"If you contribute to the Wikimedia projects, you are publishing every
word you post publicly."
"Wenn Sie zu den Wikimedia-Projekten beitragen, veröffentlichen Sie
jedes Wort, das sie abschicken, öffentlich."
and inspires me to loose a few words on how policy writing should be
handled in a multilingual project:
* Decide on the core principles of the policy - the essential rules
* Create a nice, elaborate page in english which you place on the
Foundation wiki as the official policy
* Ask the community to create inofficial translations based on the
essential rules - they may want to phrase a few things differently, some
things may need longer or shorter explanations depending on culture,
country or project. They may translate the english version word by word
but are free to formulate the essential rules in their own words if they
* Each translation should have a note on top that in doubt the english
version is the valid one.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Datenschutz tries to say the same
as the english one but in own words. Some paragraphs and sentences which
are not part of the core rules were shortened for the sake of clarity
If you disagree with this you may want to find community members who
will create a literal translation. My feel for language and style
doesn't allow me to do so.
the 1st sunrise period for .eu domain registration is going
to begin soon - 7 December 2005
only domain names which are registred EU community/national
trademarks will be registered.
I'm not sure about the status of Wikimedia trademarks, but
guess at least Wikipedia a Wikimedia are suitable. IMO
"we" should apply at least for wikipedia.eu and wikimedia.eu.
Because of trademark issues and eu regulations concernig
who can apply for .eu, I'm affraid it will be a bit
complicated. I hope someone from the foundation can take care
(If the process is allready going, sorry :-)
Jan Kulveit ([[USEr:Wikimol]])
At the request of Oscar from the Netherlands wikipedia, I have temporarily
removed Waerth's status as a Steward, pending the resolution of his conflict
with the nl.wikipedia community. I do this with a heavy heart, and recognize
that something like this has never been done before, however, it became
necessary in order to thwart Waerth's threats to override his own block on nl.wiki.
I would be grateful to receive the comments and suggestions of other
stewards on this matter, especially because the circumstances are unprecedented.
Please let's not turn this into a flame fest, but rather a productive
discussion of what policy should be.
I have not yet recived any real reply about this project. I would like to
hear from someone whether it could actually become a wikimedia project, and
what would need to happen before it could. Any comments would be apreciated.
Benjamin Webb (User:Bjwebb on wikipedia, meta, commons, wikibooks, rodovid
P.S. It has a meta page at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Rodovid.org
> Can you give us a little more context? I can see that there is a
>proposal to create a separate meta wiki just for the english
>wikipedia, presumably because many things currently on meta.wikipedia
>are not really applicable to other wikipedias?
This isn't a proposal for an English meta at all. It was an attempt to
make Meta actually useful as a cross-project work wiki, rather than a
disorganised collection of historical documents with a few working
pages camped out in the archaeological rubble.
Linuxbeak started the latest attempt ( [[m:WM:OM]] ); Jimbo gave his
blessing, but warned that many had tried and failed before. The reason
appears to be that there are enough people who like it as it is that
they don't care it's all but unusable and frequently actively
misleading, and that those of us who would like a cross-project work
wiki are regarded as a bunch of dicks for trying.
Anthere has also said, when asked directly, that there is an active
meta community but they don't actually do their work on meta, rather
on mailing lists and IRC. Which doesn't sound to me like a work wiki,
but evidently does to her and others. So I proposed a "meta2", which
can actually be used as a work wiki. The current meta incumbents have
decided this is in fact a proposal for an en: wikipedia Meta, when it
wasn't actually anything of the sort, but anyway.
Meta is evidently not a cross-project work wiki or service wiki for
other projects, but a separate community unto itself, somewhat like
Commons. (Recall en:'s problems with vandalism of images stored on
Commons, and how we eventually had to resort to storing featured
images directly on en: owing to the recalcitrance of Commons admins
who insisted they were an independent project, never mind Commons was
*invented* as a service wiki.) I'm not entirely sure what the point
is, but I'm sure someone will follow up with what makes a wiki where
the community do their actual work in IRC and mailing lists into a
work wiki whose use is clear to those not in the inner circle.
