(Forwarding to Foundation-l and the translators list. )
Dear translators, we have even more need of people to propagate
information about the conference in other languages; since the default
broadcasts and transcripts will be in English. If there are people
interested in updating portals to Wikimania content in other languages
(on meta:), the portals would certainly be used.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: SJ <2.718281828(a)gmail.com>
Date: Jul 25, 2005 10:35 AM
Subject: Wikimania! Announcements and broadcasting : help requested
To: Wikipedia general list <wikipedia-l(a)wikimedia.org>, Elisabeth
Wikimania will begin in less than two weeks. (If you're helping
organize this, the calendar is already engraved inside your forehead
:-) There will be a crazy collection of speakers and wiki developers
(http://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programme), media and documentary
coverage, and lots of storytelling and good fun.
For those of you who can't be there in person, there will be audio
streams from the two main halls, and two cameras' worth of vlogging
thanks to Soufron et al. There are also some important things you can
do to make it an even better event :
== Wiki discussions, gathering sources ==
Wikimania will see some very focused discussions about how to improve
and coordinate the development of MediaWiki, Wikipedia, and the other
Wikimedia projects. Preparation and organization of ideas over the
next ten days will see great returns on investment.
(To add a discussion you want to see happen, or link to existing
please update http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania:Discussions )
The most exciting part of Wikimania, to me, is getting many different
circles of savvy people talking about Wikimedia development at the
same time; and most of that will take place outside of Frankfurt.
== Announcements; Letting others know how to take part ==
I hope that when the audio podcasts and vlogs of the conference
sessions start to come out, that everyone who might care to will know
how to find them... and I want the many Wikimedians who can't be
there to know how to find the discussions on-wiki surrounding key
sessions and discussions.
== Requests for help ==
So please respond to the following requests, if you can, either on- or
off-list (if off-list, make sure you write to elian :
1) We need people to help spread the word about Wikimania; to
websites that want to follow or link to the conference, to people who
want to join in the disucssions online. Many conferences have IRC
channels that occasionally produce one or two questions. We should
strive to have as much feedback coming from IRC and wiki discussions
as from the audience.
2) We need people to help update the Wikimania website with
information as the conference approaches; and especially DURING the
conference, as new materials become available. Transcripts, podcasts,
etc will turn up on meta and on individual blogs; and we should have a
good portal to that content.
3) As I mentioned previously, we also need transcribers for the
broadcast sessions. We will only have audio and video for the larger
2 of 5 rooms; we could use 4-5 transcribers listening in and typing
out text transcripts for those rooms as well. (I'm sure someone will
be bored enough to tune in :
3b) If you're COMING to Wikimania and want to transcribe sessions in
the other three rooms, you will have my undying affection. Contact me
directly about that...
hi, I am forwarding this mail to the foundation,
because I think it is an important one.
--- David Speakman <david(a)speakman.com> wrote:
> I tend to categorize things so I'll do it here too.
> I see three main points
> of concern:
> 1. Wikinews as a Wikimedia Foundation project.
> 2. Wikinews as a wiki.
> 3. Wikinews is a new form of journalism.
> ==As a wikimedia Foundation project==
> It needs to be clarified in every Wikinews project
> that as a Wikimedia
> Foundation project, each wikinews must adhere to the
> minimum standard
> adopted by the foundation. It also must be stressed
> that these standards are
> open to interpretation in many areas, but may not be
> overruled or ignored by
> an individual project. Some Wikimedia Foundation
> principles are mandates
> that are not debatable. These include:
> 1. All content on the name namespace of a project
> must strive for an
> unbiased NPOV.
> 2. The creation of all content is to be
> collaborative in nature.
> 3. Use of and access to the content is to be as
> unrestricted as possible.
> It is clear to me that "editorials" are a clear
> violation of Foundation
> mandates since they are clearly biased in nature. I
> also have doubts that
> any opinion-type of writing can truly be
Right, I totally agree with you.
We had an irc discussion today and some said it was
mostly problematic as the community is small. They
claim it would not be such a problem with a big
community. I do not agree with this opinion. An
editorial is by definition pov. Big community will not
change this fact.
Another argument was that we could balance by
providing many editorials, with several orientation.
