http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#What.27s_the_de...
Oh good lordy wordy...
—C.W.
Oh, did we finally do away with an innocuous innovation that actually measurably and demonstrably increased the number of free images we have in favor of short-term concerns about how "pretty" articles look?
Some day I hope we can finally develop policies that are actually a complete impediment to the development of a free content resource instead of these minor speedbumps we usually muster.
-Phil
On Oct 9, 2008, at 11:27 PM, Charlotte Webb wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#What.27s_the_de...
Oh good lordy wordy...
—C.W.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/9/08, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, did we finally do away with an innocuous innovation that actually measurably and demonstrably increased the number of free images we have in favor of short-term concerns about how "pretty" articles look?
Some day I hope we can finally develop policies that are actually a complete impediment to the development of a free content resource instead of these minor speedbumps we usually muster.
Well, it's one thing to say "don't over-use 'em" but it soon becomes a race to see who can first run a thinly disguised bot to remove them all, just like the fucking date links.
—C.W.
On Oct 10, 2008, at 12:10 AM, Charlotte Webb wrote:
On 10/9/08, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, did we finally do away with an innocuous innovation that actually measurably and demonstrably increased the number of free images we have in favor of short-term concerns about how "pretty" articles look?
Some day I hope we can finally develop policies that are actually a complete impediment to the development of a free content resource instead of these minor speedbumps we usually muster.
Well, it's one thing to say "don't over-use 'em" but it soon becomes a race to see who can first run a thinly disguised bot to remove them all, just like the fucking date links.
Whereas, frankly, what would be more appropriate would be running a bot on Category:Living people to add them where they don't exist.
-Phil
Agree.
FT2
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 5:20 AM, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.comwrote:
On Oct 10, 2008, at 12:10 AM, Charlotte Webb wrote:
On 10/9/08, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, did we finally do away with an innocuous innovation that actually measurably and demonstrably increased the number of free images we have in favor of short-term concerns about how "pretty" articles look?
Some day I hope we can finally develop policies that are actually a complete impediment to the development of a free content resource instead of these minor speedbumps we usually muster.
Well, it's one thing to say "don't over-use 'em" but it soon becomes a race to see who can first run a thinly disguised bot to remove them all, just like the fucking date links.
Whereas, frankly, what would be more appropriate would be running a bot on Category:Living people to add them where they don't exist.
-Phil
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 12:20 AM, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 10, 2008, at 12:10 AM, Charlotte Webb wrote:
On 10/9/08, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, did we finally do away with an innocuous innovation that actually measurably and demonstrably increased the number of free images we have in favor of short-term concerns about how "pretty" articles look?
Some day I hope we can finally develop policies that are actually a complete impediment to the development of a free content resource instead of these minor speedbumps we usually muster.
Well, it's one thing to say "don't over-use 'em" but it soon becomes a race to see who can first run a thinly disguised bot to remove them all, just like the fucking date links.
Whereas, frankly, what would be more appropriate would be running a bot on Category:Living people to add them where they don't exist.
I strongly concur.
Wikipedia is a work in progress, and it's pretty much impossible to hide that. So I think it's okay to have some dust on the floor as the result of actions which hasten our long term progress.
On 10/10/08, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia is a work in progress, and it's pretty much impossible to hide that. So I think it's okay to have some dust on the floor as the result of actions which hasten our long term progress.
Oh goody, they're now voting on whether to orphan and delete the "replace this image" SVGs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Proposal_to_depr...
—C.W.
2008/10/10 Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com:
Oh, did we finally do away with an innocuous innovation that actually measurably and demonstrably increased the number of free images we have in favor of short-term concerns about how "pretty" articles look?
It's okay, we can wait six months, hold a comprehensive debate, and put them back again.
After all, this is how our decision-making process seems to always have worked...
2008/10/10 Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com:
Oh, did we finally do away with an innocuous innovation that actually measurably and demonstrably increased the number of free images we have in favor of short-term concerns about how "pretty" articles look?
No the devs did that a few months back. While I could rebuild the system to get around the problems it would require a lot of messing around in the mediawiki namespace and I don't feel like trying that without admin powers.