> This struck me as unnecessarily confrontational.
The stream of abuse from those who consider themselves the guardians
of Meta strikes me as unnecessarily confrontational, and I'm really
not happy about it. When one of those is a Foundation board member,
I'm even less happy about it.
ChitChat with David over whether there is a meta community ... or not...
is nice, but let's get back to real business for a while :-)
There is a proposal on meta : InstantCommons
I would be happy if some of you could have a look at it (if not at the
technical details, at least to the general concept - it will not take
you much time) and give a feedback about it (here or on meta or on irc).
I am not looking for a comment by those who proposed the project... but
by the others ;-)
Thanks for your feedback.
Special Project Committee
Après avoir expertisé l'état des données contenues dans le site
fr.wikiquote, la fondation Wikimedia considère que le matériel
hébergé dans la base
du site fr.wikiquote ne présente pas les garanties minimales de
sûreté juridique nécessaires à la
pérennité du projet. Le site va donc être entièrement repris pour
être effacé et relancé. Une politique
plus exigeante de traçabilité des citations mises en ligne sera
instaurée sur la version II de
fr.wikiquote. Cette décision a été prise dans l'intérêt de l'ensemble
des projets mis en oeuvre par la
--English Translation --
After analyzing the data contained in the fr.wikiquote site, the
Wikimedia Foundation has determined that the material stored in the
fr.wikiquote database does not provide the basic assurance of legal
soundness necessary to the permanence of the project. Therefore, the
site will be entirely taken down to be erased and relaunched. A
policy requiring greater traceability of quotations will be put in
place on fr.wikiquote version II. This action has been taken for the
benefit of all Wikimedia Foundation projects.
Translations can be made into other languages after the announcement
for the benefit of Wikiquotes in other languages that may be
interested. Any such translations should if possible work from the
original French text, this is a French announcement.
chief legal officer
Okay, apparently, we have a few problems here.
Despite praise from various sources, several other Meta people have
complained that this project is doing more harm than good. While I of course
completely disagree with that notion, I feel that I ought to let out some
Meta right now is horrible. Really, it is. People need to stop kidding
themselves and understand that the way that it is in right now is akin to a
trash heap. Sure, there are some good things on Meta, but the vast majority
is unorganized rubbish that could probably be put away in an archive and
forgotten about until cyber-archaeologists come along and sift through it
and thing that they're artifacts. I mean, come on. Sure, this place has a
lot of history of Wikimedia, but if things need to be kept, why can't they
be kept in a more orderly fashion?
Another thing: people have been complaining about speedy deletions and that
they violate Meta policy. Can I be brutally honest? Meta is a ghost wiki and
the policies aren't nearly as important as they are on local projects. When
people start complaining that deletion of unused images such as pornography
is out of process, I cringe. No one is going to miss some of these things.
I understand that some people have objected to some things which I have
deleted. However, those things can get restored, and besides, any project
which requires a massive overhaul will experience errors.
Frankly, I've got better things to do than completely overhaul Meta. I'm
doing this for the greater good of Wikimedia's projects. People are afraid
to touch Meta because it is a massive unorganized heap. I'm trying to change
that, and I've gotten a go-ahead from the top. If people are going to
complain that a policy on a nearly abandoned wiki is not followed over
getting things, you know... accomplished (gee, what a thought), then why am
I and thirteen other editors (two of which have decided to quit the project)
wasting our time like this?
For the meantime, I will continue this project, but I would like to propose
a solution: an archive wiki of Meta. Move *everything* on Meta over to this
archive. Start fresh. The archive will contain all things that Meta used to
have, so nothing will just disappear, and someone else can go through the
archive if they really feel like it and find whatever they're looking for. I
promise I won't touch that archive. Plus, anything that is current can be
kept on Meta as is. Let Meta be useful again instead of a depository of crap
dotted with worthwhile discussions and essays.