On a side note, the Computer History Museum (www.computerhistory.org)
in Mountain View is working on a collection of historic software
systems, including their source code, to be preserved for future
generations for study, amusement (I guess), and historic lessons. A
big problem with this, of course, is that you need more than the
source code and binaries; i.e. you need the computers or emulators thereof.
Hpapy new year everyone!
Dirk
PS: One day, I'm sure we will find MediaWiki there :-)))
At 12/30/2006, Ryan Bilesky wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I am proposing a new project called WikiCode, A free source code
>repository. I'd appreciate it if you could all look over the project page
>at
>
>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCode
>
>I'd also applicate, comments, suggestions, a list of people interested
>because i'd really like to see this become a project.
>
>Thank you,
>Ryan524
>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ryan524
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Even if it already exists it still fits in perfectly with WIkimedia's Ideals
and I think would be a great project for the foundation to undertake, while
being more of a niche than say wikipedia I still think this has potential to
be an active and useful repository of information. I am downloading the
wiki software now to setup a demo site.
Hello,
I am proposing a new project called WikiCode, A free source code
repository. I'd appreciate it if you could all look over the project page
at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCode
I'd also applicate, comments, suggestions, a list of people interested
because i'd really like to see this become a project.
Thank you,
Ryan524
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ryan524
The site appears to be gone, or the link broken, or something....
On 12/30/06, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
>On 12/30/06, Ryan Bilesky <rbilesky(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I am proposing a new project called WikiCode, A free source code
>> repository. I'd appreciate it if you could all look over the project
page
>> at
>>
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCode
> There already is such a project at:
> http://en.literateprograms.org/
> --
> Peace & Love,
> Erik
> DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
> the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
To be honest, I don't think the logo is the issue. The word "Virgin" is a
sufficiently strong international brand that very little is added to it by
the addition of the logo. I also don't think the fact that it was their
charitable arm is relevant. The notice creates a clear coupling of the
"Virgin" brand and charitable giving, a coupling obviously designed to cast
the brand in a favourable light and so to persuade people to choose "Virgin"
products over the alternatives. Like it or not this is advertising.
The only way a gift from "Virgin" could have escaped this is if they had
agreed for their donation to be anonymous. If an organization refuses this
then it is merely further proof that they wanted advertising all along.
I do not want to get into whether having advertising on the site would be a
good or bad thing, but it is evident that there are many who think it is a
bad thing, and thus are justifiably annoyed by this. I also think that if we
are going to start having advertising on the site, we would do rather better
out of it if we let companies compete for it, rather than relying on the
inherently random factor of donations on a particular day. Do we have any
figures on how much an advert the size of the third line of the donation box
would go for across all Foundation sites? I have a hunch it would be in the
millions of dollars for 24 hours of exposure.
Tom Holden (cfp)
A cookie is a piece of data stored by a website in your web browser
and made available to that site when you use the site. (see [[HTTP
cookie]] for more info)
For a while people have thought it would be useful to use cookies as
part of our blocking system. The idea is that when a user is blocked,
mediawiki would give them a cookie to indicate that they are blocked.
This would then inhibit them from editing even if they changed IPs.
The primary limitation to this approach is that any terminologically
savvy user could easily remove the cookie.
There is a request filed for this feature
(http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3233) along with a
patch, but this patch has not yet been merged into mediawiki.
Because interest for this feature keeps reoccurring, I threw together
a quick hack using javascript. This method of implementation allows us
to experiment and gauge the value of the approach without distracting
the core developers with more code to merge and support.
This could be implemented by any admin on an of our wiks.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Monobook.js&diff=p…
Like all cookie based solutions, it is easy to bypass. Its primary
disadvantage compared to the mediawiki patch is that it is not
integrated with the block page, to activate a cookie based block you
must make a separate edit to the target user's javascript.
