It ssems like the a mouth of vandalism has changed and that this could
be the main reason why the a mouth of reverts has gone up. Previously
there was also a larger a mouth of smaller articles and then any edit is
a valid contribution. Now there is a larger number of bigger articles
and not every
My argument is that there is a lack of research on Wikipedia, Wikipedia as a
whole would benefit from research and indeed where the English Wikipedia's
growth is slowing down, there is plenty of room for growth elsewhere of
standard encyclopaedic information in the other projects. This in
1. What about our mirrors and forks and reusers; do they get the same
rights? How about users who want to download media dumps?
This is at least two different problems, one is reuse when the content
is free and the other is reuse when the content is free due to an
agreement. For the moment
I stumbled upon this too during discussions with institutions in Norway,
it seems like the number of times some material is accessed is a very
interesting selling point. It is although not necessary to store the
image any specific place for this, it is the actual statistics that is
interesting.
to us and in building a relationship.
Thanks,
Gerard
2009/8/13 John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no
I stumbled upon this too during discussions with institutions in Norway,
it seems like the number of times some material is accessed is a very
interesting selling point. It is although
The most enjoyable dialogue this morning.
Keep up the good work to both of you!
John =D
Mark Williamson wrote:
Ray, I appreciate your honesty. I'll agree with you that I was not a
very pleasant presence on the ML. Reading archives from, say, 2005
makes me cringe. I'm glad that people were not
Probably a separate wiki will isolate the content from the community and
make it less accessible for for other users.
John
Brian wrote:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Casey Brown li...@caseybrown.org wrote:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Brianbrian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
I recall
Finally, we can not ignore the potential benefits of large scale
contributions coming from specific communities, specially from
educational institutions at all levels. The potential applications of
Wikipedia to learning environments has been also a matter of research,
and some authors have
One thing I like with the stable versions is that it is possible to keep
one version stable while discussions about a future version goes on.
This makes it possible to have a discussion with the contributors about
how to solve a problem without reverting them, and to let them
experiment with the
I asked a source if they may grant us access to some statistics on users
behaviour within social media. The time series starts well before Nupedia.
John
Felipe Ortega wrote:
--- El vie, 24/7/09, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com escribió:
De: Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com
Asunto: Re:
Small wikis need a lot more administrative work per articles than larger
wikis. If there isn't any clear real reason then simply don't make a new
wiki.
John
phoebe ayers wrote:
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 7:42 AM, Eugene Eric Kimee...@blueoxen.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Samuel
Forget direct funding, its not practical. The interesting thing is, we
do have sales organization that is very important for
GLAM-institutions, and it is probably so interesting that a conflict
with us is simply to damaging. How do we turn this around to make it
even more interesting for them?
Norway
Andrew Turvey wrote:
Seems like a very useful service. Would the Foundation be interesting in
taking ownership of this URL? If so, would Blad be willing to give/sell it to
them? If so, could it be incorporated into a sidebar link similar to
permanent link?
- John at Darkstar vac
This is a wikipedian from Norway.
John Erling Blad
Wikimedia Norway
Chad wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 12:19 PM, Philippe
Beaudettepbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Jul 17, 2009, at 8:25 AM, Chad wrote:
Does anyone know the guy who owns enwp.org?
That being said, enwp.org/?oldid=1234
If we forget about politics and who-did-what, what is the common grounds
between us and them? To me it seems like they want us to use their
material, but that they are scared to let go of a possible income. This
seems fairly similar to the Galleri NOR -case.
Would it be possible for us to define
Sorry, I don't follow you on this one. If the existing business model
don't work and it should be changed, then work with them to change it
and make the alternate options viable.
John
David Gerard wrote:
2009/7/17 geni geni...@gmail.com:
Not really. Remember there are a bunch of other
,
GerardM
2009/7/15 John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no
At least the term base should be translated.
John
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi,
I have been in discussion with the Tropenmuseum in Amsterdam about making
their material available on Commons. The Tropenmuseum has an important
collection
I got an email from National Library in Norway and it has some
interesting points. My comments are after the bulleted points. The
bulleted points are my writeup from their comments, the original email
was in Norwegian. Hopefully it is understandable.. :D
* Backlinks to the museums themselves is
Is it possible to find some common grounds on why and how a
GLAM-organization should use Wikimedia Commons? Forget about troublesome
disputes with specific organizations. Why should they use us and is it
possible for us to tell them how to better utilize our services? What
are our services?