On 10/10/08, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2008/10/10 Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com:
Oh, did we finally do away with an innocuous innovation that actually measurably and demonstrably increased the number of free images we have in favor of short-term concerns about how "pretty" articles look?
No the devs did that a few months back. While I could rebuild the system to get around the problems it would require a lot of messing around in the mediawiki namespace and I don't feel like trying that without admin powers.
If anyone has statistics for how many photos have been submitted via clicking on the placeholder, now would a good time to break 'em out.
—C.W.
On Oct 10, 2008, at 11:03 AM, Charlotte Webb wrote:
On 10/10/08, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2008/10/10 Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com:
Oh, did we finally do away with an innocuous innovation that actually measurably and demonstrably increased the number of free images we have in favor of short-term concerns about how "pretty" articles look?
No the devs did that a few months back. While I could rebuild the system to get around the problems it would require a lot of messing around in the mediawiki namespace and I don't feel like trying that without admin powers.
If anyone has statistics for how many photos have been submitted via clicking on the placeholder, now would a good time to break 'em out.
I believe David Gerard knows these. David?
-Phil
2008/10/10 Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com:
On Oct 10, 2008, at 11:03 AM, Charlotte Webb wrote:
If anyone has statistics for how many photos have been submitted via clicking on the placeholder, now would a good time to break 'em out.
I believe David Gerard knows these. David?
I don't, actually. Greg Maxwell said to me a while ago it would be easy to run them from a full history dump - Greg?
- d.
On 10/10/08, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I don't, actually. Greg Maxwell said to me a while ago it would be easy to run them from a full history dump - Greg?
Ah well I'm sure the MOS guys will find some way to declare victory long before the full history dump finishes, if it finishes at all.
http://download.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20081008/
Apparently the last successful dump of this type was 2008-Mar-31 11:28:37...
Actually it would surprise me even less if the MOS guys declare a loss and then remove the images anyway.
—C.W.
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 11:50 AM, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/10/08, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I don't, actually. Greg Maxwell said to me a while ago it would be easy to run them from a full history dump - Greg?
Ah well I'm sure the MOS guys will find some way to declare victory long before the full history dump finishes, if it finishes at all.
http://download.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20081008/
Apparently the last successful dump of this type was 2008-Mar-31 11:28:37...
Actually it would surprise me even less if the MOS guys declare a loss and then remove the images anyway.
Wow, thats an assumption of bad faith if I've ever seen one
Anyway does this affect both free and non-free image request templates? -- Wilhelm (nixeagle)
On 10/10/08, Wilhelm Schnotz wilhelm@nixeagle.org wrote:
Anyway does this affect both free and non-free image request templates?
Well I certainly hope if they get rid of the "free image please" templates they would also get rid of any "moar fair use please" templates we might have. I haven't seen anything like that but I don't doubt they exist.
I mean, we have to keep our priorities in check here.
As far as I can tell, only on those which resemble a human silhouette (for use on living people, where a free image is presumed obtainable) are part of the current ballot.
But like I said, anything can happen.
—C.W.
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/10/08, Wilhelm Schnotz wilhelm@nixeagle.org wrote:
Anyway does this affect both free and non-free image request templates?
Well I certainly hope if they get rid of the "free image please" templates they would also get rid of any "moar fair use please" templates we might have. I haven't seen anything like that but I don't doubt they exist.
There are templates that request an album scan for albums lacking that. I don't know the template for that, but I have seen them on articles (about 3 months ago was my first time I saw it... dunno what happened to it).
I mean, we have to keep our priorities in check here.
That is why I was asking ;)
2008/10/10 Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com:
On 10/10/08, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2008/10/10 Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com:
Oh, did we finally do away with an innocuous innovation that actually measurably and demonstrably increased the number of free images we have in favor of short-term concerns about how "pretty" articles look?
No the devs did that a few months back. While I could rebuild the system to get around the problems it would require a lot of messing around in the mediawiki namespace and I don't feel like trying that without admin powers.
If anyone has statistics for how many photos have been submitted via clicking on the placeholder, now would a good time to break 'em out.
—C.W.
At least 2.5K (that is how many are sitting in the system at the moment).
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#What.27s_the_de...
Oh good lordy wordy...
I suppose stub tags will be next for the scrapheap.