Wikimedia's mission is to make the sum of all knowledge available to
every person on the planet. We do this by enabling communities in all
languages to organize and collect knowledge in our projects, removing
any barriers that we're able to remove.
In spite of this, there are and will always be large disparities in
the amount of locally created and curated knowledge available per
language, as is evident by simple statistical comparison (and most
beautifully visualized in Erik Zachte's bubble chart [1]).
Google, Microsoft and others have made great strides in developing
free-as-in-beer translation tools that can be used to translate from
and to many different languages. Increasingly, it is possible to at
least make basic sense of content in many different languages using
these tools. Machine translation can also serve as a starting point
for human translations.
Although free-as-in-beer for basic usage, integration can be
expensive. Google Translate charges $20 per 1M characters of text for
API usage. [2] These tools get better from users using them, but I've
seen little evidence of sharing of open datasets that would help the
field get better over time.
Undoubtedly, building the technology and the infrastructure for these
translation services is a very expensive undertaking, and it's
understandable that there are multiple commercial reasons that drive
the major players' ambitions in this space. But if we look at it from
the perspective of "How will billions of people learn in the coming
decades", it seems clear that better translation tools should at least
play some part in reducing knowledge disparities in different
languages, and that ideally, such tools should be "free-as-in-speech"
(since they're fundamentally related to speech itself).
If we imagine a world where top notch open source MT is available,
that would be a world where increasingly, language barriers to
accessing human knowledge could be reduced. True, translation is no
substitute for original content creation in a language -- but it could
at least powerfully support and enable such content creation, and
thereby help hundreds of millions of people. Beyond Wikimedia, high
quality open source MT would likely be integrated in many contexts
where it would do good for humanity and allow people to cross into
cultural and linguistic spaces they would otherwise not have access
to.
While Wikimedia is still only a medium-sized organization, it is not
poor. With more than 1M donors supporting our mission and a cash
position of $40M, we do now have a greater ability to make strategic
investments that further our mission, as communicated to our donors.
That's a serious level of trust and not to be taken lightly, either by
irresponsibly spending, or by ignoring our ability to do good.
Could open source MT be such a strategic investment? I don't know, but
I'd like to at least raise the question. I think the alternative will
be, for the foreseeable future, to accept that this piece of
technology will be proprietary, and to rely on goodwill for any
integration that concerns Wikimedia. Not the worst outcome, but also
not the best one.
Are there open source MT efforts that are close enough to merit
scrutiny? In order to be able to provide high quality result, you
would need not only a motivated, well-intentioned group of people, but
some of the smartest people in the field working on it. I doubt we
could more than kickstart an effort, but perhaps financial backing at
significant scale could at least help a non-profit, open source effort
to develop enough critical mass to go somewhere.
All best,
Erik
[1] http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/animations/growth/AnimationProjectsGro…
[2] https://developers.google.com/translate/v2/pricing
--
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
Wikipedia and our other projects reach more than 500 million people every
month. The world population is estimated to be >7 billion. Still a long
way to go. Support us. Join us. Share: https://wikimediafoundation.org/
Dear trusty Wikimedians,
The FDC decisions are out on Sunday. Despite my desperate attempts to
assist WMHK's board to keep up with deadlines and comply with seemingly
endless requests from WMF grantmaking and FDC support staff, we received an
overwhelmingly negative assessment which resulted in a complete rejection
of our FDC proposal.
At this point, I believe it's an appropriate time for me to announce my
resignation and retirement from all my official Wikimedia roles - as
Administrative Assistant and WCA Council Member of WMHK. I will carry out
my remaining duties as a member of Wikimania 2013 local team.
My experience with the FDC process, and the outcome of it, has convinced me
that my continued involvement will simply be a waste of my own time, and of
little benefit to WMHK and the Wikimedia movement as a whole.
My experience with the FDC process has confirmed my ultimate scepticism
about the WMF's direction of development. WMF has become so conservative
with its strategies and so led into "mainstream" charity bureaucracy that
it is no longer tending to the needs of the wider Wikimedia movement.
My experience with the FDC process has shown me that WMF is expecting fully
professional deliverables which require full-time professional staff to
deliver, from organisations run by volunteers who are running Wikimedia
chapters not because they're charity experts, but because they love
Wikimedia.
