John Vandenberg | 1 Oct 03:10 2010
Picon

Re: Pending Changes development update: September 27

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 2:51 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb@...> wrote:
> ...
> Has the foundation considered redeploying their efforts to run pending
> change trials in projects other than English Wikipedia?

Have the software changes in the last 12 months addressed the issues
raised by French Wikipedia?

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Sondage/Flagged_revisions

If so, maybe they would like to do a trial?

Has there been any discussion about this software on the other big
Wikipedia not mentioned on the meta page yet (Italian, Chinese,
Portuguese & Dutch)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FlaggedRevs

(I've asked the same question on the talk page)

--
John Vandenberg

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

Austin Hair | 1 Oct 10:18 2010
Picon

Movement roles

For those who haven't been following the movement roles work on
meta[0], I wanted to take a minute for blatant self-promotion.

Of particular note is the initial proposal[1], which we're trying to
wrap up before the WMF Board meeting in just over a week.  Those of
you thinking that this is happening a bit close are absolutely
correct—it's an uncomfortable deadline, to be sure; as we get more
participation in the coming months, this should get a lot smoother.

I also want to draw attention to a draft questionnaire[2], which is
meant to informally gather opinions and hopefully produce some
insightful commentary.  As a draft, of course, everyone should feel
welcome to discuss and edit.

I'll continue to send periodic updates to Foundation-l, but the actual
work's happening on meta—anyone interested is encouraged to
participate there.  It's a community process, and it won't happen by
itself.

Austin

[0] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_working_group
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_working_group/Proposal
[2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_roles_working_group/Questionnaire

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
(Continue reading)

Thomas Dalton | 1 Oct 13:27 2010
Picon

Re: Wikimedia Kosovo Chapter? Re: Fwd: SFK100 Press Release

On 30 September 2010 20:31, Nathan <nawrich@...> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Thomas Dalton
<thomas.dalton@...> wrote:
>> On 29 September 2010 17:57, Nathan <nawrich@...> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Thomas Dalton
<thomas.dalton@...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Actually, I'm quite the pragmatist. You are being an idealist by
>>>> assuming that can just go with the nice solution and it will all work
>>>> out fine, despite the very real risks involved with a top-5 website
>>>> appearing to take sides in a major international dispute.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What might these terrible consequences actually be? "Wikipedia sides
>>> with Kosovo independence, gives local organization chapter status:
>>> U.N. Security Council resolution condemns interference"? Pragmatism
>>> would have you first identify the actual consequences, then determine
>>> if they are significant, then decide if they present an insurmountable
>>> hurdle to action. I don't think the issue of chapters is particularly
>>> politically radioactive, so... If the groups of people in Kosovo and
>>> in Serbia are non-overlapping, then I don't see why we would allow
>>> political issues, that have nothing to do with the Wikimedia
>>> Foundation, to unnecessarily limit Wikimedia reach and resources in
>>> that region.
>>
>> I very much doubt the UN would do anything. The consequences are
>> likely to be primarily restricted to Serbia/Kosovo and the surrounding
>> area. As I've already said in this thread, people that know more about
>> the issue will be better able to judge what the consequences will be.
>> Assuming there will be no consequences just because you don't know
(Continue reading)

Austin Hair | 1 Oct 13:43 2010
Picon

Re: Wikimedia Kosovo Chapter? Re: Fwd: SFK100 Press Release

On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> Plus to convince voting ChapCom members enough that it is good idea to
> convince WM Serbia that it is a good idea.
>
> As a non-voting member of ChapCom and Board member of WM RS I can
> confirm that the harder task is to convince ChapCom.

As a voting member of ChapCom, I can say that we wouldn't leave the
decision to Wikimedia Serbia.

It's a complicated issue, just as Hong Kong, Taiwan, and New York City
were.  It deserves reasoned discussion and a rational decision based
on the practical reality.

I'm neither pledging support for nor opposing a Kosovar chapter—I'm
simply stating, for the record, that we'll take any application on its
own merits.

Austin

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Guillaume Paumier | 1 Oct 18:06 2010
Picon

Re: Pending Changes development update: September 27

Bonjour,

Le vendredi 01 octobre 2010 à 11:10 +1000, John Vandenberg a écrit :
> 
> Have the software changes in the last 12 months addressed the issues
> raised by French Wikipedia?
> 
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Sondage/Flagged_revisions
> 
> If so, maybe they would like to do a trial?

I doubt it. The "issues" raised by the French Wikipedia are much more
"philosophical" than they are technical.

In other words, most of the people who opposed in this poll just don't
like the feature. I don't think it has anything to do with specific
issues.

