Re: Election rules modification regarding suffrage issues raised on this list

On 30/04/2008, Delphine Ménard <notafishz@...> wrote:

> Just as a matter of clarity. Can the 50 edits be spread across
> different projects?
> Do internal wikis count?
>
> I'm just afraid I'm not gonna have the required number of edits on any
> one wiki. And I consider myself kind of "up to date" to be allowed to
> vote.
>
>
> Delphine
>

Delphine - it's seriously not difficult to get 50 edits. I myself have made
over 1000 in one hour just on recent changes patrol. 50 edits is tiny, and
considering all the tools available, it really shouldn't be very difficult
to get 50 edits.

--

-- 
Alex (Majorly)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Majorly
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: New wiki creation

Erik Moeller ha scritto:
> This won't be necessary. Existing incubator content _can_ remain under
> FDL only. New edits to the wikis that are being set up right now have
> to have the "will agree to the possibility of migration" clause.
>   
Does it mean that the new wikis will have some content which is 
GFDL-only (what was created or derives from something created elsewhere) 
and some content which is doubly licensed? Or that we just double 
license everything because shortly it will be legal to do so? And BTW, I 
thought contents were licensed in GFDL, not projects. If today I write 
something (releasing under GFDL 1.2 or later) on project A created last 
year or on project B created today, how is it possible that from project 
A you can do GFDL 1.2 -> GFDL 1.3 -> cc-by-sa-3.0 while on project B you 
can't, when you have released the same text under the same licence?
Cruccone

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: New wiki creation

On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 12:27 AM, Milos Rancic <millosh@...> wrote:
>  So, this applies to all existing projects, except to new ones; which
>  includes Incubator, too.

This applies to Incubator, too (I see that I was not so clear in wording).

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: New wiki creation

On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 1:10 AM, Marco Chiesa <chiesa.marco@...> wrote:
> Erik Moeller ha scritto:
>
> > This won't be necessary. Existing incubator content _can_ remain under
>  > FDL only. New edits to the wikis that are being set up right now have
>  > to have the "will agree to the possibility of migration" clause.
>  >
>  Does it mean that the new wikis will have some content which is
>  GFDL-only (what was created or derives from something created elsewhere)
>  and some content which is doubly licensed? Or that we just double
>  license everything because shortly it will be legal to do so? And BTW, I
>  thought contents were licensed in GFDL, not projects. If today I write
>  something (releasing under GFDL 1.2 or later) on project A created last
>  year or on project B created today, how is it possible that from project
>  A you can do GFDL 1.2 -> GFDL 1.3 -> cc-by-sa-3.0 while on project B you
>  can't, when you have released the same text under the same licence?
>  Cruccone

All wikis will be GFDL-only. Contributors of new wikis (including any
of "older" Wikimedians) just need to agree that their work may be used
under CC-BY-SA in the case of the license migration.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Flagged bots to edit pages containing spam links

On 4/28/08, Chad <innocentkiller@...> wrote:
>  From a technical standpoint: I agree with Brion. There are a whole host
>  of reasons why an edit might fail (locked db's, protected pages, or even
>  the server dying), and the bot needs to be designed to deal with that. If
>  your bot crashes, etc. due to an edit failing: well that's your fault as a
>  developer.

It would be nice if flagged bots were exempt from the spamfilter.
Spam URLs and protected pages are the situations that my bots can't
handle -- for everything else, the bot can either wait or try again.

--

-- 
Mark
[[en:User:Carnildo]]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Election rules modification regarding suffrage issues raised on this list

On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 17:39 +0200, Delphine Ménard wrote:
> Just as a matter of clarity. Can the 50 edits be spread across
> different projects?
> Do internal wikis count?
> 
> I'm just afraid I'm not gonna have the required number of edits on any
> one wiki. And I consider myself kind of "up to date" to be allowed to
> vote.

With the admin group trial and impending global launch of SUL, the
committee had hoped to allow counting of edits across multiple wikis
that are linked to a single global account.

Unfortunately, as SUL isn't fully launched yet and we are getting to
candidates acceptance time, the rule have to be as in previous years
where only edit on one wiki count.