Again, I do not agree. NPOV is not about listing major
opinions, but also about representativity of all
Finally, it was suggested that we could possibly write
in describing editorials made by other people
(important journalists for example). But I think the
main interest of a wikinewsie writing an editorial is
not about reporting another person personal opinion...
but about reporting *his*, so I doubt that would make
> ==As a wiki==
> Wikis content is open for modification. An editorial
> on a wiki needs to be
> open for editing by anyone. This means that a person
> with an opposing POV
> should have as much access to the editorial as the
> original writer(s). ON a
> wiki, an editorial - unless protected - will most
> likely devolve into an
> edit war.
> It also runs the risk of having that project, all
> wikinews project, or even
> the foundation taint as a biased organization where
> a given topic is
> concerned. On a legal level, I have concerns about
> liability issues for the
> foundation in regard to views expressed in the
> ==As a new form of journalism==
> It seems that among the Wikinews projects there is a
> common identity crisis
> when it comes to what is and what is not allowed in
> regard to content.
> The issue comes in 2 flavors: newspapers and blogs.
> I believe this stems from the fact that wikis are
> mostly text based. When it
> comes to text-based news, lowest common denominator
> that most people have
> deep familiarity with are newspapers. Many folk
> assume a newspaper-oriented
> outlook when developing an idea for where a wikinews
> project is going. This
> is strengthened by the fact that wikinews is
> internet based and currently
> most Internet-based news is controlled by media and
> news sources originally
> developed for newsprint. But, there are inherent
> flaws in this viewpoint
> since the business model and "raison d'etra" for a
> newspaper differs from
> that of a Wikimedia Foundation project. And the
> limitations of a newsprint
> mentality when applied to the Internet is astounding
> when one considers the
> complexity and opportunity of collaborative
> journalism, which may be
> In wikinews project policy votes and community
> discussion, you will often
> see something like, "We should do it because
> [all/most/some/many] newspapers
> do it." Aside from not being a cogent argument on
> its face, a newspaper is
> more than just a news source. It contains other
> content which is not
> translatable to wiki or foundation goals. Some
> newspaper staples such as
> classified ads, horoscopes, editorials, advice
> columns, product reviews,
> games (crossword, trivia quizzes) are fun parts of a
> newspaper's business
> model - but are not news per se. And they really do
> not fit in the NPOV or
> collaborative fold.
You have it right ! Maybe there are new other types of
content which could be added in wikinews ?
> Some tend to confuse collaborative journalism with
> the other new form of
> Internet journalism. As someone who has been
> involved in wikinews for quite
> some time, the difference between a blog and
> wikinews is obvious. In fact
> they are almost diametrically opposite. A blog
> revels in its biased POV and
> the fact that it is the work of a single person (or
> small group of people
> acting as one mind). It is clear that blog-type
> content really has no place
> in a wikinews project under current wikimedia
> foundation principles.
Totally agree with you.
> Thankfully, for those who do wish to write blog-type
> opinion columns, there
> are many free Internet alternatives to wikinews.
> Since editorials on a wikinews project declare a
> specific point of view on
> an issue in controversy, they are incompatible with
> Wikimedia Foundation
Dan seems to imply german wikinews adopted editorials,
but Elian said they seem to have stopped. I would be
interested in knowing current situation :-)
> In addition, they may open the foundation to legal
> and/or image related
> problems since the foundation is ultimately
> responsible for defending all
> content on each of the Wikimedia projects.
> Furthermore, individual project participants may not
> overrule or ignore
> basic Wikimedia Foundation minimum standards for
> content. This means the
> basic principles of Wikimedia may not be put up to a
> popular vote on any of
> the individual projects, it must be a Foundation
> decision for both
> stability/uniformity among projects and legal
One of the major issue here is simply that many
wikinewsies have never been wikipedians before, so are
not familiar with certain mandatory rules... not with
general habits build over experience and consensus
over the past 4 years. Reinventing the wheel :-)
> David Speakman
> 501 Moorpark Way #83
> Mountain View CA 94041
> Phone: 408-382-1459
Thanks for your answer
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: wikinews-l-bounces(a)Wikimedia.org
> > [mailto:wikinews-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Anthere
> > Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 4:15 AM
> > To: Foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
> > Cc: wikinews-l(a)wikimedia.org
> > Subject: [Wikinews-l] Editorials
> > Hi all,
> > Recently, I have decided that it was time I adopt
> > new project. A small one :-)
> > So, I started participating to wikinews in french.
