I agree with Keegen's reasoning. We want Wikipedia's name to become
more well known which will hopefully attract more editors to the
movement. We want to do what coke has done by branding all carbonated
drinks with the name coke.
Other people are already creating movements such as "Health
Information for All" http://www.hifa2015.org/ We want something
similar but for all information.
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
Hi,
Vladimir Putin has been awarded the Quadriga Award, which is "dedicated
to all of those whose courage tears down walls and whose commitment
builds bridges"[1]. This is the same award Wikipedia received in 2008
(Wikipedia being represented by Jimmy Wales). The award has been
forwarded to Wikimedia Germany by Jimmy. The price money (25k€)
apparently has not be transfered yet, due to financial problems of the
funding organization.
This disposition by the Quadriga committee has received criticism from
both the German media and Wikipedians. It is seen as improper by German
Wikipedians that Putin, responsible for human rights violations in
Russia, shares the same award as Wikipedia. Some of them therefor call
for a return and rejection of the Quadriga Award.
It is especially noteworthy that Jimmy Wales is listed as a Quadriga
Board member[2], which made some media report that he did not vote
against Putin. In fact, he had nothing to do with the award, was not
consulted, and states that he would not have voted for giving Putin any
award.[3]
The question now is: What's the best way to react to this? It seems that
a proposal to RfC on returning Wikipedia's award is accepted by many
German Wikipedians. Jimmy and Wikimedia Germany would probably have to
agree with this, if we want to do this. Also, there's a question on
whether to do this RfC on Meta or German Wikipedia.
Any comments?
Regards,
Tobias
User:Church of emacs
[1] http://tafelderdemokratie.de/quadriga2/en
[2] http://tafelderdemokratie.de/quadriga2/en/content/board-trustees
[3]
http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Caf%C3%A9&diff=91073655…
I agree something like "Open Knowledge Project" would be a more suitable
term. Do they have any decals like those of Health on the Net that people
could add to their websites? Should there be different degree of
inclusiveness depending on non commercial or commercial reuse? I see this as
the first step towards a greater sharing of content between sites.
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
This is indeed one of the greatest suggestion I have heard in a long
time. Having people add "Part of the Wikimedia Movement" would benefit
both parties. All of us here I think support free knowledge wherever
it is found. Allowing our GLAM partners to use this wording and those
who are actively collaborating with us would be a start.
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
Congratulations Liam, you've just made the case for micro stubs.
WSC
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 01:11:35 +0000
> From: Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia as seen through 1964 acoustic, 300
> baud modem
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <CAAGzLhtC3=-vGD7NRD-HEb_Ud3CkscSF2hqbmoZREk=TVrNcWg(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Saw this today:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9dpXHnJXaE
> It's a video of a guy demonstrating his 1964 Livermore Data Systems "Model
> A" Acoustic Coupler Modem that still works
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_coupler
> and in order to demonstrate it still works he requests the mainpage of en.wp
> :-) The page starts loading at 6:40 of the video.
>
> Three cheers for open standards and and backwards compatibility!
> I would like to know if it is technically possible to edit a WP article
> through that system.
>
> -Liam
>
> wittylama.com/blog
> Peace, love & metadata
>
>
Saw this today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9dpXHnJXaE
It's a video of a guy demonstrating his 1964 Livermore Data Systems "Model
A" Acoustic Coupler Modem that still works
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_coupler
and in order to demonstrate it still works he requests the mainpage of en.wp
:-) The page starts loading at 6:40 of the video.
Three cheers for open standards and and backwards compatibility!
I would like to know if it is technically possible to edit a WP article
through that system.
-Liam
wittylama.com/blog
Peace, love & metadata
This time I've cleaned the list of Wikimedia [content] projects from
meta:Special:SiteMatrix [1] and calculated some numbers [2].
So, for statistics, there are:
* 270 Wikimedia languages (however, you would see below that the term
"language" is not quite precise)
* 270 Wikipedias
* 146 Wiktionaries
* 83 Wikibooks
* 29 Wikinews
* 67 Wikiquotes
* 58 Wikisources
* 12 Wikiversities
* 665 total content projects
There are:
* 12 languages with all 7 projects
* 16 languages with 6 projects (usually without Wikiversity)
* 22 languages with 5 projects (usually without Wikiversity and Wikinews)
* 16 languages with 4 projects
* 24 languages with 3 projects
* 59 languages with 2 projects
* 121 languages with 1 project
* 19 languages with all projects "closed".
