This page:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews
now contains five basic requirements for the launch of Wikinews, as
outlined in my previous message:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2004-October/001228.html
Most specific policy ideas have been moved to
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Thinktank
and are considered non-binding, should the project be approved. This
allows us to evaluate whether the community wants Wikinews to start, and
to let us then concentrate on how to do it, using the ideas we have
collected as inspiration. The vote will take place on:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Vote
starting October 22, 2004, 20:00 UTC. Until then, I ask people to
translate these pages into other languages. I have also put this call for
translations on [[m:Translation requests]]. Is there any other page I
should use?
On October 22, I will announce the vote in many places to get as much
interest as possible.
Regards,
Erik
User Alterego mail (Alterego.3101710(a)bloglines.com) reception has been
removed for excess bouncing (the account has been kept, but Alterego
will not receive mails any more).
In case you (Brian) need to receive mailing list again, connect yourself
to your user account and change your preferences.
ant (mailing list admin at her odd hours)
Fred Bauder wrote:
>Anyone with a damages decree is going to levy on the servers and the domain
>names.
>
>
Sure, because those are the only assets we have. But looking at it from
the other side of this hypothetical, would it be worth the plaintiff's
effort to get a damages decree? Wikimedia is, just like many other
entities in the open source world, a thinly capitalized nonprofit
organization without any well-developed revenue stream. The servers
aren't worth that much in the overall scheme of things - possibly not
enough to cover even our own legal fees, or if we rely on pro bono
assistance, the other side's lawyers. Plus they're hardware that
depreciates rapidly. As for the domain names, most of their value exists
because we own them. They'd have no value to the plaintiff except in a
sale, and even that would probably be wiped out by the substantial fork
that would promptly arise should any lawsuit actually bankrupt Wikimedia.
It only makes sense to go for damages if the defendant has the "deep
pockets" to pay them. With us, the plaintiff's primary interest is
likely to be a retraction and an injunction against continued
publication of the offending material. If we find they actually have a
case, it's much easier for everyone if we just withdraw the story and
issue a retraction without all the litigation. Then we go on about our
business, while the plaintiff gets to think, "Ha, I made them grovel and
apologize, they'll tread very carefully if ever they write about me again."
The organizations that budget millions for legal defense do so because
they have millions to protect. We may be getting up there in terms of
visibility, but in economic terms we're still a very small fish indeed.
--Michael Snow
The idea of creating a Wikiversity to supplement Wikibooks has been in
the pipeline for a long time. The domain name (www.wikiversity.org)
has been registered forever and I think there's a sufficient amount of
support to proceed.
I believe that it would *significantly* help Wikibooks, which appears
to be struggling with a low contribution rate.
There's already a structure for the entire site up on Wikibooks. I've
been meaning to request this forever - I'd really like to see
Wikiversity get out of beta, and finally go live.
- ambi
> On 11 Oct 2004, at 20:32, Anthere wrote:
>
> > PS : to be fair, Angela is handicapped, so she probably does not click
> > as quickly as I.
Just to clarify, since I received an email assuming something else,
that this is not really the case, other than the fact I sprained my
shoulder last week. :)
Angela
Look at how Angela and I spend our evenings...
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta%3ABureaucrat_log
* 17:53, 11 Oct 2004 Anthere Rights for user "Maskbot@tlwiki" set "=bot"
* 17:51, 11 Oct 2004 Angela Rights for user "Maskbot@tlwiki" set "=bot"
* 17:50, 11 Oct 2004 Anthere Rights for user "ALoan@enwiki" set "=sysop"
* 17:49, 11 Oct 2004 Angela Rights for user "ALoan@enwiki" set "=sysop"
* 17:49, 11 Oct 2004 Angela Rights for user "ALoan@enwiki" set "="
* 17:49, 11 Oct 2004 Anthere Rights for user "ALoan@enwiki" set "="
* 17:49, 11 Oct 2004 Angela Rights for user "Pippu d'Angelo@scnwiki" set
"=sysop"
* 17:47, 11 Oct 2004 Anthere Rights for user "Pippu d'Angelo@scnwiki"
set "=sysop"
* 17:44, 11 Oct 2004 Angela Rights for user "CE@nlwikibooks" set "=sysop"
* 17:40, 11 Oct 2004 Anthere Rights for user "CE@nlwikibooks" set "=sysop"
Sigh, double sigh. Double power for those !