> > It is quite a challenge I must say, because there
> > a handful of very nice participants... but most of
> > them are not participants to wikipedia, so quite
> > newbies on some issues. On the other hand, plenty
> > motivation and ideas which is good :-)
> > Still, today, I have something disturbing me a
> > bit. A new main page was set up this morning;
> > at it, I realised the html was probably not
> > (some wrong columns size or locations) and saw
> > some areas were just empty (for example, it did
> > mention other projects or other languages).
> > So it appeared to me to be a working stage, and it
> > not seem a good idea to make changes live; So I
> > reverted the page to yesterday version and moved
> > new version to a temp page :
> > http://fr.wikinews.org/wiki/Discuter:Accueil/temp
> > I then was told this version had been approved and
> > vote ended yesterday. So, it should be the main
> > in any cases.
> > Then, to list the problems of the html, I looked
> > precisely at it. And I discovered 3 new sections.
> > One is the "Analysis section". There is one
> example of
> > it, the link being a user sub page. So, first, it
> > means it is very likely a non editable page (since
> > is a user sub page). Second, there is a mention
> > stating "the section can be ambiguous in terms of
> > NPOV, as it is only partially submitted to it"
> > Two other sections are "Editorial" and "carte
> > (I am not sure I really see the difference). These
> > sections are empty for now, and a note indicates
> > "These two sections do not respect NPOV and have
> > been adopted by the community".
> > I then commented in saying that these sections
> > probably not be here in any cases, since NOT
> > by the community. I was answered they actually
> > adopted, so the little text should be modified,
> > they should be on the main page.
> > I looked for a discussion, and found this
> > So, to me, a site with
> > 1) articles submitted to NPOV,
> > 2) personal analyses only partially submitted to
> > and not editable, and
> > 3) editorials not submitted to NPVO
> > has a name, Indymedia.
> > Not wikinews :-)
> > And I do not agree. I think all wikimedia projects
> > should adhere to NPOV. Strictly. As much as we
> > But I then thought I had no idea what other
> > have been doing on this issue and that possibly
> > of them have adopted editorials (which will quite
> > naturally report a pov).
> > Is this the case ?
> > If so, how did you organise yourself to explain
> > readers the difference between the neutral parts
> > the site and the non neutral parts ?
> > And do you try to maintain an overall neutrality
> > within editorials ?
> > Or do you limit the topics concerned by editorials
> > Thanks in advance for your comments.
> > anthere
> > Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home
> > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikinews-l mailing list
> > Wikinews-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> Wikinews-l mailing list
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
On OTRS I received a complaint that some photo's were taken from a
website. As the photo's were located on Commons, I informed the
gentleman to go to the Commons administrators. In this case they were
world war II photo's of machine guns. I told the gentleman that even if
the photos were taken from his website, it would not matter when the
photos are already in the pubic domain.
The question, as it is not possible for a Dutch admin to remove photos
from Commons and as it has no impact to remove the pictures from an
article, is it correct to refer this gentleman to the Commons admins or
is there / should there be a procedure for these issues.
Début du message réexpédié :
> De : Michael Hart <hart(a)pglaf.org>
> Date : 9 juillet 2005 19:27:27 HAEC
> À : Jean-Baptiste Soufron <jbsoufron(a)gmail.com>
> Objet : Rép : [Foundation-l] Fair Use and Registered Trademarks
> Répondre à : "Michael S. Hart" <hart(a)pobox.com>
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2005, Jean-Baptiste Soufron wrote:
>> Well, trademark law has limited applications, mainly to commercial
>> matters. And I don't see how using the 1911 public domain
>> encyclopedia can infringe the Britannica trademark. They can
>> pretend it does, but to sum it up, Britannica is a work, the title
>> of this work and a trademark.
>> Once the work is public domain, anybody is entitled to reproduce
>> it under under its right title since this title is itself part of
>> the work.
>> Thus, the trademark only protects Britannica from competitive uses
>> (like if someone tries to launch a Britannica book collection).
>> Basically, the reproduction Britannica 1911 edition is not using
>> the trademark Britannica, but the title Britannica.
>> It is always important to remember that Trademark Law is much more
>> restrictive than Copyright Law.
>> I cc Michael Hart in case he remembers anything about this
>> settlement with Britannica.
