I am rather disturbed at the discussion on meta here:-
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Simple_English_(2)_Wikipedia
about closing this project and I am surpried that the issue has not come
up here. While the consensus is clearly against closure, so it like
I see no '100 edits at meta' restriction. Am I missing something?
- Chris
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 11:27 PM, Brian Salter-Duke
wrote:
> I am rather disturbed at the discussion on meta here:-
>
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Simple_English_(2)_Wikipedi
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Brian Salter-Duke
wrote:
> I am particularly
> concerned about the suggestion that only meta regulars (with more than
> 100 edits there) can contribute.
That's not in the policy, where do you see that?
--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023
---
Note: This e-mail address is
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Casey Brown wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Brian Salter-Duke
> wrote:
> > I am particularly
> > concerned about the suggestion that only meta regulars (with more than
> > 100 edits there) can contribute.
>
> That's not in the policy, where do you see t
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Al Tally wrote:
> I think the idea that to vote or whatever, you need 100 edits on *any*
> project, was brought up.
>
That's a valid point, including a link to your home-wiki or a wiki
that satisfies the requirements.
--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023
---
Note: This e
2009/2/22 Brian Salter-Duke :
> I am rather disturbed at the discussion on meta here:-
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Simple_English_(2)_Wikipedia
>
> about closing this project and I am surpried that the issue has not come
> up here. While the consensu
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 23:31:47 +, Chris Down
wrote:
> I see no '100 edits at meta' restriction. Am I missing something?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proposals_for_closing_projects%2FClosure_of_Simple_English_(2)_Wikipedia&diff=1400782&oldid=1400771
and
http://meta.wikimedia.or
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:57 AM, Brian Salter-Duke
wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 23:31:47 +, Chris Down <
> neuro.wikipe...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > I see no '100 edits at meta' restriction. Am I missing something?
>
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proposals_for_closing_proje
That says a WMF project, not Meta. Unless, of course, I'm missing something,
which is entirely possible.
- Chris
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:57 AM, Brian Salter-Duke
wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 23:31:47 +, Chris Down <
> neuro.wikipe...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > I see no '100 edits at meta'
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 18:56:54 -0500, Casey Brown wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Al Tally wrote:
>> I think the idea that to vote or whatever, you need 100 edits on *any*
>> project, was brought up.
>>
>
> That's a valid point, including a link to your home-wiki or a wiki
> that satisfie
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 00:16:32 +, Thomas Dalton
wrote:
> 2009/2/22 Brian Salter-Duke :
>> I am rather disturbed at the discussion on meta here:-
>>
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Simple_English_(2)_Wikipedia
>>
>> about closing this project and I am
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> The discussion has to
> take place somewhere, meta seems the best option (the only obvious
> alternative is to have closure discussions on the project in question,
> but that would most likely result in few people from other projects
> being
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 01:03:12 +, Al Tally
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:57 AM, Brian Salter-Duke
>wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 23:31:47 +, Chris Down <
>> neuro.wikipe...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> > I see no '100 edits at meta' restriction. Am I missing something?
>>
>>
>> http://
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Brian Salter-Duke
wrote:
> Yes, I missed the point about "any" project. However how is a user from
> Simple who hears about the closure of their project to know that when
> they go there to give their opinion, they have to prove their standing
> in the community? I
Brian,
It is usually the responsibility of the proposer to notify the
community. I am very surprised that no one did.
Very early on I have asked the proposer to join the community and help
fix the problems, and later again asked them to go back to the
beginning to the original proposal of wikiped
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 09:36:52PM -0500, Casey Brown wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Brian Salter-Duke
> wrote:
> > Yes, I missed the point about "any" project. However how is a user from
> > Simple who hears about the closure of their project to know that when
> > they go there to give
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:05:43PM +0800, H wrote:
> Brian,
> It is usually the responsibility of the proposer to notify the
> community. I am very surprised that no one did.
They notified the simple community but did not mention that you had to
"prove" yourslef before commenting.