--

-- 
Guillaume Paumier

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
R M Harris | 1 Oct 20:06 2010
Picon

Controversial Content Study part 3


Just to let you know that Part 3 of the Study on Controversial content is now up on its own Meta page
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content:_Part_Three.
Thanks to everyone who has contributed to the discussion so far -- it has been expectedly passionate, but
very interesting, and illuminating. All three parts of the study, combined together, will be presented
to the Wikimedia Foundation Board on Friday, Oct. 8 at their next meeting. Either the Board or we will be
following up on that presentation. Thanks again to all for allowing us to enter your "house" as a guest;
we've been treated very civilly, and appreciate it. Robert and Dory Harris

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

David Gerard | 1 Oct 22:43 2010
Picon

Re: Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

On 28 September 2010 12:38, David Gerard <dgerard@...> wrote:

> You can hardly move on Wikipedia without tripping over experts in
> whatever topic you're editing. Why are there any experts on Wikipedia?

I predict Wikipedia's biology articles will far outshine its
philosophy articles for the simple fact that the biologists bother:

http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.1000941

They bothered paying author's fees for publication in a peer-reviewed
specialist journal in their field, just to increase the quality of
Wikipedia articles in their field. They're hardly going to rack up
citation credits for an article on how to teach biology to the general
public.

With some fields going to this effort and not others, ultimately it's
up to the specialists in the fields themselves to bother. So what do
the biologists have that the philosophers - or other fields that are
ill-represented in Wikipedia - lack?

(That article is great, by the way. It gives strong reasons for
experts to put in the effort to bother.)

- d.

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

Peter Damian | 2 Oct 08:58 2010

Re: Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Gerard" <dgerard@...>
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@...>
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

> I predict Wikipedia's biology articles will far outshine its
> philosophy articles for the simple fact that the biologists bother:
>
> http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.1000941
>
> They bothered paying author's fees for publication in a peer-reviewed
> specialist journal in their field, just to increase the quality of
> Wikipedia articles in their field. They're hardly going to rack up
> citation credits for an article on how to teach biology to the general
> public.
>
> With some fields going to this effort and not others, ultimately it's
> up to the specialists in the fields themselves to bother. So what do
> the biologists have that the philosophers - or other fields that are
> ill-represented in Wikipedia - lack?
>
> (That article is great, by the way. It gives strong reasons for
> experts to put in the effort to bother.)

So here am I looking for systematic reasons why philosophy, and humanities 
in general are under-represented in Wikipedia and you are saying that it is 
because philosophers - and by implication specialists in humanities - don't 
bother?  Interesting.  I once got puzzled why certain plants wouldn't grow 
(Continue reading)

David Gerard | 2 Oct 10:40 2010
Picon

Re: Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

On 2 October 2010 07:58, Peter Damian <peter.damian <at> btinternet.com> wrote:
> From: "David Gerard" <dgerard <at> gmail.com>

>> http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.1000941
>> With some fields going to this effort and not others, ultimately it's
>> up to the specialists in the fields themselves to bother. So what do
>> the biologists have that the philosophers - or other fields that are
>> ill-represented in Wikipedia - lack?

> So here am I looking for systematic reasons why philosophy, and humanities
> in general are under-represented in Wikipedia and you are saying that it is
> because philosophers - and by implication specialists in humanities - don't
> bother?  Interesting.  I once got puzzled why certain plants wouldn't grow
> in my garden.  I got frustrated and thought perhaps the plants weren't
> bothering.  Then I found that because my garden is north facing and has acid
> soil, the plants that like sunlight and don't like acid soil, weren't
> flourishing.

That's wonderfully poetic and doesn't answer the question I asked:
*what* about the approach in this paper wouldn't work for philosophy,
in your opinion? Please be specific.

- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Peter Damian | 2 Oct 11:28 2010

Re: Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Gerard" <dgerard@...>
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@...>
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2010 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

> That [...] doesn't answer the question I asked:
> *what* about the approach in this paper wouldn't work for philosophy,
> in your opinion? Please be specific.
> 
> http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.1000941

On the assumption that there is negative answer to Step 1 - namely, there is 
a serious problem with the content and quality of philosophy articles in 
Wikipedia (I think you agree that is not in doubt), then the answer is 
clearly that none of these approaches have worked so far for philosophy, 
either singly or collectively.  Does that answer your question?  The answer 
seemed so obvious that I didn't give it.

I suppose you will reply that it is in some way the fault of the 
philosophers.  This, as I poetically suggested, would be like blaming the 
plants that didn't like acid soil, for not growing in my garden.  I repeat: 
it is unfair to blame the plants.  Find out the problem with the garden or 
its environment or its soil or whatever, and try to fix that if possible.  I 
found the article here quite helpful

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walled_garden

Wtih every kind wish,

(Continue reading)


Gmane