> We never had to make any settlement with Britannica, or with Oxford,
> when they complained about "The Oxford Book Of English Verse," as they
> never asked us to. Oxford *did* blow some smoke about the OED, but it
> was just that, and a decade ago, as I recall.
> I think we will post the first page of the original OED, to test
> the winds,
> esp. since I own a first edition, and can thus prove it is from 1888.
> We should be able to publish nearly all of the first edition,
> except those
> few volumes published after 1922. . .I can send a list, if you like.
> I should add that PG has TWO different teams working on the
> and the other one mentions the name much more.
> I got one message from the ex-CEO of Britannica, whom I know through
> other means, and explained that I had had nothing to do with the
> second one.
>> Jean-Baptiste Soufron
>> Le 6 juil. 05 à 14:09, Robert Scott Horning a écrit :
>>> I've come across a potential legal issue that has an impact
>>> across several Wikimedia projects that I'd like to bring up for
>>> general discussion.
>>> I've been trying to find a home for the 1911 Wikipedia (for more
>>> details, see the new project page), and I've been attempting to
>>> move it to Wikisource, with the following discussion at the
>>> Scriptorium: http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource%
>>> The larger issue I am seeking input from the regulars of this
>>> mailing list is in regards to proper use of registered trademarks
>>> for larger projects. In this case it is how a registered
>>> trademark can be properly used or avoided when a project is tied
>>> to something that inevitably has strong references to registered
>>> In this case it is in reference to the 1911 edition of the
>>> Encyclopedia Britannica, where a whole sub project is going to be
>>> based on content from that set of volumes. This issue could also
>>> deal with How-to books in Wikibooks or even Star Trek or Star
>>> Wars trivia entries in Wikipedia, which is again why I'm posting
>>> this issue here rather than other Foundation lists.
>>> In particular for the Encyclopedia Britannica, this issue already
>>> came up with Project Gutenberg where Encyclopedia Britannica's
>>> legal team forced Project Gutenberg into a policy statement.
>>> Keep in mind that prior to this official statement, Project
>>> Gutenberg routinely referenced the associated text with the
>>> Encyclopedia Britannica by name. What resulted was the following:
>>> "The Project Gutenberg Encyclopedia is a reproduction of a 1911
>>> edition of a famous encyclopedia. The text has not been updated.
>>> Although the text is in the public domain in the United
>>> States, the
>>> original publisher still has a valid trademark in the original
>>> of the encyclopedia. The original publisher offered Project
>>> Gutenberg a license to use the trademark, but the terms of the
>>> license were not consistent with the volunteer noncommercial
>>> of Project Gutenberg or its primary goal of distributing
>>> text with the fewest possible restrictions. In order to avoid the
>>> possibility of trademark infringement, all references to the
>>> original title and the original publisher have been changed or
>>> deleted. Because of numerous references embodying possible
>>> trademarks, the entire preface has been omitted. The original
>>> publisher of the 1911 print encyclopedia was not and is not
>>> in any way with the creation, editing or distribution of the
>>> Gutenberg Encyclopedia. Any errors which may have occurred in the
>>> conversion to electronic form can not be attributed in any way to
>>> the original publisher. In order to avoid possible future
>>> infringements or confusion in the minds of the public, this
>>> electronic version should be referred to as the Project Gutenberg
>>> Encyclopedia. The name of the original print encyclopedia
>>> should not
>>> be used in any way in connection with this electronic text."
>>> I am suggesting that the Wikimedia Foundation follow the lead of
>>> Project Gutenberg in this case and try to avoid implied
>>> endorsement by also avoiding the use of registered trademarks
>>> when possible. The real question then is how and in what cases
>>> should registered trademarks be omitted? Obviously there
>>> shouldn't be much of a problem for a Wikipedia article about a
>>> company, but it gets into grey areas when you get into a
>>> collection of articles that could be refered to by using a
>>> registered trademark, such as Ford mussle cars or kinds of SPAM.
>>> Obviously each Wikimedia project will end up having to deal with
>>> this issue independently on the fine points, but it wouldn't hurt
>>> to establish some general policy guidelines either. Any general
>>> assistance would be appreciated.
