---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Guillaume Paumier <gpaumier(a)wikimedia.org>
Link to the original article:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2010/09/22/article-feedback-pilot-goes-live/
As recently announced on the tech blog and in the Signpost, we're
launching an experimental new tool today to capture article feedback
from readers as part of the Public Policy Initiative. We're also
inviting the user community to help determine its future by joining a
workgroup tasked with evaluating it.
The "Article Feedback Tool" allows any reader to quickly and easily
assess the sourcing, completeness, neutrality, and readability of a
Wikipedia article on a five-point scale. It will be one of several tools
used by the Public Policy Initiative to assess the quality of articles.
We also hope it will be a way to increase reader engagement by seeking
feedback from them on how they view the article, and where it needs
improvement.
The tool is currently enabled on about 400 articles related to US public
policy. You can see it in action at the bottom of articles such
as /United States Constitution/, /Don't ask, don't tell/ or /Brown v.
Board of Education/.
Another goal of this pilot is to try and find a way to collaborate with
the community to build tools and features. As main users of the
software, Wikimedians are in a unique position to evaluate how a feature
performs, and what its strengths and limitations are. The Article
Feedback Tool is still very much in a prototype state; we're hoping the
user community can help us determine whether resources should be
allocated to improve it (and if so, how), or if it doesn't meet the
users' needs and should be shelved or completely rethought.
More information about the tool is available on our Questions & Answers
page [1].
If you want to try the tool to assess an article, pick a subject you're
familiar with from the full list [2] and rate it! If you'd like to
participate in the evaluation of the tool itself and what becomes of it,
please join the workgroup [3]. If you're interested in article
assessment in general, please also join the Public Policy Initiative's
Assessment Team [4].
Thank you,
Guillaume Paumier,
on behalf of the Features Engineering team
[1]
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Public_Policy_Pilot/FAQs
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Article_Feedback_Pilot
[3]
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Public_Policy_Pilot/Workgroup
[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Public_Pol…
--
Guillaume Paumier
Product Manager, Multimedia Usability
Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
___________________________________________
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Frieda
Domani. Essendo il "Chief Community Officer" è il caso per tutti di
partecipare, sono sicuro che avete molto da chiedere. :-)
Nemo
-------- Messaggio Originale --------
Oggetto: [Wikiquote-l] IRC office hours with Zack Exley
Data: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 14:17:08 -0700
Da: Philippe Beaudette
Hi all,
Zack Exley, the Chief Community Officer [1] of the Wikimedia Foundation,
will
be having office hours this Tuesday (October 5) at 21:00 UTC
(14:00 PT, 17:00 ET, 23:00 CEST) on IRC in #wikimedia-office.
If you do not have an IRC client, there are two ways you can come chat
using a web browser: First, using the Wikizine chat gateway at
<http://chatwikizine.memebot.com/cgi-bin/cgiirc/irc.cgi>. Type a
nickname, select irc.freenode.net from the top menu and
#wikimedia-office from the following menu, then login to join.
Or, you can access Freenode by going to http://webchat.freenode.net/,
typing in the nickname of your choice and choosing wikimedia-office as
the channel. You may be prompted to click through a security warning,
which you can click to accept.
Please feel free to forward (and translate!) this email to any other
relevant email lists you happen to be on.
[1] - http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Chief_Community_Officer
____________________
Philippe Beaudette
Head of Reader Relations
Wikimedia Foundation
philippe(a)wikimedia.org <mailto:philippe@wikimedia.org>
Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
_______________________________________________
Wikiquote-l mailing list
Wikiquote-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquote-l
Vorrei portare alla vostra cortese attenzione che ho subito un blocco che
francamente ritengo ingiusto. Vorrei contattare l'utente Buggia per un
approfondimento sulle ragioni del blocco; purtroppo, non essendo registrato ed
essendo bloccato, non sono in grado di inviare una e-mail.
Sarei grato se qualcuno potesse consigliarmi su come contattare il suddetto
utente.
Grazie
THX1138RD
Elimino la parte principale del messaggio per chiedere un chiarimento su
questo punto: non so da dove vengano tali cifre, ma Risker suggerisce
che en.wiki grazie ai vari strumenti per il contrasto del vandalismo
(«Huggle, Twinkle, Friendly, the edit filters, reverting bots») ci sia
molto meno da fare (nel senso che si è piú efficienti) e centinaia di
utenti di en.wiki abbiano potuto dedicarsi ad altro.
A parte le cifre esatte, io non ho mai capito perché in it.wiki non si
usa (quasi) nulla di tutto ciò. Qualcuno me lo sa spiegare?
Nemo
-------- Messaggio Originale --------
Oggetto: [Foundation-l] Differences between projects with common versus
highly diverse cultural backgrounds (was Re: Pending Changes)
Data: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 00:49:36 -0400
Da: Risker
[...]
Indeed, the number of de:WP editors with >100
edits/month has remained very stable since January 2006. (The number of
en:WP editors was essentially the same in January 2006 as at present, but
hit its peak in April 2007. Let's not cherry pick the data too much, okay?)
As an aside for those interested in the historical perspective, the massive
increase in the number of editors on en:WP coincides with a massive influx
of vandalism, and over a thousand editors did almost nothing *but* revert or
otherwise address vandalism. As better and more effective tools have been
developed to address that problem - Huggle, Twinkle, Friendly, the edit
filters, reverting bots, semi-protection, etc - the number of editors needed
to manage vandalism has diminished dramatically. In other words, that
1300-editor difference may largely be accounted for because those whose only
skill was vandal-fighting have moved on. That's not to say there is no
vandalism on en:WP today; there's still plenty of it.
[...]
Aubrey invita a partecipare alla raccolta di domande per Marco Salvia,
autore del famoso (beh, almeno negli ultimi giorni) articolo a
proposito dell'opuscolo copiato malamente da Wikipedia.
L'intervista sarà condotta da wiki@home.
Frieda
---------- Messaggio inoltrato ----------
Da: Andrea Zanni <zanni.andrea84(a)gmail.com>
Date: 01 ottobre 2010 10:26
Cari tutti,
lo scrittore Marco Salvia, autore dell'articolo sull'Unità
che denunciava lo scopiazzamento di alcuni testi del libretto
sull'Unità d'Italia da Wikipedia,
è stato contattato da WMI e si è reso disponibile per un'intervista.
Ho postato la cosa sul Bar di Wikipedia,
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Una_scopiazzatura_su…
e sembra che ci sia interesse.
Se volete collaborare/integrare, siete ovviamente benvenuti.
Saluti,
Aubrey
___________________________________________
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Frieda