FYI the toolserver's web server is currently giving bad gateway errors and the issue has been confirmed by multiple people, I filed a note to the ts-admins.
Dario
I was hoping that WMF had received a $2.6 million endowment for EE and was inviting users to be on an advisory committee that gives input on investment and use of the endowment funds. Imagine my disappointment!
Anyway, the changes to the list also seem to have had the effect of the EE list disappearing from the public list of lists. I think someone may want to edit the list settings again.
Pine
You have been invited to the following event.
Title: CAN YOU MANAGE THIS FUND?
CAN YOU MANAGE THIS FUND?
I want to send the sum of US$2.6 million for you to manage in a good
investment/business of your choice. For your participation in receiving and
managing the funds in a lucrative business, I am willing to give you 20% of
the money.
If you believe you have the competence and capability to handle this fund,
please reply now so I can give you details and also provide you with a
proof of funds document from the bank.
Regards,
Prince Odomo
princeodomo16(a)gmail.com
When: Wed Jan 30, 2013 7:30pm – 8:30pm Lagos
Calendar: ee(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Who:
(Guest list has been hidden at organizer's request)
Event details:
https://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=VIEW&eid=ZzVpYWVpdTc1MzdhaWJwb…
Invitation from Google Calendar: https://www.google.com/calendar/
You are receiving this courtesy email at the account ee(a)lists.wikimedia.org
because you are an attendee of this event.
To stop receiving future notifications for this event, decline this event.
Alternatively you can sign up for a Google account at
https://www.google.com/calendar/ and control your notification settings for
your entire calendar.
I think this may interest some people here on the EE list. The Health Article Review Project attempts to engage non-Wikipedians who are health professionals in providing feedback about English Wikipedia articles.
I'm not sure how this could be linked into things like AFT or other efforts to engage experts in commenting regarding health articles or many other subjects which would benefit from expert attention, but I think this is good food for thought.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:HARP
Pine
Hello everyone,
In case you haven't already heard, I wanted to let you know that a Request for Comments about our Article Feedback tool was posted this weekend by volunteer editor MZ McBride, who is seeking community input on the future of this tool on the English Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Article_feedback
We encourage experienced Wikipedians on this list to contribute to this discussion, if you are so inclined. Some of the issues being discussed go beyond the specifics of Article Feedback, and address broader questions about how to best engage readers and new editors into the growth of our movement. Because of your interest in our editor engagement programs, you are in a unique position to present an informed perspective on the pros and cons of this tool, as part of our overall objectives for increased participation.
Note that if you work for the WMF, we recommend that you focus on providing factual information in the comment sections or talk page -- and refrain from voting or posting personal views as a new section, so that we don't interfere with this community deliberation process. If you do participate, be sure to use your staff account and avoid getting into heated discussions, which just state the relevant facts you are aware of, and leave it at that.
WMF staff members who have already contributed to this discussion include Oliver Keyes, Erik Moeller and yours truly (posted as a comment after MZ McBride's view). Our comments are longer than we expect other WMF contributions to be, because we wanted to surface all the known facts for the record. But we are now taking more of an observer role, to let others comment on this community discussion without interference from the foundation.
For a quick update about Article Feedback, check out this blog post. Note that we are adding a number of new features recommended by the community, such as simpler moderation tools and better filters, which were designed to reduce the editor workload, surface good feedback, and filter our unmoderated or inappropriate comments. For more details, read our requirements for new features under development.
We expect to have these new features available for testing in early February, and recommend that the RfC be extended until all participants have had a chance to evaluate these new tools. Much of the current discussion is about known issues with the old software we deployed last summer, and many of these problems have since been addressed by our new tools, at least in part.
To be clear, the future of Article Feedback on the English Wikipedia is at stake, and constructive outcomes can only be achieved through a thoughtful and productive conversation with our community. The foundation intends to respect the community's decision and will only deploy this tool under terms to be agreed upon in good faith by a majority of stakeholders.
On a more positive note, I am pleased to report that a parallel vote by the French Wikipedia community is showing very favorable results, with 82 in favor of the tool so far, versus 42 against. (A wide contrast with the English Wikipedia, which appears to be about 21 in favor versus 79 against). We are also making good progress with our pilot on the German Wikipedia, where a vote is expected at the end of this quarter.
So assuming a positive outcome, we are prepared to release the final version of the tool on these international projects first, if the English Wikipedia is not ready for it yet. This could be the beginning of a wonderful trend, where our software development efforts would no longer be driven primarily from an english-centric perspective, but embrace a more global approach instead.
Thanks in advance for any insights you can contribute to this discussion.
All the best,
Fabrice
_______________________________
Fabrice Florin
Product Manager
Wikimedia Foundation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fabrice_Florin_(WMF)
Does it make sense to move the GettingStarted extension's HTML inside
the extension.
Right now, the CSS is in the extension
(https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/gitweb?p=mediawiki/extensions/GettingStarted…).
But the HTML uses MediaWiki:gettingstarted-msg, and the default value of
that is 'An administrator on {{SITENAME}} should customize this message
by editing [[{{ns:MediaWiki}}:gettingstarted-msg]].'.
Basically, the CSS is implicitly depending on HTML outside of the
extension, with the default message being a placeholder. This leads to
inconsistencies if we're not careful.
With Munaf's latest styling (http://jsbin.com/ehizeq/48), it should be
possible to have default chrome HTML (everything outside the three
columns), with a transclusion to another page. In English Wikipedia's
case, that include would be the Copyediting/Spelling & grammar/Add links
columns, populated by SuggestBot initially.
Does it make sense to put that outer HTML with an include as the default
message?
Matt Flaschen
I would appreciate some more reviews of
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/43982/ , when people have a chance.
Although this includes a single-page tooltip-based guided tour, it is
separate from the most recent GuidedTour changes.
Matt Flaschen