I just don't see why it makes any sense to have Wikiversity as part of
Wikibooks. The two projects would be likely to feed off each other -
as the development of courses would thus need textbooks, which would
help Wikibooks.
But they're not one and the same. Wikibooks is about making textbooks.
Wikiversity would be about learning stuff through organised courses.
It'd be ideal if the faculty system that's already templated out on
Wikibooks was taken live, because if they then organised themselves,
they'd have a much better chance of putting together a textbook that
made any sense. That would then be used as part of a course - and also
put on Wikibooks, benefiting both communities.
- ambi
Hello
With several prominent editors (Adam, Zero, and Viajero) declaring their
intention to cut back their edits, quite a few thoughts spring to mind. I want to
share them:
1. This is a great loss. In their own way, each of these people contributed
significantly to Wikipedia, and really helped improve the quality of articles,
especially in controversial areas.
2. I can understand their frustration. I myself have stopped editing most of
the articles in which my professional expertise lies quite a long time ago. It
can be annoying to argue with people who are not as invested in subject
matter as we, who have devoted a large part of our professional and personal lives
to, are.
3. In the end, no one is irreplaceable. People come and go. It is the nature
of the Internet and of life. I say this with the deepest respect to the above
contributors, and in the sincere hope that they will reconsider their
decisions in some way or another.
4. The points they raise are real, and should be addressed.
5. It is inevitable that there will be controversy over the articles they
write. There is such heated controversy over them in real life. I laud their
efforts to dive into the fray (Zero and Viajero on the Middle East question; Adam
on a broad range of topics)
6. One person's NPOV is another person's bias.
7. Many newcomers, who will shoot down the compromise materials and reopen
old wounds, are totally unaware of the hours that went into forging an
acceptable compromise.
8. Some people, unfortunately, are here for the sole purpose of pushing their
POV, whether this is known to them or not.
9. The solutions that we developed to these kinds of problems when Wikipedia
was smaller may not be effective at our current size.
10. Nevertheless, people have recognized that the problems they point to are
inherent in the system from quite a while ago.
11. Resolving these issues is vital if we are to really grow--they are
certainly questions that potential funders will ask.
12. Lots of creative suggestions have already been made. See for example,
[[Article validation]] on meta for some ideas.
All that said, I urge Adam, Zero, and Viajero to rethink their decisions. I
also ask them to contribute more actively to the discussion about validation
that is taking place on meta, so as to help us find a solution to their concerns
that is both viable and in keeping with Wikipedia's renown for openness.
Flagging peer-approved versions may be one such option, but there are certainly
others.
Until a method is reached, I urge you to continue contributing to your other
areas of expertise: Adam--Australian and ancient history; Zero--mathematics;
Viajero--opera. At the same time, I also urge you to participate in more
intense discussion of validation options, reform of arbitration procedures, and
creative handling of rogue users. These should help to reduce the issues you
raise.
I am posting this to Foundation as well, because I think that many of the
issues you raise apply to other projects, and not just English.
Danny
There is a increase of projects under the Wikimedia Foundation flag.
The name given to a project is important. This beacuse most, if not all,
projects aim at a international public and versions in many languages.
A good name must be possible to pronounce in many languages and
perferably mean something relevant. This is very difficult, i know.
The only name of a project that is so is the name Wikipedia. Even that
name is to strange to use for some languages so the have to use a local
version like "Vikipedi" or "Vikipedio". But the name is at least useful
in many languages.
The names of other projects are less international useful.
Wiktionary
For me, who have seen it a lot, I must concentrate me to pronounce it
accurately. It also has no meaning form my point of view (dutch). It is
a very strange and difficult name.
For this the dutch version is wikiwoordenboek(.org)
The french is Wiktionnaire
Wikiquote
This is a beter name, at least for the dutch version, but still not very
universal.
Wikibooks, Wikisource and Wikinews has zero points for international
use. It is Wiki + English word.
I do not have beter names or am I saying to change the names of existing
projects. But when creating new projects please also think about this.
One name for all wikis of the same project, or at least for so many as
posibel, is good for publicity use. Whit many, many local names of the
same project you also have more expenses because you have get the domain
in the local name for local use.
--
[[w:nl:gebruiker:walter]]