> Very early
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Brian Salter-Duke
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:05:43PM +0800, H wrote:
>> Brian,
>> It is usually the responsibility of the proposer to notify the
>> community. I am very surprised that no one did.
It was added to the here a day later.
http://simple.wikip
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 4:05 AM, H wrote:
> Brian,
> It is usually the responsibility of the proposer to notify the
> community. I am very surprised that no one did.
>
Er, the community was notified. Not by the proposer, but by someone else.
They do know about it though. No issue here.
--
Ale
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:18:03 +, Al Tally
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 4:05 AM, H wrote:
>
>> Brian,
>> It is usually the responsibility of the proposer to notify the
>> community. I am very surprised that no one did.
>>
>
> Er, the community was notified. Not by the proposer, but by som
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
> They know about it because of [[Template:Bulletin/News]] on Simple. As
> far as I can see the place(s) that this is transcuded are the only
> places. The question however is how does a Simple WP editor who never
> normally goes to meta kn
2009/2/23 Anthony :
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> The discussion has to
>> take place somewhere, meta seems the best option (the only obvious
>> alternative is to have closure discussions on the project in question,
>> but that would most likely result in few people f
2009/2/23 Brian Salter-Duke :
> However my central point that a discussion of something as important as
> closing one of our most important projects in a way that few know about
> it remains. The !vote is 42:102. We get more at en:WP on a RFA.
The proposal is almost certainly going to fail, so the
Proposals to close Simple English projects are like the perennial proposals
of Wikipedia: not going to happen. As long as a project has an active
community, there really is no good reason to close a project. OK, Simple
English might not meet current standards for language, but it has an active
comm
This is wrong; the Siberian Wikipedia had an active userbase but was
closed because it was deemed to be in a "fake" language.
Mark
skype: node.ue
2009/2/23 Al Tally :
> Proposals to close Simple English projects are like the perennial proposals
> of Wikipedia: not going to happen. As long as
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Mark Williamson wrote:
> This is wrong; the Siberian Wikipedia had an active userbase but was
> closed because it was deemed to be in a "fake" language.
>
As long as a project has an active community, there really is no good reason
to close a project.
--
Alex
(
That may be your opinion, but that doesn't mean it can't be done,
hasn't been done before, or won't be done again.
Mark
skype: node.ue
2009/2/23 Al Tally :
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Mark Williamson wrote:
>
>> This is wrong; the Siberian Wikipedia had an active userbase but was
>> cl
Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
> However my central point that a discussion of something as important as
> closing one of our most important projects in a way that few know about
> it remains. The !vote is 42:102. We get more at en:WP on a RFA.
A further argument against having this principally discusse
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>
> A further argument against having this principally discussed on Meta is
> that those who are best served by Simple do not have the language skills
> to participate fully in a discussion where there is unlimited use of
> language.
>
> Ec
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> A further argument against having this principally discussed on Meta is
> that those who are best served by Simple do not have the language skills
> to participate fully in a discussion where there is unlimited use of
> language.
>
> Ec
>
M
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Nathan wrote:
> The question of how such a discussion would be closed is what concerns me
> the most - I can't see allowing a meta bureaucrat to close such a poll
> (which is what we would do in en.wp), and since the Foundation would have
> to
> make the changes a
2009/2/23 Al Tally :
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Nathan wrote:
>
>> The question of how such a discussion would be closed is what concerns me
>> the most - I can't see allowing a meta bureaucrat to close such a poll
>> (which is what we would do in en.wp), and since the Foundation would hav
, end this thread.
From: Al Tally
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 5:17:24 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Simple English Encyclopedia
Proposals to close Simple English projects are like the perennial proposals
of Wikipedia:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 10:01:11AM -0800, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
>> However my central point that a discussion of something as important as
>> closing one of our most important projects in a way that few know about
>> it remains. The !vote is 42:102. We get more at en:WP on
In community draft, there is a proposal of an alternative language policy.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy/Community_draft
And there is a section of Simple English projects at the discussion page:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta_talk:Language_proposal_policy/Com
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
>> However my central point that a discussion of something as important as
>> closing one of our most important projects in a way that few know about
>> it remains. The !vote is 42:102. We get more at en:WP on a RFA.