This is important; is it possible to get some kind of agreement with the
NPG and what will it cost us? Some museums are willing to support our
mission, but we can't just assume that they are in a possition to accept
every rip-off from their web sites and other publications.
John
Gerard
This was public as soon as it got posted on Wikimedia Commons.
The press notice is on our Signpost.
http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tinget#Brukere_p.C3.A5_Wikimedia_Commons_i_tvist_med_National_Portrait_Gallery
John
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/7/11 John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no:
I sent
Where the Norwegian chapter can be helpful is in letting us know how
such a thing might play out if we were concerned with pictures from
Norway's national gallery.
Ec
I guess you are speaking about GalleriNOR, which is a joint effort
between Nasjonalbiblioteket and Norsk Folkemuseum. Sorry
Wikimedia Norway have had a meeting with Meteorologisk Institutt
(http://met.no) in Norway about using the dataset published by the
institute. Today the dataset is used for the service Yr.no
(http://yr.no), a joint venture between them and Norwegian Broadcasting
Corporation (http://nrk.no). Met
A url for a medium without a clickable link is, well, not an optimum
solution. Obfuscated url isn't really any better, but it might be shorter.
John
Peter Gervai wrote:
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 01:32, John at Darkstarvac...@jeb.no wrote:
Minimum attribution of «Terms of Use» from Wikimdia
... the notion that it is a
small number of characters is based on the notion that the script will be
the Latin script.. Other scripts tend to show as the Unicode numbers..
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/7/3 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 5:32 PM, John at Darkstar vac
There is a solution, and it is rather puzzling. The license talks about
identification by an URI, and this can be defined several ways. We can
simply define an URI like Wikipedia:My article or perhaps cc:nn
where the last is some kind of digital resource identifier for works
licensed by
one message. Ooops...
John
John at Darkstar wrote:
It seems like the attribution scheme chosen does not support small
interactive devices and systems very Well. Are there anyone who have
given this any thoughts?
The problem is basically as the chunk of information shrinks the
attribution
Could there be some updates to
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update/Implementation as this
page says the roll-out will start at 15. June, while
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/translators-l/2009-June/000959.html
says new messages are to be rolled out as early as Monday, June 29. In
There are some posts about a new video solution, and even more posts
that ... err ... isn't quite correct, but without any official news
about it its impossible to tell the newspapers whats correct and whats not.
I especially like an article saying from Wikimedia Foundation who made
Wikipedia. I
It depends on how much a priori knowledge you have about the languages.
For the moment people tend to go into two camps, those who want to use
statistical engines and those who want to go for rule based engines.
According to one person there are some activity to include rules into
statistical
through the use of some tool, the tool gets no
part of the copyright, the person may get a part of the copyright for
the derived work but then he must do something in addition to running
the tool, unless the tool is so extremely difficult to use that running
it is sufficient.
John
John at Darkstar
There are two trends in machine translations; rule based translations
and statistical translations. Both have pros and cons. Rule based
translations seems to be possible to integrate with Wiktionary in such a
way that it can support Wikipedia. Statistical translations seems to be
possible to
Sorry for my english, its actually not a machine translation even if it
looks like that! ;p
John
John at Darkstar skrev:
There are two trends in machine translations; rule based translations
and statistical translations. Both have pros and cons. Rule based
translations seems to be possible
The link is about Google Translate, I'm not sure about the rumor.
Probably a rule based solution is the easiest to get up and running for
small wikis, while a statistical solution will work for larger wikis.
That will make the system work sufficiently well that users will build
upon the initial
Machine translations are not new work, neither derivatives, as it is
done by machines and not by humans.
Also Google will have a hard time claiming that because some
unidentified person added text or an url to a open service they now has
the right to do whatever they want with the text.
I guess
Discussing something as a general social concern is one thing, claiming
that it is a wmf legal issue is something different.
John
Michael Snow skrev:
John at Darkstar wrote:
Are the developers lawyers? A developer claiming something has an
unwanted privacy issue is very different from making
* clap - clap *
John
Peter Gervai skrev:
Hello,
I wasn't subscribed to this list, since I usually try to avoid the
politics around.
I was notified, however, that some interesting claims were made and
some steps taken (again) without any discussion whatsoever.