My experience with the FDC process has demonstrated to me that WMF is
totally willing to perpetuate the hen-and-egg problem of the lack of staff
manpower and watch promising initiatives dwindle into oblivion.
WMHK isn't even a new chapter. We've been incorporated and recognised by
WMF since 2007. Our hen-and-egg problem isn't new either. We've been vocal
about the fact that our volunteer force is exhausted, and can't do any
better without funding for paid staff and an office since 2010. Our request
for office funding was rejected. The year after, our request to become a
payment-processing chapter was rejected. The year after, we've got
Wikimania (perhaps because WMF fortunately doesn't have too much to do with
the bidding process), which gave us hope that we might finally be helped to
professionalise. But it came to nothing - this very week our FDC request
was rejected.
And the reason? Every time the response from WMF was, effectively, we
aren't good enough therefore we won't get help to do any better. We don't
have professional staff to help us comply with the endless and
ever-changing professional reporting criteria, therefore we can't be
trusted to hire the staff to do precisely that.
My dear friends and trusty Wikimedians, do you now understand the irony and
the frustration?
Wikimedia didn't start off as a traditional charity. It is precisely
because of how revolutionary our mission and culture are, that we as a
movement have reached where we are today. A few movement entities,
particularly the WMF, managed to expand and take on the skin of a much more
traditional charity. But most of us are still youthful Wikimedia
enthusiasts who are well-versed with Wikimedia culture, but not with
charity governance. Imposing a professional standard upon a movement entity
as a prerequisite of giving it help to professionalise, is like judging
toddlers by their full marathon times.
Is this what we want Wikimedia to become? To turn from a revolutionary idea
to a charity so conservative that it would rather perpetuate a
chicken-and-egg problem than support long-awaited growth? I threw in days
and days of effort in the last few years, often at the peril of my degree
studies, with the wishful thinking that one day the help will come to let
WMHK and all the other small but well-established chapters professionalise.
I was wrong.
With the FDC process hammering the final nail into my scepticism about
where WMF and the movement is heading, I figured that with a degree in
environmental engineering from Cambridge my life will be much better spent
helping other worthy causes than wasting days on Wikimedia administration
work only to have them go unappreciated time and time again.
But I feel that it is necessary for me to leave a parting message to my
fellow Wikimedians, a stern warning about where I see our movement heading.
I feel that we're losing our character and losing our appreciation for
volunteers, in particular the limitations of volunteer effort.
I leave you all with a final thought from Dan Pallotta: charitable efforts
will never grow if we continue to be so adverse about "overheads" and
staffing.
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dea…
With Wiki-Love,
Deryck
PS. I wish there was an appropriate private mailing list for me to send
this to. Unfortunately, most of the important WMF stakeholders aren't
subscribed to internal-l, and most veteran chapters folks know what I want
to say already. I just hope that trolls wouldn't blow this out of
proportion. Or perhaps I do want this to be blown out of proportion so that
my voice will actually be heard. Thanks for reading.
Hello, everyone.
0. Meta
0.1. I do not respect the choice by Deryck -- an experienced Wikimedian --
to voice his (understandable) frustration in a letter full of wikidrama,
and to follow it with a direct accusation of our team of "foul play"[0]. I
think this should not go uncommented on. All of us deserve civility and
courteous discussions.
0.2 I am starting this separate thread to address some of the legitimate
questions asked on that other thread.
0.2 Please note I speak in my capacity as head of the Wikimedia Grants
Program, since grants compliance has been a large issue in Deryck's
narrative, but I do not speak for the (all-volunteer) FDC nor for the FDC
staff, who can speak for themselves (though some are on vacation, so it may
take a while).
0.3. This is a long e-mail, but I would like to believe I am both concise
and direct. I just have a number of different issues to respond to. I
have also tried to be systematic, so you can skip sections you don't care
about.
1. Clarifications about "Eligibility"
1.1. WMHK _was eligible_ to apply for funding in FDC round 2, was informed
of this publicly, and proceeded to apply. FDC eligibility is determined at
a specific point in time, and the eligibility table is not changed after
that point in time.
