Philippe Beaudette wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 8:47 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
>
>> Is there a single staffer who's even thinking about any of them as
>> part of their work? I don't know of any. And, back to the original thought:
>> are there any Wikimedia initiatives to specifically (or "primaril
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Steven Walling
wrote:
>..
> Bah. My mistake. Sorry if that sounded confused, I was just reacting to the
> idea that there are any staff dedicated solely to English Wikipedia, which
> isn't true.
replace 'solely' with 'predominately' and, afaics, it becomes true.
T
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 8:47 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> Is there a single staffer who's even thinking about any of them as
> part of their work? I don't know of any. And, back to the original thought:
> are there any Wikimedia initiatives to specifically (or "primarily")
> improve
> any of these sist
On Sep 22, 2011 8:48 PM, "MZMcBride" wrote:
>
> Steven Walling wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 5:04 PM, John Vandenberg
wrote:
> >> I'm having a hard time remembering when a WMF led a project that had a
> >> primary stated objective to meet a need of a sister project. It would
> >> be good to
Steven Walling wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 5:04 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
>> I'm having a hard time remembering when a WMF led a project that had a
>> primary stated objective to meet a need of a sister project. It would
>> be good to compile a list of any WMF projects of this kind. maybe
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 5:04 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> I'm having a hard time remembering when a WMF led a project that had a
> primary stated objective to meet a need of a sister project. It would
> be good to compile a list of any WMF projects of this kind. maybe the
> WMF can have _one_ "
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 5:02 AM, Tom Morris wrote:
> I'm not sure this analysis is correct. A lot of people now don't get news by
> going directly to the site but on social media platforms like Twitter and
> Facebook. Of course, for that to work, we need to publish stories quickly.
>
> When stori
On 22/09/11 14:53, Michael Peel wrote:
>
>> From: Nikola Smolenski
>> On 22/09/11 10:12, Andrea Zanni wrote:
>>> when Sue presented us the Strategic Plan and Wikipedia was all over the
>>> pages,
>>> but none of the sister projects.
>>
>> I have to say, whenever I make a presentation of Wikimedia a
> From: Nikola Smolenski
> On 22/09/11 10:12, Andrea Zanni wrote:
>> when Sue presented us the Strategic Plan and Wikipedia was all over the
>> pages,
>> but none of the sister projects.
>
> I have to say, whenever I make a presentation of Wikimedia and mention
> sister projects, all I get is b
2011/9/22 Nikola Smolenski
> On 22/09/11 10:12, Andrea Zanni wrote:
> > when Sue presented us the Strategic Plan and Wikipedia was all over the
> > pages, but none of the sister projects.
>
> I have to say, whenever I make a presentation of Wikimedia and mention
> sister projects, all I get is bl
On Wednesday, September 21, 2011, Sage Ross wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 6:35 PM, MZMcBride >
> wrote:
> >
> > Sage Ross once discussed with me the idea of having Wikinews be foremost
> a
> > source of news about the Internet. It could report on news and goings-on
> on
> > various Web sites.
On 22/09/11 10:12, Andrea Zanni wrote:
> when Sue presented us the Strategic Plan and Wikipedia was all over the
> pages,
> but none of the sister projects.
I have to say, whenever I make a presentation of Wikimedia and mention
sister projects, all I get is blank stares. It really makes sense to
2011/9/22 John Vandenberg
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Mike Dupont
> > wrote:
> >> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:57 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> >>
> >>> From Wikimedia's perspective, I think this is "one down, several
> hundred to go."
>
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Mike Dupont
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:57 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
>>
>>> From Wikimedia's perspective, I think this is "one down, several hundred to
>>> go."
>>> Wikimedia has made it clear that i
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 6:35 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
>
> Sage Ross once discussed with me the idea of having Wikinews be foremost a
> source of news about the Internet. It could report on news and goings-on on
> various Web sites. The idea made the idea of Wikinews almost seem redeemable
> to me, th
Samuel Klein wrote:
> Not speaking on behalf of the Foundation, but repeating what Erik said
> earlier and pointing to our five-year plan, the WMF is prioritizing
> community-driven innovation as one of its core targets for support.
