Sure, improve it, but that's no reason to lambaste its community, or make false claims about it. (David, you still haven't addressed my questioning of how historical pages make Meta unusable).
Because you can't tell what on earth is active and what isn't. e.g. Is [[Meta:Babel]] active? It's supposed to be the Village Pump of Meta. I see tumbleweeds blow past. e.g. Is [[m:RFA]] checked at all on any regular basis? The bureaucrats were notable by their complete absence until Linuxbeak ran for bureaucrat, which appeared to cause a sudden flurry of activity and declarations that there were enough bureaucrats on Meta, even though there was visibly no-one minding the store. That sort of thing. I've given both these examples before on the wiki, though not here (my apologies).
Note, by the way, that everyone listed on [[WM:OM]] are individuals - despite, e.g. Anthere answering one person [1] with a reply to what someone else said [2]. So, e.g., Linuxbeak's list of things he wants isn't mine (e.g. an en: only meta).
I will note also that the incumbents have successfully driven out at least some of the "insurgents" [3]. Are you proud? If not, why?
- d.
(I'm giving references because people are too often claiming not to know what I'm talking about in this discussion.)
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta_talk:MetaProject_to_Overhau... [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta_talk:MetaProject_to_Overhau... - I do agree this was inappropriate, but it does help not to answer the wrong person, as if everyone involved is a single entity. [3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:MetaProject_to_Overhaul_Met...
If the locals are causeing problems just speed up the process of shifting most of the interproject stuff over to en where a lot of the interproject comunication takes place anyway.
-- geni
geni wrote:
If the locals are causeing problems just speed up the process of shifting most of the interproject stuff over to en where a lot of the interproject comunication takes place anyway.
-- geni
A lot of the interproject communication is taking place on en wikipedia rather than meta ?
Can you show me some examples please ?
Ant
On 3/31/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
If the locals are causeing problems just speed up the process of shifting most of the interproject stuff over to en where a lot of the interproject comunication takes place anyway.
Excuse me?
Delphine -- ~notafish
On 3/31/06, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/31/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
If the locals are causeing problems just speed up the process of shifting most of the interproject stuff over to en where a lot of the interproject comunication takes place anyway.
Excuse me?
Which part are you objecting to?
The claim that most interproject comunication takes place on wikipedia? It tends to be true because english is fairly widespeard as a langage with the result that an awful lot of people have a en account. So people comunicate via en talk pages. En is home to a much greater knowlage and user base than any wikipedia so you will probably get responces faster. [[Wikipedia:500th language pool]] is on en. The whole Moldovan langue spat particaly took place on en. The various other en projects generaly try to recruite from en.wikipedia.
-- geni
On 3/31/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
geni wrote:
If the locals are causeing problems just speed up the process of shifting most of the interproject stuff over to en where a lot of the interproject comunication takes place anyway.
-- geni
A lot of the interproject communication is taking place on en wikipedia rather than meta ?
Can you show me some examples please ?
Ant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%D0%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%92%D0%B5_%D0%94...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:.:Ajvol:.#Moscow_map
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:PanBK#Great_pics.21
The whole moldovan langauge thing spilled over onto en.wikipedia.
We've traced vandles over multiple languages (although fortunetly most of them stay en based).
Things that will effect multiple projects tend to have discusion based on en.wikipedia (to be expected since en.wikipedia has the largest consitancy
The one solid debate on wikimedia funding I've seen was on en.wikipedia (the fincial models presented were amusing)
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 3/31/06, Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/31/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
If the locals are causeing problems just speed up the process of shifting most of the interproject stuff over to en where a lot of the interproject comunication takes place anyway.
Excuse me?
Which part are you objecting to?
The claim that most interproject comunication takes place on wikipedia? It tends to be true because english is fairly widespeard as a langage with the result that an awful lot of people have a en account. So people comunicate via en talk pages. En is home to a much greater knowlage and user base than any wikipedia so you will probably get responces faster. [[Wikipedia:500th language pool]] is on en. The whole Moldovan langue spat particaly took place on en. The various other en projects generaly try to recruite from en.wikipedia.
I don't doubt that a lot of this stuff gets discussed extensively on en.
The big advantage of doing what you suggest is that the results and effects could be limited to en:wikipedia. The other projects would no longer be bound by these discussions. :-P
Ec
geni wrote:
On 3/31/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
geni wrote:
If the locals are causeing problems just speed up the process of shifting most of the interproject stuff over to en where a lot of the interproject comunication takes place anyway.
-- geni
A lot of the interproject communication is taking place on en wikipedia rather than meta ?
Can you show me some examples please ?