Note that just small number (if any) of closed projects are actually
closed. The most of them is possible to edit.
Interesting part in this part of statistics [3] is that Wikimedia
projects are by number of projects dominated by languages with smaller
number of projects. 121 languages with just one project (up to now
exclusively Wikipedia) have 44.81% share in the number of Wikimedia
languages, but also 18.20% share in the number of all Wikimedia
projects (which is the biggest share).
Fortunately, Wikimedia projects are dominated by individual living
languages [4]: 240 of 270 languages.
22 of the rest of Wikimedia languages are treated [by SIL] as
"macrolanguages". That definition is vague: from practically the same
languages up to the groups which could be treated as language family.
Anyway, it says that we have a number of not solved issues related to
the projects which serve multiple languages.
We have 8 Wikipedias in constructed languages, 5 in historical, 3 in
dialects or different written forms, 2 in individual living languages
but without ISO 639 codes, and one in revived language (Manx).
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SiteMatrix
[2] http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Missing_Wikipedias/List_of_Wikimedia_pro…
[3] http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Missing_Wikipedias/List_of_Wikimedia_pro…
[4] http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Missing_Wikipedias/List_of_Wikimedia_pro…
Prompted by discussions in another thread, I ask a related question--
;1-- A roadmap towards affiliation
How should a currently-unaffiliated project go about becoming 'part
of' Wikimedia?
One easy step they could take would be to simply say, on their
website, "This site considers itself to be part of the Wikimedia
Movement". (alternate text welcome )
Later, a self-identified affiliate could be formally designated as
"part of the Wikimedia Movement" by the global community or the
foundation or both.
Such recognition would have lots of benefits for the new projects that
share our values-- other WM projects would know to visibly link to
them whenever they have relevant content (as we currently do across
WMF projects). We could permit access to the unified login, we could
allow template-sharing or image-sharing. We could set up
interwiki-linking, and other interoperability functions.
Such recognition would have even bigger benefits for us. We could
get an affiliation with an established, successful project that shares
our values. The kinds of project that we would build ourselves if
someone else hadn't already built it. Their userbases and readership
would see get to Wikimedia as something larger than just WP, and it
would help cement public understanding that Wikimedia is a Movement,
very big, very diverse, and very special.
; 2-- We need a name for self-identified project affiliation.
External projects needs to be able to claim, on their own initiative,
that they are "part of" something. That something should be a
something that is connected to us.
But self-identified affiliation has no gatekeeper, so whatever it is
new projects can be "part of", there could be lots that we don't
approve of.
I'm the founder of a project and I want signal my ideological
affiliation to WM. I think my own project's values match the
Wikimedia's values, in my opinion anyway.
Recognizing that I may or may not be right-- what should I say I am a
"part of"?
We could just tell projects in this situation to say they are "Part of
the Wikimedia Movement", but perhaps that name is one we want to
reserve just for officially recognized projects. If so, what name
should such projects use instead?
Note that they need to be saying something different than just "I like
Wikipedia, here's a link". They need to be _identifying_ their own
efforts as _under the umbrella_ of what we do. They need to be
"investing" in us and our mission, saying "This project is our attempt
to help share the world's information".
Right now, I think we can craft any statement, logo, or button we want
and like-minded projects would use it if prompted. We just have to
be thoughtful about what we want those things to look like. We will
no longer have total control over whichever name or logos we recommend
projects use for self-identified affiliation.
So that's my question -- what should third-party wikis say they are
"part of", if they want to express a connection to us?
Alec
I have been working on collaborations with a couple of groups including
ECGPedia (http://en.ecgpedia.org/) and TRIP Database (
http://www.tripdatabase.com/). Both are fairly well known sites and share
our values. They are both interested in working with us in some manner. Is
this something I could offer them? Right now ECGpedia is offer us 2000 ECG
images and TRIP Database is looking at linking to our high quality medical
content thus increasing our exposure.
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian