FYI
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Brion Vibber <brion(a)wikimedia.org>
Date: 2008/5/29
Subject: [Commons-l] On upload forms
To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
For a long time we've had to suffer with an image upload form which was
pretty bare-bones, while attempting to shoehorn more smarts into it
through templates and JavaScript hacks.
Well, I think it's about time we prioritize really doing this thing
right. Commons, and MediaWiki generally, needs an upload form which:
a) Works sensibly
b) Looks good
c) Allows you to upload the file, extract metadata, compare duplicates,
make sure it's sensibly named, and *then* commit it into the system.
d) Handles batch uploads with a minimum of fuss (or at least, as
minimally fussy as one can get with HTML file upload forms :)
Note that this isn't going to be done by tacking JavaScript and
templates onto the existing form; this is going to be a real effort to
redesign it from scratch into something that handles today's actual needs.
I'd appreciate hearing from people interested in helping out in the
following capacities:
* Designing user interface mockups
* Helping code it up in MediaWiki
* Testing the new form under development
* Providing constructive criticism as we work
This effort will probably take from a few weeks to a few months to get
to the point where it's really live; we may even try experiments like
having the old and new forms available side-by-side on the live site so
people really have a chance to bang at it in real usage without forcing
an in-flux test system on everyone.
- -- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkg/CJcACgkQwRnhpk1wk47cmwCeLwjpDR6thinMa39erKqkITlN
QYEAniraOmYsVBFSeqq7M1MKbXMkn2g/
=moPb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Au contraire, Chris.
Google strips the IP headers of outgoing mail: see
http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=26903
Avi
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 1:57 PM, <wikien-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Chris Howie" <cdhowie(a)gmail.com>
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 09:53:28 -0400
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----?
> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 9:13 AM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> At the risk of getting (further) off-topic, I agree to some extent.
> However, people using Gmail typically are not concerned too much with
> privacy. :)
>
[SNIP]
> --
> Chris Howie
> http://www.chrishowie.com
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crazycomputers
>
> --
en:User:Avraham
----
pub 1024D/785EA229 3/6/2007 Avi (Wikipedia-related) <aviwiki(a)gmail.com>
Primary key fingerprint: D233 20E7 0697 C3BC 4445 7D45 CBA0 3F46 785E A229
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/achenblog/2008/05/the_wikipedian_superheroes…
"I'm actually finding it difficult not to write in openly positive
terms. I've always had an enormous amount of admiration for Prime as a
character, I'll admit."
"Some might suggest you should find a sense of perspective. Listen
carefully: 'This is a toy robot you're talking about.'"
- d.
Folks,
Please bear with me while I run a test of my e-mail service. Comcast has
been having problems for the past 24 hours & for some reason I haven't
received any posts from any of the various WP-related Mailing Lists.
Marc
Yes, Chris, we do realize that. However, ASCII attachments defeat the
purpose for those of us subscribed in digest mode, as the attachments are
all concatenated to the bottom of the e-mail and there is no indication as
to which e-mail they refer. So unless one is getting the e-mails
individually, it does affect the verification.
--Avi
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 8:00 AM, <wikien-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
wrote:
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Chris Howie" <cdhowie(a)gmail.com>
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 06:48:22 -0400
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----?
>
> I would agree to some extent. Did you PGP/GPG users out there (I am
> one, I just don't sign much anymore) realize that a
> properly-configured client can send the signature as an attachment and
> not inline? Look at Kwan Ting Chan's message, for example. It looks
> much cleaner and is just as verifiable.
>
> --
> Chris Howie
> http://www.chrishowie.com
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crazycomputers
>
>
--
en:User:Avraham
----
pub 1024D/785EA229 3/6/2007 Avi (Wikipedia-related) <aviwiki(a)gmail.com>
Primary key fingerprint: D233 20E7 0697 C3BC 4445 7D45 CBA0 3F46 785E A229
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
The Wikimedia foundation blog, is located at http://blog.wikimedia.org
Information about this blog can be located at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Blog
The blog is currently encouraging suggested post drafts from the
contributers on here at Wikimedia. Please check out the drafting
instructions at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Blog#Drafting_a_post
Send in your material!
An example of a post that could be drafted is the new SUL / Unified
login system. Perhaps a contributer knowledgeable in that area could
write something up. :)
Very Best!
Jon
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFIPg5E6+ro8Pm1AtURAsG1AKChff/DbcmMDAzg9fNWIjkiqzskGQCgn3QV
C2WE9SD8rPPdWiCX6xisqPA=
=Ik3m
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
We should require interwiki bot operators to
Know each language they operate their bot so that they can read and memorize
each and every bot policy.
Expect them to watch and follow each and every talk page on every wiki.
Require them to have 5-10 checks of these talk pages per day.
Wait several years (for the wiki to grow) before getting a bot flag.
Or would that be unreasonable?
Perhaps a unified standard bot policy is needed for mindless tasks like
interwiki linking, double redirect fixing and commons delinking.
The interwiki bot policy would set the standard for these mindless tasks.
Such a standard would let bot operators to operate more efficiently.
Particularly the largest wikis and the smallest wikis are very aloof from
such a standard.
Very small wikis often have a mini dictatorship by a few users (not
referancing anybody spesific). Such small wikis generally have cooperative
people but sometimes the wikis regulars do not understand what interwiki
bots and botflags are about and why such are necessary.
Very large wikis often have overly complicated policies. For someone only
interested in dealing with mindless bot tasks these pose an unnecessary
bureaucracy. Due to the language barrier reading these policies alone can be
quite a challenge.
- White Cat
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> Spot on. Now, comes a writer and creates that thing of beauty, and it
> is concise and precise and all that. Took hours to boil it down to
> that. Oh, the writer didn't source it. The writer knew the subject
> very well and simply wrote about what the writer knows. And, the
> writer knows, anyone else who knows this subject will recognize the
> accuracy of this. I'm not talking about someone simply asserting their own POV.
>
> Used to be, this article might sit there, unsourced for years.
> Nowadays, five minutes, speedy deletion tag. "Fails to assert
> notability." "No sources."
>
> The ladder that built the project is being chopped away. There is
> possibly help coming: flagged revisions. Once we have a means of
> discriminating between checked and sourced and polished articles and
> those which are perhaps better called "submissions," we might be able
> to move beyond the whole deletionist/inclusionist madness. We might
> be able to stop stepping on the seeds that could be fostered and
> nourished with good editing. If we don't, somebody else will.
Well put. The often cancerous obsession that some have for notability
and sourcing is as damaging to the future of Wikipedia as the sins that
they are trying to suppress. Admittedly biographies of living persons
require stricter guidelines, but they are an exception. If an article
in most subject areas is started without sources, or an assertion of
notability it's not a big deal. Somebody will add them eventually.
Ec