The effort was not "futile from the start", because at the time eligibility
was determined, it was not clear that WMHK is in fact non-compliant, and
the Finance team determined eligibility according to strictly
formal/technical rules -- the grant reports _were_ submitted, just before
the deadline, so WMHK was considered eligible.
1.2. After applying, WMHK has _fallen out of compliance_ with grant
requirements, when it emerged (and it was not known in advance) that WMHK
has in fact unilaterally re-purposed left-over funds from an old grant (a
fact only revealed at our insistence to account for all funds[1], one day
before the proposals were due) without consulting or even informing WMF.
Some of the questions we have asked about those funds[2] have not been
answered to this day. We require compliance in all existing grants before
additional funding is sent out (though funding _can_ be _approved_ while
some compliance issues are pending).
I would like to stress that this is not a minor point of slight tardiness
or some missing receipt -- this is actual mismanagement of funds (though
not necessarily mis-use of funds, and NO ONE IS SUGGESTING BAD FAITH here
-- we do not think WMHK has done anything illicit or ethically improper!),
and _does indeed_ reflect on WMHK's ability to handle large grants.
1.3. It is WMF grantmaking staff's duty, within the FDC Framework, to
provide a factual assessment of applying entities track record with
previous grants. This we have done, and anyone may see our assessments[3]
and compare them to the facts on Meta, in the grant and grant report pages
and their respective talk pages.
WMHK was repeatedly encouraged to address this non-compliance, with
specific reference[2] to the FDC staff assessment deadline. We would have
_liked_ to be able to report WMHK has addressed this issue and is in
compliance!
1.4. It is my understanding, from reading the FDC recommendation (and
without any "inside information" -- I was not part of the deliberations),
that the FDC has reviewed the WMHK application with all due care, and that
the proposal was _not_ rejected out of hand on ground of ineligibility, but
rather on ground of
"[concerns] about WMHK’s internal governance, financial management
capacity, and capacity of its volunteers to manage a plan of this size.
WMHK’s proposal and past activities do not sufficiently demonstrate a
record of, or potential for, high impact. It recommends that WMHK addresses
these issues before undertaking a plan of this extent."[4].
I think it is understood (and proper) that an entity's track record --
including not only compliance but also impact, community engagement and
more -- is taken into account in evaluating an FDC application, alongside
the merits of the program itself.
The FDC did note WMHK's falling out of compliance, and did -- I think
confusingly -- term it "ineligibility" in its recommendations; I think
"eligibility" should only be used in the limited sense described in 1.1
above. They do correctly note that entities are expected to _remain in
compliance_ after attaining eligibility. This would have meant, in this
case where a non-trivial compliance gap was discovered after eligibility
was determined, taking urgent action to resolve the gap and supply the
missing information. WMHK did not do so, despite repeated public
requests[2] and several e-mail reminders.
It seems to me that had the FDC been presented with a compelling program
plan from WMHK, and had WMHK had a stronger record of success with its
previous program, the FDC would not have hesitated to recommend at least
partial funding for WMHK, and if the compliance gap were to be closed
reasonably soon, WMF would have been able to send WMHK that funding. But
again, as far as I can tell, non-compliance was not the only weakness in
WMHK's application.
I trust the FDC can, if need be, further clarify their primary grounds for
recommending not to fund WMHK's plan.
1.5. In summary, I must protest against the narrative of Deryck's letter,
wherein WMHK's proposal was rejected by malevolent WMF staff with a secret
anti-WMHK agenda via "convenient" discoveries of trivial non-compliance
issues, whereas it would otherwise have been guaranteed to receive full
funding, and there was no possibility for the FDC to legitimately judge the
proposal to be weak. The facts about WMHK's proposal, in all the different
aspects the FDC cares about, are different, and almost entirely public.
2. I would like to address the theory that not enough information is
available on either the Wikimedia Grants Program or the FDC process.
2.1. I am not convinced it is so. I would like to note, quite simply, that
merely having information _available_ does not equal people _consuming_
that information. If, as I think is the case, the problem is that existing
information is not sufficiently read or understood, we need to figure out
ways to communicate it better, or to create stronger incentives for reading
the information, but it is not at all clear that we need _more_ information.
