it, but even though the
terms propose only 30 days to comment, there's been n
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Stephen Bain wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 2:30 AM, Dominic McDevitt-Parks
> wrote:
>> While I am impressed by everyone's ability to turn this into yet another
>> discussion of the image filter, how about if we don't do that just this
>> once? :-)
>
> Yes, this
On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 2:30 AM, Dominic McDevitt-Parks
wrote:
> While I am impressed by everyone's ability to turn this into yet another
> discussion of the image filter, how about if we don't do that just this
> once? :-)
Yes, this is a WMF-killing-the-other-projects conspiracy thread, not
an im
Dominic McDevitt-Parks, 02/11/2011 16:30:
> But the Foundation often fails to act as if the other projects
> are actually essential in fulfilling its mission, and is notoriously bad at
> ever characterizing them as essential or trying to make them feel that way.
Unless that "as if" is a variation
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> On 02/11/2011 6:36 AM, m...@marcusbuck.org wrote:
>> Wait am moment... Wikipedia Zero is an extension to Wikipedia that
>> filters out images? And not even some of them on a totally voluntary
>> base but all of them for everybody? I guess
2011/11/2 Dominic McDevitt-Parks :
> On 2 November 2011 00:40, Yann Forget wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Indeed, you are right. This is a great addition to Commons.
>> I am going through it now, and I have questions.
>>
>> In some cases, I found that there are better quality images than the
>> ones we
While I am impressed by everyone's ability to turn this into yet another
discussion of the image filter, how about if we don't do that just this
once? :-) This is the blog post that the WMF published regarding the
development: <
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/10/26/wikipedia-seeks-global-operator-p
Duly noted ;p.
On 2 November 2011 04:34, Theo10011 wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 12:45 AM, Oliver Keyes
> wrote:
>
> > Hey guys
> >
> > Brandon, Howie, Fabrice and I will be holding a second Office Hours
> session
> > on the new Article Feedback Tool on Thursday 3 November. This will be at
>
> On 10/29/11 12:40 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> There have been LOADS of opportunities where the community
> is asked, begged to be involved in what will be the way forward. The most
> obvious opportunity has been the Strategy project. At this time the
> Wikimedia Foundation is looking for all
>
> *Seriously, who here, at the first time editing Wikipedia, read the
> policy BEFORE editing a lot?
> *
/me raise her hand! o/
I read all the links in this {{welcome}} template BEFORE edit:
http://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Predefini%C3%A7%C3%A3o:Bem-vindo%28a%29&oldid=6812887(version
On 2 November 2011 00:40, Yann Forget wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Indeed, you are right. This is a great addition to Commons.
> I am going through it now, and I have questions.
>
> In some cases, I found that there are better quality images than the
> ones we have.
> Where do they come from?
>
> http://c
The learning of the new editors have to be more instinctive and less
bureaucratic. Seriously, who here, at the first time editing Wikipedia, read
the policy BEFORE editing a lot? None. Everyone just reads the rules a long
time after the beggining of Wikipedian life.
I think a system like used i
On 2 November 2011 12:11, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> Well, you'll hear no such thing from me (and I'm arguably one of the
> more verbal opponents of the image filter as originally proposed). This
> neatly sidestep all of the fatal flaws with filters where moral
> judgments are imposed, or our we
On 02/11/2011 6:36 AM, m...@marcusbuck.org wrote:
> Wait am moment... Wikipedia Zero is an extension to Wikipedia that
> filters out images? And not even some of them on a totally voluntary
> base but all of them for everybody? I guess I better shut down my
> e-mail account to prevent the flood of
Wait am moment... Wikipedia Zero is an extension to Wikipedia that
filters out images? And not even some of them on a totally voluntary
base but all of them for everybody? I guess I better shut down my
e-mail account to prevent the flood of angry mailing list posts from
the censorship theor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-10-31/Technology_report
Wikimedia proposes Wikipedia Zero
Aaahh. I know that it is the flagship, however, it
becomes a
self-fulfilling philosophy that nothing else exists at WMF when _WMF_ cannot
even se
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 12:43 AM, Béria Lima wrote:
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cite4wiki/ (in wiki:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cite4Wiki )
>
> right click and paste in the article. Easier than that can't be ;)
There are a lot of tools available to make the life
On 10/29/11 12:40 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> There have been LOADS of opportunities where the community is asked, begged
> to be involved in what will be the way forward. The most obvious
> opportunity has been the Strategy project. At this time the Wikimedia
> Foundation is looking for all sorts
37 matches
Mail list logo