Wikimedia has made the English Wikipedia its primary focus. The q
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Mike Dupont
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:57 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
>
>> From Wikimedia's perspective, I think this is "one down, several hundred to
>> go."
>> Wikimedia has made it clear that its singular focus is the English Wikipedia.
>> All other Wikipe
Hoi,
With the strategic plan it is clear and obvious that the WMF intends to
expand. It is clear that India and Brazil get serious attention. With the
creation of the "localisation team" there is now substantial attention for
language issues and language technology. This will make the technologica
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:57 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
>
> From Wikimedia's perspective, I think this is "one down, several hundred to
> go." Wikimedia has made it clear that its singular focus is the English
> Wikipedia. All other Wikipedias are peripheral; all other project types are
> abandoned. P
On 09/12/11 3:45 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> The only other project in a similar situation is
> Wikispecies, where any data on species at least conceptually is
> welcome in a Wikipedia article on the topic.
>
This all makes Wikispecies the perfect fork. Its contents largely
overlap the relevant Wi
Hello Andrew,
These are very fine ideas indeed. I have always found the 'breaking
news' stories on Wikinews to be among its least interesting content,
for all of the reasons you note.
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Andrew Lih wrote:
> Hi all, reading this thread with much interest. Lots of
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Phil Nash
> wrote:
>> Sue Gardner wrote:
>>> On 12 September 2011 18:15, geni wrote:
On 12 September 2011 23:45, Samuel Klein wrote:
> Now: what do we need to do to make Wikinews better and more
> useful? What are the c
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 2:06 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:
> >
> > 1) WikiLove has been enabled on Swedish, Malayalam, Hungarian, Hebrew,
> > Arabic, and Hindi Wikipedia, as well as Commons, all on request of the
> > respective project communities.
> >
> >
> Uh oh - criticism time...
>
> WikiLove was
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Phil Nash wrote:
> Sue Gardner wrote:
>> On 12 September 2011 18:15, geni wrote:
>>> On 12 September 2011 23:45, Samuel Klein wrote:
Now: what do we need to do to make Wikinews better and more useful?
What are the costs and technical or other work invol
I guess it was time for a bold move.
~K
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Tempodivalse wrote:
> On 12 September 2011 21:02, David Gerard wrote:
>
>> Any comment from the Wikinews contributors who just posted to
>> foundation-l saying everything was fine and people saying it wasn't
>> were clue
Hi all, reading this thread with much interest. Lots of ideas on this,
in bullet points:
- As a journalism professor, I've followed (and debated) Wikinews
since its very start. I say this not to claim authority, but simply to
say it has been something I've pondered continually for six years now.
S
On 12 September 2011 21:02, David Gerard wrote:
> Any comment from the Wikinews contributors who just posted to
> foundation-l saying everything was fine and people saying it wasn't
> were clueless?
Several Wikinews regulars have made comments about the fork on wikinews-l, if
anyone wants t
On 13 September 2011 00:04, MZMcBride wrote:
> Wikimedia indisputably now exists to serve the English Wikipedia. Wikimedia
> is quick to call Sue "Wikipedia Executive Director," isn't it? Or plaster
> "Wikipedia founder" on every fundraiser-related publication? Out of the last
> X extensions enabl
-------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 10:36:54 +1000
> From: Stephen Bain
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A Wikimedia project has forked
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
>
> Message-ID:
MZMcBride, 13/09/2011 00:24:
> Wikimedia has made its decision and the community has largely sat quiet on
> the issue.
Rectius: the Wikimedia Foundation (as you say below). Other Wikimedia
people, groups and organizations don't think so and are even accused not
to have the "legitimacy" (!) to in
M. Williamson, 13/09/2011 00:13:
> English Wikiquote, which I've always considered to be one of our most
> pointless and least useful projects, has a total of 5 users who make more
> than 100 edits a month. This is a project in English, our highest-traffic
> language, that has been open since 2003.