2.2. Specifically, I know the FDC staff has diligently sought to have
dialogue with the proposing entities, and specifically attempted to close
information gaps and misconceptions some applicants have had. FDC staff
can probably speak to this more directly if need be, but from the public
staff assessment, it is clear that with WMCZ, at least, this communication
did not change their minds. That's WMCZ's choice, of course, but it does
mean lacking information was not the issue here.
3. Post-FDC follow-up
3.1. I would like to clarify that any entity that has not had a successful
FDC application in the current fiscal year -- that is, including entities
that have applied and were not funded -- is eligible for funding via the
Wikimedia Grants Program, according to that program's standard process.
WMHK and WMCZ, therefore, are welcome to address their current
non-compliance and to then apply for additional funding for program work,
assuming it does not require full-time staff.
3.2. I will spell out (all this is in the program descriptions on Meta)
that the Wikimedia Grants Program _can and does_ support part-time staff or
_temporary_ full-time staff, _in the context of specific projects_. I can
assert I have explained this in person to some members of WMCZ (at CEE 2012
in Belgrade) and WMHK (when I visited in late 2012).
4. Grants for growth
4.1. Nemo asserts: "It's very clear (to me) that the WMF grants system is
not designed to make Wikimedia entities grow, but only to reinforce those
which are already strong enough, keeping them at the same level they're
at." -- this is incorrect:
4.2. The Grants system (i.e. including the Foundation's different
grantmaking programs[5]) is designed to promote impactful work towards the
Wikimedia Mission. That is the ultimate goal. Helping _impactful_
Wikimedia groups (chapters, thematic organizations, user groups) grow
_does_ serve the mission, and therefore _is_ supported by the Grants system:
4.3. Despite Tomasz's comments, the Wikimedia Grants Program has seen some
chapters seek and obtain progressively larger grants, and has specifically
seen the coordinated "professionalization" of at least two chapters (WMAR
and WMRS) via its grants.
Admittedly, the _final_ grant in each of these paths would _today_ only be
given by the FDC, as the FDC process was determined to be the appropriate
way to fund investments such as long term leases and non-temporary
full-time staff, but the _path_ towards that goes through successful and
_impactful_ spending of Wikimedia Grants Program funds. The Grants Program
did indeed decline to fund several proposals that included staffing plans,
and anyone is welcome to review those declined grants[6] and read my
assessment and concerns on the talk pages. You are welcome to ask
questions about them as well.
Helping impactful groups _grow_ is most definitely something I personally,
as head of one of the Foundations grants programs, have done.
4.4. I encourage any group that would like to discuss a possible path to
hiring staff through WMF grants to discuss this with me (I'm happy to have
the discussion in public on Meta, but will defer to each group's
preference), as WMRS has done, and we can work out a plan to achieve this,
given certain milestones.
5. Summary
I hope this helps our colleagues understand the context in which the FDC
recommendations were made, and I am sorry I was forced to dwell on points
of weakness, but it seems to me our public process and this public
discussion have left no other choice. Like everyone else, I'd much rather
celebrate successes. :)
Asaf
[0] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-April/125536.html
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grants_talk%3AWM_HK%2FEducatio…
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:WM_HK/Education_Toolkits_For_Li…
[3] The assessment for WMHK's proposal is here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/Proposals/2012-2013_round2/Wikim…
[4]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2012-2013_ro…
[5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Start
[6]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Index/Requests#Grant_submissions_not…
--
Asaf Bartov
Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
https://donate.wikimedia.org
Asaf,
Thank you for sharing your perspective.
This situation is complicated. I think it should be reviewed by an uninvolved third party, probably the FDC ombudsperson. I think it would take significant time and a lot of emails in this thread to accomplish what a review by the ombudsperson could accomplish in a faster and more thorough manner.
Would you or someone else from the Grants staff please address the more broader questions that I raised earlier? I realize that these may have been easily overlooked due to the high volume of email on this list recently, so I'll repeat here.
"Several interesting comments have been made in this thread regarding the value of a more holistic evaluation of the FDC and GAC processes with regards to chapters especially regarding the hiring of a chapter's first full time employee. There have also been comments made regarding the "heavy" nature of the FDC grant application process. Would the WMF staff please indicate whether a review of these concerns is under consideration, if so, how they plan to conduct the review?"