>
> A further argument against ha
Hoi,
When the use case of the Simple Wikipedia is better understood, it may even
make room for more simple projects as in simple projects in the biggest
languages.
Thanks.,
GerardM
2009/2/25 Cary Bass
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
> > Brian Salter-Duke wrote:
> >> However my central point that a
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> Hoi,
> When the use case of the Simple Wikipedia is better understood, it may even
> make room for more simple projects as in simple projects in the biggest
> languages.
> Thanks.,
> GerardM
If anyone is interested, I believe the othe
2009/2/25 Gerard Meijssen :
> Hoi,
> When the use case of the Simple Wikipedia is better understood, it may even
> make room for more simple projects as in simple projects in the biggest
> languages.
This is quite an interesting thought. The language used by Simple
English is (apparently) derived
Andrew Gray wrote:
> This is quite an interesting thought. The language used by
> Simple English is (apparently) derived from two defined
> "simplified versions" of English which were deliberately
> designed - have there been projects to do the same for, say,
> French or Spanish, or would we h
i agree that there are many problems with a discussion or vote on one
project impacting another. community participation and language /
context barriers are one. having people discussing who themselves
aren't editors or readers is another. privileging "having edited 100
articles in any one wikipe
Andrew Gray wrote:
> 2009/2/25 Gerard Meijssen :
>
>> Hoi,
>> When the use case of the Simple Wikipedia is better understood, it may even
>> make room for more simple projects as in simple projects in the biggest
>> languages.
>>
>
> This is quite an interesting thought. The language used b
No,
Absolutely not. The Incubator is a vital resource that can easily accomadote
any language any project. If anything I would make the Incubator compulsory
for ANY project. The reason for this is obvious; the Incubator works.
Thanks.
GerardM
2009/2/25 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> Andrew Gray w
"No,
Absolutely not."
Eh? "No, Absolutely not." to what precisely? You say incubator should be a
phase for projects? I said simple should incubate for even larger
languages. Where is the "No, Absolutely not." directed at?
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> No,
> Absolutely not. The Incubator is a vital re
Hoi,
There is no room nor need for a simple Incubator. One suffices.
Thanks.
GerardM
2009/2/25 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> "No,
> Absolutely not."
>
> Eh? "No, Absolutely not." to what precisely? You say incubator should be a
> phase for projects? I said simple should incubate for even larger
>
I could be wrong, but I think you're misreading the point here. It's that
we should Incubate more Simples in more languages, not that we need
a Simple Incubator...
-Chad
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> There is no room nor need for a simple Incubator. One suffi
Do you have a substantive opinion on the essence of
my suggestion, that is that even large language
simple projects should pass through the incubator?
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> There is no room nor need for a simple Incubator. One suffices.
> Thanks.
> Ge
Hoi,
Possibly.
Now for some cold water. At this moment the policy is explicit. We do not
accept any new Simple projects in any language. What I said was that it
would be good when there are some good numbers that prove the value of a
simple project. Once this is more clear, we may reconsider.
Thank
2009/2/25 Gerard Meijssen :
> No,
> Absolutely not. The Incubator is a vital resource that can easily accomadote
> any language any project. If anything I would make the Incubator compulsory
> for ANY project. The reason for this is obvious; the Incubator works.
I think this is exactly what he was
Not cold water for me. I must confess I've never been a fan of Simple.
-Chad
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> Hoi,
> Possibly.
> Now for some cold water. At this moment the policy is explicit. We do not
> accept any new Simple projects in any language. What I said was th
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 5:34 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> For the record, lots of people who use simple: are devs or researchers
> who need a good small simple testbed, or people who only intend to
> read and use in contexts away from the original editable wiki. I
> would bet, though with lower odds
meone offers to can
it.
