mobile device.
-- Forwarded message --
From: "Sarah"
Date: Mar 28, 2011 1:40 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Message to community about community decline
To: "Stephanie Daugherty"
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 21:49, Stephanie Daugherty
wrote:
> Actually because dupl
I am really not sure how many of them are clean starts and socks. Probably
not a lot, but I also doubt that the number is insignificant. Given privacy
policies and people deliberately covering their tracks when using a new
identity, we probably can only guess at real numbers.
Hazarding a guess I w
I think that somewhere along the way we lost sight of many of the qualities
that make the wiki model work.
There are certain patterns, which a wiki community needs to follow to be
successful - beyond assume good faith, there are principles such as forgive
and forget that are just as crucial to com
Oops. Wanted to comment that commits are essentially project edits - so
treat them as such.
Sent from my mobile device.
On Mar 20, 2011 1:08 PM, "Stephanie Daugherty" wrote:
> Sent from my mobile device.
> On Mar 20, 2011 1:07 PM, "Aryeh Gregor"
> wrote:
>&g
Sent from my mobile device.
On Mar 20, 2011 1:07 PM, "Aryeh Gregor"
wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Stephen Bain
wrote:
>> Sorry if I was unclear, I meant that the development community is
>> somewhat separate: people making modifications for non-Wikimedia
>> installs, non-Wikimedia ex
Funny, secret ballots are actually meant to discourage cabalism, voting for
favors and voter intimidation.
But yeah, with both lack of turnout and lack of information on candidates
they do tend to make things easy to manipulate. I really don't think that
going to an open ballot is right though bec
Sent from my mobile device.
On Mar 20, 2011 12:16 PM, "Fred Bauder" wrote:
> I don't think I voted, I seldom vote in any election. The reason is that
> I seldom know much about the candidates, and have no reliable way of
> finding out much. I could, together with others, seriously investigate
> wh
That was sortof the point behind proposed changes - some articles deserve
more scrutiny applied to edits.
However politics pretty much killed the idea on en.
On Mar 14, 2011 6:33 AM, "John Vandenberg" wrote:
>> Thoughts?
>
> The intention of this proposal, and this thread, is _not_ to improve
> o
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Of course we would expect that providers and universities will only be able
> to provide a limited number of users with access. But access rights could be
> awarded on the basis of merit, say, to users who have written at least one
> Featured
As far as academic journals go most people have some access and don't know
it. Most public libraries subscribe to one or more services, and a library
card is all they need for that access.
Any wmf sponsored access plan needs to keep this in mind and encourage
editors to use access they already hav
As far as I'm aware, as a long standing matter of practice, WMF sites
run the latest stable or development Mediawiki, as a matter of "eating
our own dog food". That implies that the notice was merely a courtesy
because the change was expected to cause downtime, rather than a point
of discussion. My
I think one thing that would help tremendously would be to decide on a
convention, be it subpages, or pseudo-namespaces, or a combination of the
two for grouping related content on meta and stick to it. When
a separate wiki is needed for technology demonstration, figure out (probably
through an ext
I would hope that in the future, the decision to make a separate wiki for
any "subproject" is not taken as lightly, given the concerns about
fragmenting discussions - it's much easier to track these things when they
are all in one place. :)
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Guillaume Paumier
wrote:
I think it would be more productive to import the usability content into
Meta, close down the usability wiki if it's served it's intended purpose,
and continue the discussion at meta.
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 6:35 AM, K. Peachey wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Amir E. Aharoni
> wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Matters_related_to_requests_for_adminship
is
probably a good starting point. There's a LOT and I do mean a LOT of
material.
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 8:04 PM, George Herbert wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Stephanie Daugherty
> wrote
any attempt to analyse the issue or progress meaningfully towards
improvements.
-Steph
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 7:32 PM, George Herbert wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Stephanie Daugherty
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 5:48 PM, masti wrote:
> >
> >>
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 5:48 PM, masti wrote:
> why should tht be decided on foundation level? Do you think communities
> are so broken that they cannot make their own decisions?
> This would be the only reason to start discussing enforcement of such
> major changes
>
I personally am not convin
Unfortunately, the various communities have demonstrated that any sort of
reform won't happen locally. Too many feathers would be ruffled, and too
many people think they benefit from the current power structure.
I do think that it's reasonable bringing it up at the foundation level, but
keep in mi
It wouldn't be all that hard. Elements are either "inline" or "block"
elements. Inline elements insert into the text flow, while text flows around
block elements. If we make the distinction as simple as that, and disallow
all methods of positioning other than that which is natively available in
wik
Really good points. I still advocate moving the possibility for these
"ugly" constructs to templates, so that we keep all the magic tricks
we have now, but lose the ability to make an article that is "write
only" by littering it with code that only the wikigods and the parser
itself could decypher.
Where there exists a clean elegent technical solution to a social
problem then it wasnt really a social problem to begin with.
Where it comes to something like ws maybe a tool to do an outline
grouping a large multiarticle document into a single coherent one is
whats really needed.
Any solution t
While i generally agree that its too much templates do have their
place. The interface for using a template needs to be easier (see all
the recent wysiwy* traffic), but used right they can even make the
text easier to edit.
The problem therefore is to make sure they are used right, and that
proble
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 8:28 PM, Rob Lanphier wrote:
> Let me riff on what you're saying here (partly just to confirm that I
> understand fully what you're saying). It'd be very cool to have the
> ability to declare a single article, or probably more helpfully, a
> single revision of an article
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 7:12 PM, George Herbert wrote:
> That is true - "We can't do away with Wikitext" always been the
> intermediate conclusion (in between "My god, we need to do something
> about this problem" and "This is hopeless, we give up again").
>
> Perhaps it's time to start some exerc
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 6:43 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 28 December 2010 16:54, Stephanie Daugherty
> wrote:
>
> > Not only is the current markup a barrier to participation, it's a barrier
> to
> > development. As I argued on Wikien-l, starting over with a markup
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> Stephanie writes:
> > Layouts would be a new form of template, designed to apply as a
> > block-level outline to an article, providing both a framework to build a
> > particular type of article, and defining the formatting for that article
>
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 11:43 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 28 December 2010 16:06, Victor Vasiliev wrote:
>
> > I have thought about WYSIWYG editor for Wikipedia and found it
> > technically impossible. The main and key problem of WYSIWIG are
> > templates. You have to understand that templates
Not only is the current markup a barrier to participation, it's a barrier to
development. As I argued on Wikien-l, starting over with a markup that can
be syntacticly validated, preferably one that is XML based would reap huge
rewards in the safety and effectiveness of automated tools - authors of
28 matches
Mail list logo
