Ori Livneh has created a nice dashboard that regularly polls the Main
Pages of a few of our projects to break down the amount of JavaScript
(and other static assets) that's loaded for an anonymous pageview of
the Main Page:
https://ganglia.wikimedia.org/latest/?r=week&cs=&ce=&tab=v&vn=Static+assets
Commons currently loads more than 1MB of JavaScript. This is too much,
which negatively affects performance for our end users. Some of this
is on WMF -- JS code we've deployed that we can optimize. But it would
also be good to get community help with auditing site JS and gadgets
that are loaded by default and that can be reduced in complexity,
loaded only when needed, etc.
We'll aim to provide better debugging tools to the community in future
but wanted to point this out in case anyone already wants to take a
closer look.
Erik
--
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
There's been some outcry lately about the removal of the Wikipedia layer
from Google Maps, both by wikimedians (mainly on wikimedia-l) and Google
users + wikimedians (on Google's support forums).
Someone speculated that the Wikipedia/Commons layer was not popular
enough because it was too hidden, but the more I think about it the more
I'm convinced that Google has now built Panoramio to be strong enough
and wants to reinforce it further with its Google Earth/Maps
integration: every time you check a map, you are provided with Panoramio
photos which not only complement Street View but also provide a very
nice tool for geolocation, compensating the rather poor semantics of
many Google maps compared to well-annotated areas of OSM. If you check
Panoramio photos, they have impressive amounts of views.
So, has anyone done a comparison of how well Commons is doing compared
to Panoramio, for the part where their scopes intersect? How are their
comparative popularity, coverage and quality going? What are the
critical features which convince users to upload content to Panoramio,
what do we lack?
Nemo
FYI
Nemo
P.s.: P.s.: You can check whether the WMF protects the logo of your
project by seeing if it's listed as "registered trademark" on
<https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_trademarks>.
-------- Messaggio originale --------
Oggetto: [Wikimedia-l] It's time to reclaim the community logo
Data: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 12:16:16 +0200
Mittente: Tomasz W. Kozlowski
Hello community,
this is to inform you that in response to the trademarking of the
Wikimedia community logo[1], created in 2006 by Artur “WarX”
Fijałkowski, which was discussed on this mailing list[2] as well as on
Meta[3] back in March, a small group of community members—Artur, myself,
Federico Leva (Nemo) and John Vandenberg—have initiated a formal process
of opposition against the registration of the trademark by the
Foundation in order to *reclaim the logo* for unrestricted use by the
community.
We appreciate the Foundation’s protection of the other trademarks they
have registered so far, including the logos of Wikipedia, Wikisource and
some other sister projects. In the case of the community logo, however,
it is our belief that the Foundation’s actions are exactly opposite to
what the community logo stands for and contradict the purpose behind its
very existence.
We would like to make it clear that it is not our intention to damage
anyone; our actions are a challenge against what we perceive as
unilateral declaration of ownership of an asset that has always belonged
to the wider community, and not to one or another organisation that is
part of the movement. By formally opposing the registration of the
trademark we hope to ensure the history of this logo is not disregarded,
and we wish to protect the community against unnecessary bureaucracy
and, to use another quote, let “groups who do not purport to represent
the WMF”[4] to continue to be able to freely associate with a logo that
has been part of their identity for so long.
We also want to note that this is in no way a legal action against the
Foundation, but a simple notice of opposition against the registration
of the logo in the European Union. If we assume good faith, we can only
be confident that the WMF, having now a formal occasion, will withdraw
its registration of the logo rather than continue using movement
resources to force the community into lengthy, expensive proceedings.
We invite all community members interested in this issue to express
their opinions at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_Logo/Reclaim_the_Logo
If any of you would like to help us in any way (covering the costs of
the opposition, promoting the discussion, etc.), please feel free to
contact us off–list.
Artur Fijalkowski (WarX)
Tomasz Kozlowski (odder)
Federico Leva (Nemo)
John Vandenberg (jayvdb)
== References ==
* [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg
* [2]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-March/124715.html
* [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_Logo
* [4]
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-March/124730.html
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Hi,
With the pending toolserver shutdown, I was thinking about retiring Flickr
Upload Bot. However, this bot is apparently still used about 2000-4000
times per month.
I was under the impression that the upload wizard would replace this bot,
however, I couldn't find any references to this. Does anybody know what the
status of uploading from Flickr using the upload wizard is?
Bryan