From: Gerard Meijssen
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:19:47 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Simple English Encyclopedia
Hoi,
Possibly.
Now for some cold water. At this moment the policy is exp
someone
> offers to can it.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Gerard Meijssen
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:19:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Simple English Encyclopedia
>
> Hoi,
> Possibly.
> Now for some cold wat
d Meijssen
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:19:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Simple English Encyclopedia
>
> - Show quoted text -
> Hoi,
> Possibly.
> Now for some cold water. At this moment the policy is explicit. We d
2009/2/26 Gerard Meijssen :
> Hoi,
> The language committee is empowered to decide on all new projects. It has
> been this way since its start. Nothing new here.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
How do we get rid of you?
--
geni
___
foundation-l mailing lis
Hoi,
So you will shoot the messenger? Read back in this track and you will read
that when simple is proven to be actually useful.. I will actually consider
this, I will even promote the idea. Now, that takes convincing and there is
a need for good arguments. I am not the enemy, I am the one that a
2009/2/26 Gerard Meijssen :
> Hoi,
> So you will shoot the messenger? Read back in this track and you will read
> that when simple is proven to be actually useful.. I will actually consider
> this, I will even promote the idea. Now, that takes convincing and there is
> a need for good arguments. I
Hoi,
with your attitude it is not strange why we do not have people who
are in a position of power frequenting the Foundation list sad.. it
kinda kills effective conversation
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/2/26 geni
> 2009/2/26 Gerard Meijssen :
> > Hoi,
> > So you will shoot the messenger? Read
i think there is a valid point here though. you are on a committee that has
a certain level of power. committees who make decisions on behalf of the
committee should surely be able to be held to account by the community. if
you look at this comment in this way then it can be interpreted as "when
Hoi,
Consider how committees operate. They are as a rule not elected. Also the
committees are as a rule bodies that function on behalf of the board, not so
much the community. The language committee has as its task to ensure that
viable new communities may start their new project. It has no involve
2009/2/25 Lars Aronsson :
> Work for easy-to-read Swedish was started in 1968, and since 1987
> operates as a government-sponsored foundation, described in this
> Swedish Wikipedia article,
> http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrum_f%C3%B6r_l%C3%A4ttl%C3%A4st
>
> On that Swedish foundation's website,
2009/2/26 Gerard Meijssen :
> Hoi,
> Consider how committees operate. They are as a rule not elected. Also the
> committees are as a rule bodies that function on behalf of the board, not so
> much the community. The language committee has as its task to ensure that
> viable new communities may star
Hoi,
When I am no longer a member of the language committee, I will still
be around or I am confined between six planks.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/2/26 geni
> 2009/2/26 Gerard Meijssen :
> > Hoi,
> > Consider how committees operate. They are as a rule not elected. Also the
> > committees are
Hello,
There have been a lot of points raised, so I'll answer a few
generally. (All messages from committee members, including this one,
are personal messages and don't represent the committee.)
New simple-language wikis will not be created under the current
policy, simply because the policy does
I second Geni's question... how do we get rid of you?
skype: node.ue
2009/2/26 Gerard Meijssen :
> Hoi,
> with your attitude it is not strange why we do not have people who
> are in a position of power frequenting the Foundation list sad.. it
> kinda kills effective conversation
> Thanks,
>
Okay, that's enough everyone!
The question "How do we get rid of you?" is utterly rude and impolite.
If you want to ask "How can we get rid of the language committee?",
then formulate it in that way. (By the way: the answer is "By
persuading the board of trustees to dissolve the committee", so you
Jesse (Pathoschild) wrote:
> Hello,
>
> There have been a lot of points raised, so I'll answer a few
> generally. (All messages from committee members, including this one,
> are personal messages and don't represent the committee.)
>
Very cool parenthetical remark there, just as an aside.
> New
67 matches
Mail list logo