Ant
Hello
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%D0%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%92%D0%B5_%D0%94...
Errrr, I did not see exactly why these links were here.
The whole moldovan langauge thing spilled over onto en.wikipedia.
Well, it spilled in many places... Well, in this case, what matters is that the current mo and ro editors find an agreement all of them will be happy with. It does not really matter where it took place. Whether on meta, or on wikipedia-l or on en, what matters is that those concerned by the situation agree with the final decision. If some editors on en find a solution, so much the better...
We've traced vandles over multiple languages (although fortunetly most of them stay en based).
Well... possibly. But this also happens in the other languages. Again, it does not matter as long as those concerned by the vandalism are happy with the outcome. This example is again an example of something impacting only one language or one project. So, it does not matter where the discussion takes place as long as anyone knows where it take place.
An example of something it would be only mildly nice to discuss only on en would be the creation of a new project, such as wikiversity. But even if discussion occurs on en, what is important is that the decision takes place on a neutral ground. The decision over a new project should not be done on en. The decision for a new feature should not be done on en. Those must take place on meta or on a general list. And unless I am wrong, this is what is happening.
Things that will effect multiple projects tend to have discusion based on en.wikipedia (to be expected since en.wikipedia has the largest consitancy
The one solid debate on wikimedia funding I've seen was on en.wikipedia (the fincial models presented were amusing)
And *this* is to be highly regretted. Who takes care of Wikimedia funding ? English editors ? No. Board members ? Much more indeed. I presume the debate on funding certainly was interesting. But did it have any outcome ? Was any new type of funding implemented after that debate ? How much was brought in the purse after that discussion ?
Discussion on the matter certainly can take place on en, but it would be wise either to point out this debate to those practically involved in financing the project, OR (even better) to make those a report with the best ideas. A debate which bring nothing in the end is intellectually fruitful. But it also should bring an outcome.
For example, en has often talked about a paper version. But those currently *making* a paper version are the germans.
I do not mean to say there are not good discussions on en on many topics Geni, but 1) these debates must offer practical outcome and 2) outcome is more likely if people from several projects and several languages are working on it together.
Ant
On 3/31/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:%D0%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%92%D0%B5_%D0%94...
Errrr, I did not see exactly why these links were here.
People disscussion interlang issues (with ru.wikipedia).
Well... possibly. But this also happens in the other languages. Again,
An example of something it would be only mildly nice to discuss only on en would be the creation of a new project, such as wikiversity. But even if discussion occurs on en, what is important is that the decision takes place on a neutral ground. The decision over a new project should not be done on en. The decision for a new feature should not be done on en. Those must take place on meta or on a general list. And unless I am wrong, this is what is happening.
En is the ideal place to discuss many new features since we have the highest editing load and most sophistacted vandles.
And *this* is to be highly regretted. Who takes care of Wikimedia funding ?
Dunno I think that was part of the issue. The new finace comitte (or whatever it was called) has a seriously tough job ahead of it.
English editors ? No.
En readers and de local branch as responcible for provideing the vast majority of the funding.
Board members ? Much more indeed. I presume the debate on funding certainly was interesting. But did it have any outcome ?
Yeah the financial model was a complete joke and the board considers donator fatigue to be a non issue. Oh an meta/The board was incaperble of rapidly translating fundraiseing notices.
Was any new type of funding implemented after that debate ? How much was brought in the purse after that discussion ?
None. The pro board people won.
Discussion on the matter certainly can take place on en, but it would be wise either to point out this debate to those practically involved in financing the project, OR (even better) to make those a report with the best ideas. A debate which bring nothing in the end is intellectually fruitful. But it also should bring an outcome.
I found what is probably a better option for cafepress for wikipedia mechendise. In fact I belive submitted the info to the suggestion page on meta. No responce.
For example, en has often talked about a paper version. But those currently *making* a paper version are the germans.
Last I heard that project was on hold/abandoned which would push Wikijunior back into poll position.
I do not mean to say there are not good discussions on en on many topics Geni, but 1) these debates must offer practical outcome and 2) outcome is more likely if people from several projects and several languages are working on it together.
Ant
Which is why en wikipedia will en up takeing over if meta doesn't get it's act together. We've got the people from multiple progects/languages with got plently of places to disscuss stuff. The only barrier left is the cry of no no this must be done on meta. If meta continues to drag it's feet that barrier will cease to exist -- geni
On 3/31/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I don't doubt that a lot of this stuff gets discussed extensively on en.