The current behavior blocks all uploads and edits by the impacted
browser, but it would be fairly trivial to make the function more like
regular blocking... or even more fine grained with per-namespace or
per article blocks. The current behavior also renews the block for 24
hours every time the user *views* a page while logged in as the
blocked user. This too could be trivially changed.
If anyone tries this out or improves it, please let me know. I pretty
much learned javascript in order to do this.. and it only took about
15 minutes to do, so don't expect it to work miracles but it should
work as advertised.
ok, think anyone knows about the new project wiki-search, so we can use this list, but it is important, that the foundation is as well in the boat and finance as well servers to index websites and third to have a search box-field in each wikipedia country server.##thanks
If wikia does not find a collaboration with the foundation, the foundation should start an own project to estabish a p2p/open source search engine.
only this list keeps all foundation members in the countries up to date, that it is not only about to maintain wikipedia, but to get into the initiative "search" as well. (and others suggested "code" as well, but there is sf.net ).
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Datum: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 12:51:01 +0100
Von: "effe iets anders" <effeietsanders(a)gmail.com>
An: thomasasta(a)gmx.net
Betreff: Re: [Foundation-l] wiki search & wikimedia foundation collaboration with Limewire and Yacy ?
> Hi,
>
> maybe an odd question, but what is the relevance to foundation-l here? I
> think the other lists you already included in the to: are sufficient?
> Foundation-l is a discussion list for the Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> Kind regards, Lodewijk Gelauff
>
> 2006/12/30,
> >
> > Hello Jim, hello Sam,
> >
> > you search for coders to get wiki-search out.
> > There are already a lot of coders in the list
> > http://search.wikia.com/wiki/search:Developers
> >
> > What do you think about a collaboration with limewire ?
> >
> > http://www.limewire.org/forum/showthread.php?p=3090&posted=1#post3090
> >
> > Integrate yacy in limewire and built up a colaboration with yacy,
> limewire
> > and messenger cspace (ported to java) for wikia and wikimedia
> foundation.
> >
> > Both are java.
> > Kind regards tom.
> > --
> > Der GMX SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen!
> > Ideal für Modem und ISDN: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
--
Der GMX SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen!
Ideal für Modem und ISDN: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer
This post is a response to a small part on a post in another thread,
and has little or no connection to the original subject of that
thread.
2006/12/28, Brad Patrick <bradp.wmf(a)gmail.com>:
> Hmm, I think you may be missing something pretty important. In fact, the
> definition of community is the single most difficult thing to agree upon.
> What is my community, your community, etc. does not have answers. The Board
> retreat could not answer it with the 25 people who were there. The Board
> itself cannot agree on the meaning. Certainly, though, you do not have the
> hubris to think that this thing called Wikimedia exists only for editors, to
> the exclusion of the millions of people who view it every day? I view the
> orthodox idea that the community consists of, and can only consist of,
> editors as being at least as insulting as the opposite would be to Horning.
> Millions of people *read* the site, and do not contribute a comma. And
> that's okay! Generators *and* consumers of free culture must be
> incorporated. If we are philosophically opposed as people who differ on
> whether a sound is made when a tree falls in forest, so be it.
The group of people who edit certainly make up a pretty well-defined
community. If one wants, one can think of a community also including
the readers. That is to me, and I believe to must of us editors, a
much more abstract concept. There is nothing wrong with abstract
concepts, and when one needs such one invents them. In theory one
could also have a much wider concept for community in which, for
instance, matching donors are members.
The fundraiser FAQ talks over and over about donations from the
community and donations from companies. It seemed to me the text
assumed that the only individuals who would give money in a fundraiser
such as this one, were the editors. That made me puzzled, to say the
least. The explanation that the Board or its members might sometimes
use the word "community" it in a wider sense than I expected explained
a lot. My language does not have a word exactly matching "community"
in context, and so I usually translate it "wikigemenskap", which
litterally would be wiki community. This is clearly the more narrow
definitions of the word, while the FAQ has chosen the inbetween
definition in which readers and non-editors are included but matching
donators are not. I will go through the draft translation of that FAQ
and replace "wikigemenskap" with the equivalent of "users and
readers", and then that text will make much better sense.