First, let me tell it
The strange thingh is, some such servers seems to be outside discussion
while others are not. ;)
John
Tisza Gergő skrev:
Nathan nawr...@... writes:
Others have since discussed more centralised and secure methods for
providing these statistics via the WMF - this is the ideal outcome, and one
You can make claims about what you yourself wants or believe, but do
*not* claim that your personal beliefs reflects legal issues for
Foundation. If Foundation needs to make claims about what is and whats
not a legal issue, then such claims should be made by Mike.
John
Brian skrev:
I also have
John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no
You can make claims about what you yourself wants or believe, but do
*not* claim that your personal beliefs reflects legal issues for
Foundation. If Foundation needs to make claims about what is and whats
not a legal issue, then such claims should be made by Mike
Alex skrev:
John at Darkstar wrote:
Hmm? There's no reason to do anything like that. The AbuseFilter would
just prevent sitewide JS pages from being saved with the particular URLs
or a particular code block in them. It'll stop the well-meaning but
misguided admins. Short of restricting site
We need tools to track user behavior inside Wikipedia. As it is now we
know nearly nothing at all about user behavior and nearly all people
saying anything about users at Wikipedia makes gross estimates and wild
guesses.
User privacy on Wikipedia is is close to a public hoax, pages are
transfered
Forgot a link to an article which describes very well privacy on
Wikipedia! ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes
John at Darkstar skrev:
We need tools to track user behavior inside Wikipedia. As it is now we
know nearly nothing at all about user behavior and nearly all
direct access to Wikipedia logs or the raw
traffic.
There is only one valid reason as I see it to avoid certain stat
engines, and that is to block advertising companies from getting
information about the readers. The writers does not have any real
anonymity at all.
John
Neil Harris skrev:
John
Not to mention, as
far as I know the program is proprietary.
This is an example of whats the real problem here; its not the security
issues but the users political issues.
I'm not convinced that
we need to be tracking user behavior at this point in time, or that
the tradeoffs for
One idea is the proposal to install the AbuseFilter in a global mode,
i.e. rules loaded at Meta that apply everywhere. If that were done
(and there are some arguments about whether it is a good idea), then
it could be used to block these types of URLs from being installed,
even by admins.
Is this enough? Of course not, there is so much more to learn.
Erik Zachte
There are a few very important missing items for the moment
* Number of unique visitors
* Number of page visits per visitors
All should be analyzed on user roles, possibly also on different time
spans (hour,
Hmm? There's no reason to do anything like that. The AbuseFilter would
just prevent sitewide JS pages from being saved with the particular URLs
or a particular code block in them. It'll stop the well-meaning but
misguided admins. Short of restricting site JS to the point of
uselessness,
To my knowledge the comparison is not published on www.vg.no, although
it is possible to buy it online.
This is the discussion at our signpost:
http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tinget#VG_tester_SNL_og_Wikipedia
There are two unofficial faximiles:
http://bayimg.com/image/laankaacf.jpg
No opinion means no opinion and should not be interpreted in any way,
the group represents an uncertainty in the result.
John
Erik Moeller skrev:
2009/5/20 Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com:
The licensing update poll has been tallied.
Yes, I am in favor of this change : 13242 (75.8%)
No, I am
Thats correct.
Thomas Dalton skrev:
2009/3/27 Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com:
And what is every other countries? I'm not a lawyer, but even if you
are, have you done a legal study of all the countries on earth,
because there are a lot.
He said every not any. that is not legal in
, it
is no universal accepted definitions of when this is done.
John
Chad skrev:
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 8:29 AM, John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no wrote:
As I see it, all problems comes from public or partly public logging
actions that are now in a private context.
When you press submit, you've
Thats Finns interpretation of this. Finn and some other users claims
that there are no such things as privacy concerns with the Abuse filter,
and claims they have a general consensus on the use of it. They even
claim that the local authority Datatilsynet would not have any opinion
on the matter
after provocations (aka the perpetrators
intentions), that is not legal in every other countries (eg quite few
countries).
As I see it, all problems comes from public or partly public logging
actions that are now in a private context.
Thomas Dalton skrev:
2009/3/25 John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no
Wikipedians should not be used to asses usabillity problems with
Wikipedia, this is rule number one if you want to get information about
why a newbie has problems with a system. A typical wikipedian is simply
not a valid newbie. Ten participants are not nearly enough, they can
only give you some
The abuse filter has some serious problems with logging of personal
information, what to log and why. There are also the problems associated
with the use of such a log, and who has access to it. In some
jurisdictions it may be legal to log and use such information for
arbitrary actions against the
The problem is that something that previously was public (vandal moving
the page George W. Bush to moron) will now be private (he get a
message that hi isn't allowed to do that), this shifts the context from
a public context to a private context. Then the extension do logging of
actions done in
and could also use *lots* of work on
increasing usability.