>>> Robert Scott Horning
>>> foundation-l mailing list
I am doing some research for Ultimate Wiktionary. As Ultimate Wiktionary
intends to have all words in all languages, a consequence will be that
all those words that are in rare fonts will not be viewable. This is to
some extend already an issue. It is quite normal when we have an article
in wikipedia about a foreign place to include the way it is written in
that country. This is problematic for places like Ethiopia, Georgia or
Thailand to name just a few with interesting fonts.
On previous wikimeets I attended we did discuss the need for a
collection of fonts that would include as many fonts as we can get for
our public. It would help a lot if we could have one resource that is
free for use and that does include all the needed fonts. If it requires
a reasonable amount of money to buy a missing font to make it Free, I
think it is worthy of consideration. I am also sure that when we
acknowledge the people who make fonts available for this purpose we will
be able to get many resources for free.
The issue of fonts came again to my attention because I do not have
braille of signing language fonts and I really would like to be able to
include the words and their representation in script in the Ultimate
Wiktionary as well. Technically speaking, it is not necessary for me to
have these fonts but I do consider it wrong to have content that the
average user will not be able to display. Therefore my request to
consider having fonts as a resource that we want to support for our users.
Recently, I have decided that it was time I adopt a
new project. A small one :-)
So, I started participating to wikinews in french.
It is quite a challenge I must say, because there are
a handful of very nice participants... but most of
them are not participants to wikipedia, so quite
newbies on some issues. On the other hand, plenty of
motivation and ideas which is good :-)
Still, today, I have something disturbing me a little
bit. A new main page was set up this morning; Looking
at it, I realised the html was probably not standard
(some wrong columns size or locations) and saw that
some areas were just empty (for example, it did not
mention other projects or other languages).
So it appeared to me to be a working stage, and it did
not seem a good idea to make changes live; So I
reverted the page to yesterday version and moved the
new version to a temp page :
I then was told this version had been approved and the
vote ended yesterday. So, it should be the main page
in any cases.
Then, to list the problems of the html, I looked more
precisely at it. And I discovered 3 new sections.
One is the "Analysis section". There is one example of
it, the link being a user sub page. So, first, it
means it is very likely a non editable page (since it
is a user sub page). Second, there is a mention below,
stating "the section can be ambiguous in terms of
NPOV, as it is only partially submitted to it"
Two other sections are "Editorial" and "carte blanche"
(I am not sure I really see the difference). These
sections are empty for now, and a note indicates
"These two sections do not respect NPOV and have not
been adopted by the community".
I then commented in saying that these sections should
probably not be here in any cases, since NOT adopted
by the community. I was answered they actually were
adopted, so the little text should be modified, but
they should be on the main page.
I looked for a discussion, and found this
So, to me, a site with
1) articles submitted to NPOV,
2) personal analyses only partially submitted to NPOV
and not editable, and
3) editorials not submitted to NPVO
has a name, Indymedia.
Not wikinews :-)
And I do not agree. I think all wikimedia projects
should adhere to NPOV. Strictly. As much as we can.
But I then thought I had no idea what other wikinews
have been doing on this issue and that possibly some
of them have adopted editorials (which will quite
naturally report a pov).
Is this the case ?
If so, how did you organise yourself to explain
readers the difference between the neutral parts of
the site and the non neutral parts ?
And do you try to maintain an overall neutrality
within editorials ?
Or do you limit the topics concerned by editorials ?
Thanks in advance for your comments.
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
"One of the best current fonts is at: http://home.att.net/~jameskass/
He only asks for a $5 registration fee, and it is a very good font that
includes many code points for several languages including braille and
signing language fonts (as defined in the Unicode standard), but
unfortunately it is not GFDL compatable in terms of common distribution,
and Mr. Kass is retaining copyright on the font."
I'm pretty sure there is no free or shareware font that comes close to
code2000, in breadth of coverage. It supports almost any language. Its latin
character is not is main strength (not too nice on small point sizes), there
are not truetype hints AFAIK, but it contains nearly all defined unicode
In fact I would strongly recommend to at least license this font for the
Wikimedia server for rendering of timecharts, once I got unicode support for
EasyTimeline ready (ET unicode version works under Cygwin, waiting for a
patched version of Ploticus for Linux, can't do that myself).
Given the very small license fee for code2000, and the fact that James Kass
made it not too easy to even pay that small fee if one wants to (payment
details are somewhat hidden) so that probably most people stick to the
nearly complete demo version, I'm sure that mr Kass is not into this for the
money really. He might be persuaded to change the license if some sponsor
would pay him a one time fee. I would be a major boost for open source font
> Robert Scott Horning wrote:
>> What needs to be done here is to research exactly who may be correct.