KTC

--

-- 
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
  - Heinrich Heine

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: Board restructuring and community

On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 4:49 AM, Domas Mituzas <midom.lists@...>
wrote:

I used to hear multiple times back then, I hear same nowadays - I'm
> supposed to work for editors.
> Replies to what I say on IRC come back with the fact that I work for
> editors, replies to what I write in mailing lists tell I'm supposed
> to work for editors.
>

Interesting!  For the record, I don't consider 'editors' to be privileged
community members any more than the hacker who writes some cool
wikipedia-on-ipod project, or the blogger who links to one bizarre wikipedia
article a day.  (I think our voting policies are broken in this way, since
evan the most black-hearted troll, and anyone who would care to annoy an
election, could make a few hundred edits)

> And, by the way, I don't. I'm entirely value centric. I work for our
> mission and our values, and editors are my peers. I don't work for
> editors, editors don't work for me. We help each other to achieve the
> common goal.
>

Right on.

> Actually, Community and Foundation should be acting as peers too.
> Board is not seen as governing body of Community.
> Foundation should be seen as facilitator, "encouraging  the growth,
> development and distribution of free, multilingual content, and to
> providing the full content of these wiki-based projects to the public

Re: Image dumps, html dumps, and static copies missing

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:27 PM, Mike Godwin <mgodwin@...> wrote:

>
> Phoebe Ayers writes:
>
> > Arguably, however, providing solid dumps is the backbone for getting
> > most of this research getting done, since having project data to
> > manipulate is necessary for many possible studies. So not only are
> > regular dumps critical for fulfilling our free content
> > responsibilities and mission, but they are critical for future
> > research. Which is to say: we all really want to see them happen! And
> > agreed, the Foundation is the only one that can make it so (even
> > though it's not an easy task); and this is the sort of infrastructure
> > task that should be absolutely core.
>
> We at the Foundation want to see this happen too. We regard increasing
> the frequency and reliability of the dumps as mission-critical, and
> we're working toward that goal.
>
>
Wonderful, thanks for the feedback.  Is there a commentable roadmap of
critical (and not-so-critical) projects for people who have their own crazy
ideas they'd like to contribute?  There have been some good brainstorming
sessions on this list on the subject over the years.

Regards,
SJ

@phoebe, thanks for the link to the set of research questions.
I'd like to see an elaboration of the foundation goals...

Re: Election rules modification regarding suffrage issues raised on this list

On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Majorly <axel9891@...> wrote:
> On 30/04/2008, Delphine Ménard <notafishz@...> wrote:
>
>  > Just as a matter of clarity. Can the 50 edits be spread across
>  > different projects?
>  > Do internal wikis count?
>  >
>  > I'm just afraid I'm not gonna have the required number of edits on any
>  > one wiki. And I consider myself kind of "up to date" to be allowed to
>  > vote.
>  >
>  >
>  > Delphine
>  >
>
>  Delphine - it's seriously not difficult to get 50 edits. I myself have made
>  over 1000 in one hour just on recent changes patrol. 50 edits is tiny, and
>  considering all the tools available, it really shouldn't be very difficult
>  to get 50 edits.

Well, I just took an hour to make 18 edits ;) But then, I was doing
research to source a biography. I have been known to take an hour to
make just one or two edits, doing the same kind of work. 50 edits may
or may not be a lot of work, depending on just what it is you're doing
onwiki and how familiar you are with the tools.

Generally, editcountitis is a fairly poor measure of community
participation -- it's just the only readily accessible metric we've
got. Nathan said it very well up-thread -- people whose contributions
don't translate into edits shouldn't be penalized. It seems pretty

Re: Flagged bots to edit pages containing spam links

On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 7:37 PM, Mark Wagner <carnildo@...> wrote:
> On 4/28/08, Chad <innocentkiller@...> wrote:
>  >  From a technical standpoint: I agree with Brion. There are a whole host
>  >  of reasons why an edit might fail (locked db's, protected pages, or even
>  >  the server dying), and the bot needs to be designed to deal with that. If
>  >  your bot crashes, etc. due to an edit failing: well that's your fault as a
>  >  developer.
>
>  It would be nice if flagged bots were exempt from the spamfilter.
>  Spam URLs and protected pages are the situations that my bots can't
>  handle -- for everything else, the bot can either wait or try again.

This is something that I can agree with, if a user is trusted enough
to receive the bot flag in the first place (or "trusted not to make
spam/vandalism/controversial mass edits"), we shouldn't have to worry
about spam filtering them.

--Andrew Whitworth

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l