The big advantage of doing what you suggest is that the results and effects could be limited to en:wikipedia. The other projects would no longer be bound by these discussions. :-P
Ec
Since take a rather extream position with regards to project independance I would have very little problem with this. Board level stuff (fundraiseing, devside, legal stuff and absolutely nothing else) could be handled at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home
-- geni
On 3/31/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Anthere wrote:
geni wrote:
The one solid debate on wikimedia funding I've seen was on en.wikipedia (the fincial models presented were amusing)
ooops, I forgot. Could you give me the link to it please ?
Ant
You know where. It breaks out a bit after you threatened to break the three revert rule to get your way. Incerdently I see de has dropped the notice. -- geni
geni wrote:
On 3/31/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Anthere wrote:
geni wrote:
The one solid debate on wikimedia funding I've seen was on en.wikipedia (the fincial models presented were amusing)
ooops, I forgot. Could you give me the link to it please ?
Ant
You know where. It breaks out a bit after you threatened to break the three revert rule to get your way. Incerdently I see de has dropped the notice. -- geni
I see...
No. I do not know where. I am not following you step by step you know ? We have 8 project and over a 100 languages. I am not prescient. And since I do not consider the english wikipedia to be the central place where all relevant debates take place, I must admit I do not take the time to daily follow everything that happens here.
I think it is kinda amazing to see a perfectly decent, normal, polite, simple and neutral question being answered in such a rude way.
Well, it is good there are plenty of good editors on the english wikipedia to work with. Because with editors such as you, I would have long dropped the project. You lack the most basic knowledge of what civility is. As such, you'll be invisible to me in the future. Period.
Anthere
On 4/1/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I see...
No. I do not know where. I am not following you step by step you know ?
Edit war around the 12th week of january. Turned into quite an interesting debate. Discovering the best financial model foundation had projected rather more taffic than yahoo within three years was interesting. In any case the next fundraiseing drive is comeing up so that should settle the core of the debate once and for all.
We have 8 project and over a 100 languages. I am not prescient. And since I do not consider the english wikipedia to be the central place where all relevant debates take place, I must admit I do not take the time to daily follow everything that happens here.
You do however view us as central for funding:
10:21, 12 January 2006 Anthere (some things are needed to keep the website running....)
Refering to a notice than appeared on en but not on many other wikipedias (it now on even fewer now which is kinda anoying because it makes the calculations more difficult)
I think it is kinda amazing to see a perfectly decent, normal, polite, simple and neutral question being answered in such a rude way.
What kind of responce would you have wanted? "A couple of mediawiki pages starting on the 12th of jan". You know that would be missleading. You were there.
Well, it is good there are plenty of good editors on the english wikipedia to work with.
Yes please help them turn meta into something worthwhile
I mean have you ever seen how dead http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals is?
Because with editors such as you, I would have long dropped the project. You lack the most basic knowledge of what civility is.
Type of bird isn't it?
As such, you'll be invisible to me in the future. Period.
Anthere
Well good luck and try to make sure the board doesn't do anything else dissruptive.
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 4/1/06, Anthere Anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I see...
No. I do not know where. I am not following you step by step you know ?
Edit war around the 12th week of january. Turned into quite an interesting debate. Discovering the best financial model foundation had projected rather more taffic than yahoo within three years was interesting. In any case the next fundraiseing drive is comeing up so that should settle the core of the debate once and for all.
We have 8 project and over a 100 languages. I am not prescient. And since I do not consider the english wikipedia to be the central place where all relevant debates take place, I must admit I do not take the time to daily follow everything that happens here.
You do however view us as central for funding:
10:21, 12 January 2006 Anthere (some things are needed to keep the website running....)
Refering to a notice than appeared on en but not on many other wikipedias (it now on even fewer now which is kinda anoying because it makes the calculations more difficult)
I think it is kinda amazing to see a perfectly decent, normal, polite, simple and neutral question being answered in such a rude way.
What kind of responce would you have wanted? "A couple of mediawiki pages starting on the 12th of jan". You know that would be missleading. You were there.
Well, it is good there are plenty of good editors on the english wikipedia to work with.
Yes please help them turn meta into something worthwhile
I mean have you ever seen how dead http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals is?
Because with editors such as you, I would have long dropped the project. You lack the most basic knowledge of what civility is.
Type of bird isn't it?
As such, you'll be invisible to me in the future. Period.
Anthere
Well good luck and try to make sure the board doesn't do anything else dissruptive.
An answer like "You know where" to a straightforward question is indeed rude. It's just the kind of thing that you would expect from an authoritarian father or cop who will not have his opinion swayed by evidence.
Your subsequent response is nothing more than unmitigated trolling, and the community would do well to insist that you apologize to Anthere for this kind of behaviour.
Ec