> When you look at the
> team of Amir, they are doing splendid work and I do salute their latest
> effort where they now support collation for a language ahead of its
support
> in standards.
>
I agree. I think their work is splendid too. I’m glad to hear you share
that view.
Thank you both, but.
Gerard,
In line.
On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> Hoi,
> I have some notions about language and if anything there are some things
> that we can do technically but with over 280 languages technique will not
> serve us well. At best it will be a partial solution.
Everyt
Rogol,
The statement, “the Foundation and all the external consultants advising it
on this exercise are all US-based“, is not accurate.
There are four streams of research and discovery in this phase:
- organized groups
- on-wiki
- experts
- new voices
I’d like to introduce this list
Hoi,
I have some notions about language and if anything there are some things
that we can do technically but with over 280 languages technique will not
serve us well. At best it will be a partial solution. When you look at the
team of Amir, they are doing splendid work and I do salute their latest
Gerard,
Happy Sunday to you. I hope you're well.
I'm curious... have you heard one of the ideas emerging in discussions is
"beyond the encyclopedia"... an idea that includes and goes beyond the
encyclopedia? You'd likely resonate with the idea. It describes the
multiplicity of what we already are
Le 24/06/2017 à 13:10, Rogol Domedonfors a écrit :
This Board was fomed in 2007 to advise the Wikimedia Foundation, and was
required to be renewed annually. No resolution was made to do so in 2015,
so by the beginning of 2016 it had lapsed. This status is reflected at
https://meta.wikimedia.or
Craig
Thanks for your thoughtful response. There are two gneral issues around
the Advisory Board that members of the Community might be interested in.
Firstly, it seems that after having lapsed in 2015, the Advisory Board has
been reconstituted, but there has been no announcement to the Communit
Rogol, I'm on the advisory board, and actively involved in related issues,
but have hesitated posting in respect for Community traditions (as I learn
them) and also, as a large effort emerges in journalism regarding reliable
sources.
Specifically, the latter involves the News Integrity Initiative
Hoi,
You do not provide arguments so it is an opinion. Having said that, I did
not say that the attention for the English Wikipedia did not serve English
Wikipedia well. It did. Your opinion can be easily translated in "we do not
care and do not need to care".
What I am saying is that English Wiki
Hi all,
Reminder! Register today for Wikimania and for the conference hotel, if you
plan to stay there. The early registration deadline is July 10 and the
deadline for booking accommodation in the conference hotel (where the
sessions will be located) is June 30th: next week!
details:
https://wiki
I'd wouldnt call the current practice detrimental to our mission, nor would
see english wikipedia as a bad influence for without en.wp we would have no
global recognition, no movement, no funding and no need for a strategy
process. English language communities are also our most diverse projects
On
Hoi,
Now that we apparently all agree that this is a diversity issue. An issue
where the current practice is detrimental to our mission, what are we going
to do about it? Just accepting it means that we do not take our mission
seriously.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 25 June 2017 at 08:45, Rogol Domedo
I'd like to specially praise *the Turkish volunteer User:Basak* for
creating the first *complete* translation of the subtitles for this 3-hour
tutorial.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/TimedText:A_Gentle_Introduction_to_Wikidata_for_Absolute_Beginners_(including_non-techies!).webm.tr.srt
Thank
13 matches
Mail list logo