If the Board can not decide what "the community" means, then the Board
should stop probably avoid that term, and search for a more precise
terminology. Things like "the editing community", "the editing
community across all projects", "the Polish language editing
community", "the German Wiktionary editing community" and "the
community of editors and readers" in a certain projects or on all,
should work fine. If one does not know which finder definition to
choose - it means one does not know what one is referring to.
Confusion should be avoided - not only to make life easier for translators.
/habj
I think it is worth remembering that both sides of this discussion
ultimately want the same thing, namely for the WMF's assorted projects
to retain the independence (both financial and otherwise) they need
for their continued success. One side has maybe been guilty of
threatening to throw their toys out of the pram, but the other side
has equally damaged their position by adopting a rather patronising
tone.
Proposing that "editors who don't like it just leave" is never a valid
solution. There will always be people with differing opinions to the
Foundation, and it is vital for the continued success of the project
that these people feel there is a forum where their views will be
seriously considered. We will always need every editor we can get. The
gradual reform of WMF's political structure from (benevolent)
dictatorship to democracy is obviously a key part of this process.
Now having Virgin's name and logo on every page is certainly not the
end of the world. Wall Street bankers are not yet rubbing their hands
together with glee. That said it does represent a significant change
in the WMF's fund-raising strategy. Whether or not Virgin hoped to
benefit from their donation, the fact is that the message both
increases brand awareness and gives the brand positive connotations.
Contrary to the repeated dogmatic assertions of some on this list,
like it or not this is effectively advertising. (Think of the last few
Honda adds say. Not a purchasable product in sight...) Rightly or
wrongly, I like many others feel this should have had more public
discussion a significant time before the event.
It is important to remember that people's objections to advertising go
a long way beyond just "they're annoying" or "they're the tools of the
capitalist scum". There is a real risk of them introducing biases and
distortionary pressures which would severely damage the credibility of
the WMF's projects. Furthermore, it is always dangerous for a site to
mix its factual content with advertising, as one can easily be
mistaken for the other. I'm sure you could all think of many further
arguments, which, broadly, is why WMF has shied away from advertising
in the past.
Certainly though it is only polite to thank our donors. However, it is
just as important we thank Paul from Michigan who gave $2 as it is we
thank Virgin who gave $200,000 (or however much it was). The way WMF
has traditionally done this is by posting a thank you notice along
with a link to a list of donors. I do not see any reason why this is
not as adequate for Virgin as it is for Paul from Michigan. If I was
to give an ordinary (non-matching) donation of $200,000 would I get a
day long thank you notice?
In future I propose that matched donation days be advertised by
something like the following:
"All donations today will be matched by a
(corporate/charity/individual) third party sponsor. The WMF offers
them and all its other donors its sincerest thanks."
I really do not believe this would have any significant impact on our
ability to attract matching donors, and it would certainly have spared
us the past few days of arguments here and elsewhere.
As for further funding ideas, I still think our best bet is to
continue on towards becoming a devolved, democratic, membership based
organization. I would much rather give a regular donation to a UK
charity in exchange for the benefits and rights of membership, than a
one off donation to an organization that will spend the money without
the guarantees of a written constitution and full democratic
accountability, and I am sure many would agree with me.
Yours in peace,
Tom Holden
> Gary Kirk wrote:
> At the end of the day, users could choose to not see the sitenotice if
> they have JavaScript enabled, and possibly through their skin.js file
> too?
Sorry. Integralism works in a different way (If you don't want to see it, no one should see it).
Roberto (Snowdog)
------------------------------------------------------
Passa a Infostrada. ADSL e Telefono senza limiti e senza canone Telecom
http://click.libero.it/infostrada29dic06