I think you partially addressed these questions in your response but I would appreciate a more direct reply from you, Anasuya, Jessie, or anyone else in the Grantmaking and Programs group. Please feel free to fork into a separate thread if you like.
Thanks,
Pine
On 18 April 2013 17:32, James Forrester <jforrester(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> TL;DR: VisualEditor will be deployed on 14 new Wikipedias next week as an
> opt-in alpha. Your assitance is requested to inform your wikis about this
> and help get the software translated.
This is now done (for de, nl, fr, it, ru, es, sv, pl, ja, ar, he, hi,
ko, and zh). Grateful for feedback, bug reports and suggestions of how
we can improve the VisualEditor for you.
Yours,
--
James D. Forrester
Product Manager, VisualEditor
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
jforrester(a)wikimedia.org | @jdforrester
Hi everyone,
Last year after the Berlin Hackathon I sent an email to internal-l about
the accommodation. The text I sent was quite sharp to get a response. A
lot of people replied to the email and it contained a lot of useful
opinions. The discussion was quite heated at some point and I would like
to have something positive from it. I still have it on my todo list to
start and/ or improve the Accommodation best practices. Does such a page
already exist on meta or should I start a new one?
Maarten
Dear all,
The next WMF metrics and activities will take place on Thursday, May
2, 2013 at 6:00 PM UTC (11 AM PDT). The IRC channel is
#wikimedia-office on irc.freenode.net and the meeting will be
broadcast as a live YouTube stream.
The current structure of the meeting is:
* Review of key metrics including the monthly report card, but also
specialized reports and analytics* Review of financials* Welcoming
recent hires* Brief presentations on recent projects, with a focus on
highest priority initiatives* Update and Q&A with the Executive
Director, if available
Please review https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Metrics_and_activities_meetings
for further information about how to participate.
We'll post the video recording publicly after the meeting.
Thank you, Praveena
--
Praveena Maharaj
Executive Assistant to the VP of Engineering and Product Development
+1 (415) 839 6885 ext. 6689
www.wikimedia.org
Hi everyone,
A quick email to announce and explain current WMFr payment processor status.
As some of you know, French regulations makes it hard to transfer ver
50% of the fund raised locally to an international organisation.
Until know, WMFr budget was always somewhat equal to 50% of the money
raised. Last year fundraising was "too" efficient in France and we've
reached the point when 50% of the funds raised in France are much more
than WMFr actual budget.
In face of that situation, Wikimedia France board has asked WMF to
stop being a payment processor in 2013, and that until we have found a
suitable solution to handle the movement needs. We already have
possible solutions, such as asking for having a "super charity" status
(reconnaissance d'utilité publique / being recognised as an
organisation for general good).
That process is a lengthy and over bureaucratic one, and we don't know
how fast it can get to obtain it.
In the coming month, WMFr will work with WMF on explaining to French
donors that they can't ask for tax deduction next year and handling
their requests.
As said last year in our letter to the board and ED of Wikimedia
Foundation, being a payment processor or not doesn't change whether
WMFr will support the localisation of the fundraising efforts.
Late 2012, WMFr board decided to start looking for external funding
sources. Removing ourselves will also allow us to dedicate more
resources to that activity.
Our hope is that in the coming months WMFr will have a stronger fiscal
position and will be able to ask to be a payment processor again because we
still believe that having local fundraising handled by local
organisations is more efficient and more sustainable on the long run.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask even offline if you
prefer to.
Best,
Christophe HENNER | Vice-chair
-------------------------------------------------------------------
› Mail : christophe.henner(a)wikimedia.fr
› Mobile : +33(0)6 29 35 65 94
› Tel : +33(0)5 62 89 12 01
› Twitter : @Wikimedia_Fr
-----------------------------------------------------
Wikimédia France | Association pour le libre partage de la
connaissance | Visitez notre blog http://blog.wikimedia.fr
Dear all,
I am delighted to announce the expansion of the Wikimedia Foundation's
Community Advocacy team to include our newest hire, Jan Eissfeldt, whose
work will be focused on the German and Spanish language sites. Jan, who
made his first contributions to the German language Wikipedia in early 2004
and works on modern philosophers on the Spanish language project, will help
us with his specialized academic background. Jan holds a German BA in
social science and philosophy with an intercultural profile. His main
theme - carried over into MA studies - is argumentation theory. This
combination of being rooted in the editing community and providing
analytical skills will help us to better understand the German and Spanish
projects, and to serve our non-English language communities in general.