Erik Moeller, 13/09/2011 03:55:
> That's of course a risky project and it may not live up to our
> expectations. But it's IMO a smarter bet to make than just picking
> (with an unavoidable element of arbitrariness) one of the many
> specialized areas in which we currently aren't succeeding and thro
>
> 1) WikiLove has been enabled on Swedish, Malayalam, Hungarian, Hebrew,
> Arabic, and Hindi Wikipedia, as well as Commons, all on request of the
> respective project communities.
>
>
Uh oh - criticism time...
WikiLove was developed supposedly to address one of the major problems of
English Wiki
> Sounds interesting. It is certainly true that wikinews was never as
> successful as we had hoped. Perhaps this new project will manage more. Good
> luck!
It's better IMHO without "What do you think of this page?" and page for
comments.
Powered by Semantic MediaWiki, hmm.
cc-by-30 - yeah! Next
Sue Gardner wrote:
> On 12 September 2011 18:15, geni wrote:
>> On 12 September 2011 23:45, Samuel Klein wrote:
>>> Now: what do we need to do to make Wikinews better and more useful?
>>> What are the costs and technical or other work involved?
>>
>> Very little. Mostly wikinews is misstargeted.
On 12 September 2011 18:15, geni wrote:
> On 12 September 2011 23:45, Samuel Klein wrote:
>> Now: what do we need to do to make Wikinews better and more useful?
>> What are the costs and technical or other work involved?
>
> Very little. Mostly wikinews is misstargeted. Yet another website
> rewr
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 5:26 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> My point is that without specific focus, these
> other sites languish and slowly die. A software package that was built for
> an encyclopedia can't work for a dictionary. It doesn't work for a
> dictionary. It also can't and doesn't work for a nu
On 12 September 2011 23:45, Samuel Klein wrote:
> Now: what do we need to do to make Wikinews better and more useful?
> What are the costs and technical or other work involved?
Very little. Mostly wikinews is misstargeted. Yet another website
rewriting AP reports is never going to draw crowds. Wi
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
>
> I would characterize WMF's prioritization as an "A rising tide lifts
> all boats" policy. Improvements are generally conceived to be widely
> usable, both in Wikimedia projects and even outside the Wikimedia
> environment, and to have the la
Erik Moeller wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 3:24 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
>> The current reality is that nearly any
>> project besides the English Wikipedia has almost no technical support.
>
> That's a misunderstanding of what's happening.
>
> I would characterize WMF's prioritization as an "A ri
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 4:45 PM, K. Peachey wrote:
> Ahem, The first of those were Hindi, and that was basically only after
> a B# fight in the bug report that there shouldn't be any restriction
> to installing it on the non en.wikipedia project
With any feature there are normal considerations ab
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
>
> But let's take other completed extensions as examples.
>
> 1) WikiLove has been enabled on Swedish, Malayalam, Hungarian, Hebrew,
> Arabic, and Hindi Wikipedia, as well as Commons, all on request of the
> respective project communities.
Ahem
> For starters, they weren't happy with the server maintenance by WMF. They
> couldn't get essential components deployed for 2 years or so.
for every wikinews pageview there're 1600 english wikipedia pageviews.
oh, and 60% of wikinews pageviews come from bots (wikipedias are at around 10%
bot t
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 3:24 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> The current reality is that nearly any
> project besides the English Wikipedia has almost no technical support.
That's a misunderstanding of what's happening.
I would characterize WMF's prioritization as an "A rising tide lifts
all boats" polic
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 7:04 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
>
>
>
> Wikimedia indisputably now exists to serve the English Wikipedia. Wikimedia
> is quick to call Sue "Wikipedia Executive Director," isn't it? Or plaster
> "Wikipedia founder" on every fundraiser-related publication?
> Thanks for volunteerin
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 8:24 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
>
> Wikimedia has made its decision and the community has largely sat quiet on
> the issue. Wikimedia has made it clear in promotional materials, donation
> drives, and nearly anywhere else that its focus is the English Wikipedia.
Wikinews never h
Samuel Klein wrote:
> MZM, you are confused in this thread - Wikimedia doesn't exist to serve
> EN:WP, or to serve its most popular *current* project, it exists to support
> the global dissemination of all sorts of knowledge, and collaboration to
> create that knowledge.