>> Many WWII photographs are likely to still be under copyright (the
>> life+75 rule has not gone into effect yet, or the 100 year rule...
>> depending on what copyright laws you are using, and was published
>> after 1924 when prior copyright had entered into public domain) and
>> my gut feeling is that it is likely to be a copyright violation.
> A significant portion of WW2-era photographs were taken by U.S.
> government personnel during the course of their official duties, and
> are therefore in the public domain.
Perhaps so, but without some indication of how we know that Photograph X
was taken by US government personnel, we don't know that the photograph
is in the public domain. In which case, given my understanding of what
the Commons' policies were supposed to be, it's not eligible for
inclusion there. We need to *know* that it's public domain because we
have facts to support this, not because we're engaging in wishful
guesswork. Otherwise, it reminds me of those people who mistakenly
believe that every picture on a federal government website is public domain.
----- Forwarded message from Jan Schaffer <jans(a)j-lab.org> -----
From: Jan Schaffer <jans(a)j-lab.org>
Reply-To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Subject: [WikiEN-l] J.Wales-Keynoter for Batten Awards for Innovations??
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 14:52:26 -0400
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 09:09:53 +0000
List-Id: English Wikipedia <wikien-l.Wikipedia.org>
Hi Folks -
This is a copy of an email I sent Jimmy earlier today. I love it if you
could give me a read as to whether his schedule would even permit his
accepting this invitation:
Hi Jimmy -
I enjoyed sitting next to you at the Harvard blogging conference. I'm
circling back to see if I could woo you to be the keynote speaker at this
year's Batten Awards for Innovations in Journalism Symposium
My Advisory Board just finished meeting and selecting this year's award
winners and you were the favorite recommendation for a keynoter.
The date is Monday, Sept. 12. The event is at the National Press Club
in Washington, DC. The keynote address is given at a luncheon of about
80-100 people -- many of whom will be D.C. journalists, not always known for
innovation. And probably only distantly aware of wikis.
With Wiki launching a news site, the LA Times experimenting on its
editorial page, the robust give-and-take on the Harvard listserv, and your
own experience of having journalism "done" to you, you'd have a lot of
insights to offer. The winners of this years award's will be announced at
the symposium as well.
J-Lab could cover your travel and lodging costs -- with a grant from the
Knight Foundation that supports the awards.
I've admired your work for a long time and I'd love to have you if it
would fit into your schedule.
J-Lab: The Institute for Interactive Journalism
7100 Baltimore Ave., Suite 101
College Park, MD 20740
WikiEN-l mailing list
----- End forwarded message -----
I'll be in California from Monday to Friday. I'll be giving a so-called
"TechTalk" at Google's HQ in MountainView. TechTalks are regular
presentations by outside speakers. I approached Google in February with
the goal to give them an idea of the current state of the Wikimedia
projects, and this is what we finally agreed to. From the abstract:
- - - - -
Wikipedia currently contains 2 million articles in 100 languages. With
more than 600,000 articles, the English edition exceeds all previously
existing encyclopedias in size. The Wikipedia website is ranked by
Alexa.com as one of the 100 largest world-wide, and the Wikimedia
servers respond to up to 1,300 requests per second.
This massive growth raises several questions:
* Due to the nature of open editing which is characteristic of wiki
technology, what methods are there to guarantee the validity of an
article a reader is looking at?
* What does it take to successfully apply the wiki principles to other
problem areas the Wikimedia Foundation is tackling, such as the creation
of a media repository or a news site?
* In what other ways could wikis be extended in their reach? Can the
entire web incorporate wiki-like mechanisms?
This presentation will describe the current state of thinking and
research on these questions within the Wikimedia community and introduce
specific technical solutions, such as the article validation system that
is key to Wikimedia's plans for a print edition.
- - - - -
My primary goal is to get Google's engineers intersted in Wikimedia's
software needs. The presentation is unrelated to any discussion about
Google hosting, and will likely not go into hardware/hosting related
issues. It's more a "Future Talk" similar to what I'm going to do at
The talk will be on Wednesday, if there's some information or ideas that
you want to relay that might be on interest to them, please send it to
me by email ASAP, to this address. Sorry for the short notice.