English language folks might have come across his name during 2012 as he
edited the Signpost's feature News & Notes.
The community advocacy team, you may recall, is an attempt to shore up the
Foundation's knowledge of non-English speaking projects, and facilitates
strategic change by providing knowledge and skills about communities that
the Foundation increasingly interacts with through the Engineering team's
frequent technical improvements, through grant-making, our legal work, and
the other activities of the Foundation. In our attempts to learn more
about these communities, get their input during the formation of
initiatives, and figure out how best to deliver initiatives to them, Jan
will be joined by one more hire (soon to be announced, I hope).
Jan will work from his home in Germany, will report to me, and will also
work closely with Maggie, who will serve as his mentor and will help to
organize and lead our community advocates as they are hired.
Please welcome Jan to the Foundation, though he's been a part of the
movement for years!
pb
___________________
Philippe Beaudette
Director, Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
415-839-6885, x 6643
philippe(a)wikimedia.org
I have been giving some thought to Erik's proposal and while already
fascinating, I would like to put it in different terms.
Instead of asking "Could open source MT be such a strategic investment?", I
would ask "is there a way to have Wikimedia's technology and people
involved collaborate with MT systems?" The first can be seen as entering
areas quite out of reach, the second would be more about paving the way for
other actors that are already in the field. Our strength has always been
based around human collaboration empowered by technology, and if MT is
wished, then we should consider approaching it from our areas of expertise.
One of the biggest problems in MT is word disambiguation. Wikidata's item
properties could be a way of setting the general context for article
translation, and if that results not to be reliable enough, users should
have the opportunity to specify on the source text the intended meaning of
a certain word. While that could be less than ideal for literary works,
where double meanings and other subtleties must be taken into account, it
might be quite useful for Wikipedia, providing MT software a fertile soil
where to grow. The standards for specifying word meanings for MT software
are unknown to me, but it might be worth exploring.
Another interesting hurdle for MT is dictionary building. OmegaWiki seems
like a system that could be used for bridging the gap between pairs of
languages, in such a way that if we know the exact use of the word in the
source language, a user could seamlessly fill in the missing word and
definition in the target language. That could be a unique way of
collaboration between source-language speakers providing precision about
the meaning being used, and target-language speakers filling the gaps.
Dictionaries alone are not enough. Grammar rules would need to be wikified.
All in all, OmegaWiki/Wiktionary could become the front-end and repository
for external MT systems, either to be used in Wikipedia or with other pages.
It wouldn't be needed to create a new MT system, because the rule-based MT
programs that could make use of such infraestructure already exist. Some of
them are open-source too. If you are interested, I could ask for opinions
about the feasability in the Apertium lists. In my opinion, they also fit
into the "smartest, well-intentioned group of people" category that Erik
was asking about.
Cheers,
David --Micru
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Chris Tophe <kipmaster(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 2013/4/29 Mathieu Stumpf <psychoslave(a)culture-libre.org>
>
> > Le 2013-04-26 20:27, Milos Rancic a écrit :
> >
> > OmegaWiki is a masterpiece from the perspective of one [computational]
> >> linguist. Erik made the structure so well, that it's the best starting
> >> point to create a contemporary multilingual dictionary. I didn't see
> >> anything better in concept. (And, yes, when I was thinking about
> >> creating such software by my own, I was always at the dead end of
> >> "but, OmegaWiki is already that".)
> >>
> >
> > Where can I find documentation about this structure, please ?
>
>
>
> Here (planned structure):
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OmegaWiki_data_design
>
> and also there (current structure):
> http://www.omegawiki.org/Help:OmegaWiki_database_layout
>
> And a gentle reminder that comments are requested ;-)
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Adopt_OmegaWiki
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
--
Etiamsi omnes, ego non