You're on the Board still,
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 03:50:55PM -0500, Tempodivalse wrote:
> Greetings everyone,
Heya Tempodivalse,
I understand that a lot of this fork is due to personality
conflicts, rather than with WMF itself? That's be a bit of a
to know WMF weren't the folks causing the trouble.
How can we help both
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 03:50:55PM -0500, Tempodivalse wrote:
> Greetings everyone,
>
> I thought the Wikimedia community should know that a large
> portion of WIkinews' contributor base has forked into its own
> project (http://theopenglobe.org) after becoming deeply
> dissatisfied with Wikinews.
I speak from the perspective of an administrator in the Spanish edition. The
fact that today Wikinews is not sufficiently relevantly, does not mean that
in the future will be equal. The project has unique values and
possibilities in the future may be successful.
It is true that even within the s
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Tempodivalse wrote:
> I thought the Wikimedia community should know that a large portion of
> WIkinews' contributor base has forked into its own project
> (http://theopenglobe.org) after becoming deeply dissatisfied with Wikinews.
> The new wiki has finished it
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Tempodivalse wrote:
> Greetings everyone,
>
> I thought the Wikimedia community should know that a large portion of
> WIkinews' contributor base has forked into its own project
> (http://theopenglobe.org) after becoming deeply dissatisfied with Wikinews.
> The n
David Gerard wrote:
> Wikinews is still recoverable. But what it's been doing so far clearly
> failed. What can they do that would work? Open it up further?
Sage Ross once discussed with me the idea of having Wikinews be foremost a
source of news about the Internet. It could report on news and goi
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:08:10PM +0100, David Gerard wrote:
>
> Considering Wikinews was started and pushed heavily by Erik Moller
> (early on he was personally bailing people up at wikimeets to get
> them to contribute to it), I suggest your analysis is on
> crack^W^W^Whypothesises too much cau
David Gerard wrote:
> On 12 September 2011 22:57, MZMcBride wrote:
>> From Wikimedia's perspective, I think this is "one down, several hundred to
>> go." Wikimedia has made it clear that its singular focus is the English
>> Wikipedia. All other Wikipedias are peripheral; all other project types ar
I can't speak for the entire Wikinews community, but a lot of it was the
lack of technical assistance. There was one major item which Wikinews
_really_ need to be even remotely useful and it was very difficult to get
any help at all. Eventually the community wrote the extension themselves
but cou
On 12 September 2011 23:17, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On Sep 12, 2011 11:10 PM, "Thomas Morton"
> wrote:
>> It's a tiny bit disappointing that the tone here is "oh well, we tried and
>> failed".
>> When really it should be "cool - now we have a competitor, what do we need
>> to give WN to help them
>
> We've failed. Maybe someone else will do better. If they do, our goal will
> still be achieved.
Well that's exactly the problem :)
This should be a last gasp kick up the backside.. not a shrug of the
shoulders.
Just saying.
Tom
___
foundation-l
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 03:13:51PM -0700, M. Williamson wrote:
> It's worth noting that several of the other English language
> projects suffer similar levels of inactivity.
Well yeah, first let them wither on the vine, then declare them useless
when they're almost dead.
Then congratulate everyo
I am seeing a lot of "lack of support from WMF for these smaller
projects" but not being a smaller projects editor I don't know what
specific issues there are.
Can someone up on the situation send out more specifics?
Thank you.
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 3:13 PM, M. Williamson wrote:
> It's worth
On Sep 12, 2011 11:10 PM, "Thomas Morton"
wrote:
>
> It's a tiny bit disappointing that the tone here is "oh well, we tried and
> failed".
>
> When really it should be "cool - now we have a competitor, what do we need
> to give WN to help them stay in the market"
In what way are we competing? Our
Interesting link, but a bit focused on software. No mention to content
communities.
Wiki[pm]edia suffered other forks previously, like Enciclopedia Libre.
2011/9/12 Jon Davis
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_fork#Forking_free_and_open_source_software
>
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 14:32,
It's worth noting that several of the other English language projects suffer
similar levels of inactivity.