-- Hay
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:55 AM, John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no wrote:
Wikipedians should not be used to asses usabillity problems with
Wikipedia, this is rule number one if you want to get information about
why a newbie
Privacy _is_ about law, but the extension creates the privacy problem
and it must be solved.
John
Domas Mituzas skrev:
John,
There are a lot of other problems, but I think most of them are
minor to
this.
Well, this looks like lawyer thing then, not overall privacy policy
availability of this sort of data, and I can hardly see
Wikimedia being penalized simply for preventing vandalism instead of
reacting to it.
Nathan
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 8:35 AM, John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no wrote:
The problem is that something that previously was public (vandal
to change my role and consequently
get a different layout.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/3/25 John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no
One additional note, in Norway a lot of the newspapers used a layout
like Monobook (sort of) but has lately dismissed the solution in favor
of radically much simpler
I've seen some of the results from agile testing, it seems like they
have a tendency to lock in on specific suboptimal solution. What is an
acceptable solution on a given limited state.
John
Erik Moeller skrev:
2009/3/25 John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no:
Wikipedians should not be used to asses
Some options may be out of the question due to local law.
John
Erik Moeller skrev:
2009/3/7 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
I'm curious, why did you include options that aren't actually
available? No credit and credit to the community are clearly not in
keeping with the license, so
Please stop this.
John
Gerard Meijssen skrev:
Hoi,
My English is considered to be quite good. I have not learned any new words
and I do not mind to have an occassional word. For me this was excessive and
it stopped my reading and my interest.
Thanks,
Gerard
PS David, what was you
In Norway its covered in Lov om behandling av personopplysninger
(personopplysningsloven) §7; Forholdet til ytringsfriheten (Relation to
freedom of speech) [http://www.lovdata.no/all/tl-2414-031-001.html#7]
It is an exception for kunstneriske, litterære eller journalistiske,
herunder
In Norway it seems that neglecting to do something will not lead to any
real danger of legal actions, its phrased uforstand, but gross
neglectence, or grov uforstand could be punishable by law. An example
given is that if an admin is notified on email about specific child porn
in an article (that
If I'm not mistaken it should be possible to detect the presence of a
text which describe a person, and then include a link to a contact form
about BLP.
John
Nathan skrev:
Personally, I'd like to see a prominent Report a problem with this article
link or box only on BLPs for starters. We don't
skrev:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:17 AM, John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no wrote:
The release has been given a lot of press coverage, and some comparisons
between the encyclopedias has been done. Two of them, in Dagbladet[1]
and Dagsavisen[2], has concluded that Wikipedia is best. According
Well, quite a number of people (including me) do not agree with you on
that point.
Gerard Meijssen skrev:
Hoi,
Due credit is given. It is given to the extend that the amount of attention
and detail is unparalleled.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/2/26 John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no
Adding
Our national lexicon here in Norway, Store Norske Leksikon, went
online with its new free edition today. The new edition has user
contributed articles. The chief editor says some of the reason for the
new edition is the harsh competition from Wikipedia, especially
no.wikipedia.org which
would say that SNL
making a free online edition is a proof of our success more than a new
competitor. They have a lot to learn from us, we have a lot to learn from
them. And whoever is seeking free knowledge in Norwegian on the web will
have more alternatives.
Finn Rindahl
2009/2/25 John
The release has been given a lot of press coverage, and some comparisons
between the encyclopedias has been done. Two of them, in Dagbladet[1]
and Dagsavisen[2], has concluded that Wikipedia is best. According to
Aftenposten the new edition will cost Kunskapsforlaget and their owners
Aschehoug og
Then it is safe to assume that there is no special agreement between
Wikimedia Foundation and Nokia that gives the later any kind of special
rights?
John
Angela skrev:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 3:41 AM, John at Darkstar vac...@jeb.no wrote:
What is the present status on licensing of «Wikipedia
What is the present status on licensing of «Wikipedia» and exactly what
does the current agreement with Nokia cover? It seems like ZDNet
Australia and Angela Beesley isn't talking about quite the same, and I
would like an clarification.
If one supplier gets some kind of exclusive rights, for
74 matches
Mail list logo