English Wikiquote, which I've always considered to be one of our most
pointless and least useful projects, has a total of 5 users who make more
than 100 edits a month. This is a project in En
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 05:59:34PM -0400, Chris Lee wrote:
> I didn't mean what is a fork, or how to fork etc...
>
> I meant more along the lines of the difference in scope, guidelines. Why did
> they break off?
For starters, they weren't happy with the server maintenance by WMF. They
couldn't ge
It's a tiny bit disappointing that the tone here is "oh well, we tried and
failed".
When really it should be "cool - now we have a competitor, what do we need
to give WN to help them stay in the market"
Tom
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lis
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 05:57:37PM -0400, MZMcBride wrote:
> Tempodivalse wrote:
>
> It's a great injustice to countless contributors that they receive support
> in name only (as "one of Wikipedia's sister sites" in a handful of
> publications), but it's indisputably the reality. A classic example
Sounds interesting. It is certainly true that wikinews was never as
successful as we had hoped. Perhaps this new project will manage more. Good
luck!
On Sep 12, 2011 9:51 PM, "Tempodivalse" wrote:
> Greetings everyone,
>
> I thought the Wikimedia community should know that a large portion of
WIkin
On 12 September 2011 22:57, MZMcBride wrote:
> From Wikimedia's perspective, I think this is "one down, several hundred to
> go." Wikimedia has made it clear that its singular focus is the English
> Wikipedia. All other Wikipedias are peripheral; all other project types are
> abandoned. Perhaps w
I didn't mean what is a fork, or how to fork etc...
I meant more along the lines of the difference in scope, guidelines. Why did
they break off?
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Jon Davis wrote:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_fork#Forking_free_and_open_source_software
>
> On Mon, Sep
I do believe it means exactly that.
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Special:ActiveUsers includes all users with at
least 1 edit in the last 30 days; that seems like a really low threshold
though. I took the liberty of collecting some data based on that page:
- 23 users with at least 30 edits in the l
Tempodivalse wrote:
> I thought the Wikimedia community should know that a large portion of
> Wikinews' contributor base has forked into its own project
> (http://theopenglobe.org) after becoming deeply dissatisfied with Wikinews.
> The new wiki has finished its creation stage and is about ready to
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Kirill Lokshin
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Tempodivalse wrote:
>
>> At least nine users have pledged to support this fork, and several others
>> (including non-WN Wikimedians) are interested - more than there are active
>> remaining Wikinews contribut
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Tempodivalse wrote:
> At least nine users have pledged to support this fork, and several others
> (including non-WN Wikimedians) are interested - more than there are active
> remaining Wikinews contributors.
Wait, does this mean that Wikinews had fewer than twent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_fork#Forking_free_and_open_source_software
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 14:32, Chris Lee wrote:
> Not interested in all the details, but does anyone know how is this
> different from wikinews?
> ___
> foundation-l maili
Not interested in all the details, but does anyone know how is this
different from wikinews?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Tempodivalse wrote:
> I thought the Wikimedia community should know that a large portion
> of WIkinews' contributor base has forked into its own project
> (http://theopenglobe.org)
Congratulations to the successful launch of the fork and good luck!
Hopefully this
On 12 September 2011 21:50, Tempodivalse wrote:
> I thought the Wikimedia community should know that a large portion of
> WIkinews' contributor base has forked into its own project
> (http://theopenglobe.org) after becoming deeply dissatisfied with Wikinews.
> The new wiki has finished its cre
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 03:50:55PM -0500, Tempodivalse wrote:
> Greetings everyone,
>
> I thought the Wikimedia community should know that a large portion of
> WIkinews' contributor base has forked into its own project
> (http://theopenglobe.org) after becoming deeply dissatisfied with Wikinews.
Greetings everyone,
I thought the Wikimedia community should know that a large portion of WIkinews'
contributor base has forked into its own project (http://theopenglobe.org)
after becoming deeply dissatisfied with Wikinews. The new wiki has finished its
creation stage and is about ready to pub
79 matches
Mail list logo
