Wikimedia-l September 2006

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

120 participants
168 discussions

Re: [Foundation-l] Verifiability: Constitution?
by valdelli＠bluemail.ch 17 Sep '06

17 Sep '06

It's simply crazy. I know that the article [[:de:Wikimedia CH]] has been cancelled in the past because we are working to have this chapter and it is not established. Now Wikimedia CH is alive, it's working, we have a lot of references, documentation but... the article in german Wikipedia? It's lost. I repeat... crazy, absolutely crazy. Ilario ----Messaggio originale---- Da: eloquence(a)gmail.com Data: 17.09.06 13.38 A: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"<foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org> Oggetto: Re: [Foundation-l] Verifiability: Constitution? On 9/17/06, Andre Engels <andreengels(a)gmail.com> wrote: > But how do you define 'can be sourced'? The only way that you can show > that something can be sourced is by sourcing it. Does this mean that > we should remove all unsourced statements from all articles? If so, > there will be little Wikipedia left. If not, then what do we accept > without source and what not? There is currently a poll on the German Wikipedia whether new articles that cite no sources should be deleted: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: Meinungsbilder/Quellenpflicht_f%C3%BCr_neue_Artikel The proposal, translated literally: "New articles may only be created if they cite sources.These citations should be listed in the edit summary [*] and/or in the article itself. To cite the main sources for an article, the sections 'Literature' or 'Weblinks' should be used. (...) New articles without sources can be deleted without further discussion through a speedy deletion request."

1 0

Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikipedia-l] Endorsement
by Delirium 17 Sep '06

17 Sep '06

While we're weighing in, I'd like to support Erik Moeller's candidacy. Though I don't agree with him on all specifics, I trust that he's sincerely and idealistically committed to the core mission of the Wikimedia Foundation. As importantly, he has a long track record of getting important things done, being the primary mover behind getting both the Wikimedia Commons and WikiNews up and running. Both involved complex combinations of leadership, policy development, and community support, and have turned out to be our two most successful recent projects. From the point of view of relations with overlapping communities, he has significant credibility with the broader open-content community. He's been active for many years in a variety of forums (I first ran across him at kuro5hin, and he ran a well-known copyright-reform blog for years), and his work with the Wikimedia Commons in particular has made him known in open-media circles. So having him on the board would help cement our alliances with the wider group of people who have similar aims. There are a number of other candidates who I think would make good board members, but Erik stands out as having a proven track record of getting complex but important things done, along with a high level of credibility in a wider community. -Mark

2 2

Re: [Foundation-l] Verifiability: Constitution?
by valdelli＠bluemail.ch 17 Sep '06

17 Sep '06

Do You know that not all could be verified and for some points is it unnecessary the verifiability? IMHO only disputed article MUST have references and MUST be supported by verifiability to limit personal opinions and to avoid the article to become a "drawing room". For other article this choice could be optional. In scientific editions all MUST be checked and confirmed by the authority of others books or researches, but there is a limit... also the books and researches could make a mistake. If a researcher takes care extremely on them, he has not chance. And in any case not all could be found in references... after this limit we cross in the research and this is this should be hoped because without the research there is no progress. The choice is here: Wikipedia looks to be a simple collector of knowledge (verified and checked) or Wikipedia believes to be opened also to the new researches? At end one reflection, when Einstein was producing his new theories all scientists judged him as a bizarre man also because there was nothing to support his suppositions... now his suppositions are a pillar in the Physic. This is a conclusion to display that references don't assure the certitude and the truth. There are men who need extreme verifiability and they like to call themselves as "pragmatic", there are other men who need critic verifiability to start a journey for new borders, to see over the first ones. Ilario ----Messaggio originale---- Da: Christoph.Seydl(a)students.jku.at Data: 17.09.06 10.52 A: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"<foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org> Oggetto: Re: [Foundation-l] Verifiability: Constitution? Contrary: If the principle of verifiability is not defined in basic principles, there is always discordance: .... You see that there is a lot of discordance among Wikipedians. If there is no policy, there is always dispute how to deal with verifiability. The question is: Which information has to be sourced? I think that the verifiability issue should be outlined, if it is a pillar. /Chris Ray Saintonge wrote: > Saying that we follow the principle of verifiability should be enough. > When you get too specific, we unfortunately have many people who are > determined to take it to extremes at either end of the scale. Some will > accept the most ephemeral of data as verification, while others will > insist that even the most broadly observed information must '''always''' > show references. >

1 0

[Foundation-l] deletion query
by Florence Devouard 17 Sep '06

17 Sep '06

Hi Brion, I made a mistake in posting cp stuff to foundation list. Could you please delete the mails where the text is please ? Here are the ones concerned http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-September/009986.html http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-September/009989.html http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-September/009993.html sorry about that brion thanks ant

4 3

[Foundation-l] Rob Levin of irc.freenode.net has passed away :-(
by Erik Moeller 17 Sep '06

17 Sep '06

According to operators of FreeNode.net, Rob Levin, who was the President of the Peer-Directer Projects Center which operates irc.freenode.net, has passed away in an accident. Slashdot has a summary here: http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/16/2152243 I've only interacted with lilo (his IRC nickname) a few times, but I have a long time connection to the FreeNode community. About 6 years ago, when it was still known as openprojects.net, I created a channel there for a website which I run. It grew very rapidly and then moved to another network, but I stayed with OpenProjects/FreeNode, where we started the #wikipedia IRC channel in December 2001. Back then, it was often only 3 or 4 people who would hang out occasionally, while I'm now counting 263 people on the channel. Since then, the Wikimedia community has created countless other channels on the FreeNode network, which are invaluable to our commmunity on so many levels. Every now and then lilo would drop in and see how it goes. Rob Levin was very much part of the fabric of FreeNode, and he helped turn it into a place that is generally pleasant and vibrant, a home for many, many open source and free content projects. Fortunately, FreeNode will continue to operate. Truly, this vast international communication network is a powerful legacy. But lilo had many more ideas, and the passion and intellect to pursue them. His passing is a great blow to all who knew him and who worked with him, and a fatal personal loss for his loved ones. I will miss him. :.-( -- Peace & Love, Erik

3 2

[Foundation-l] sep11.wikipedia.org locked
by Brion Vibber 17 Sep '06

17 Sep '06

Due to longstanding concerns about lack of activity and abuse by spammers and vandals, I've switched sep11.wikipedia.org to read-only so it can no longer be edited. -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)

4 4

Re: [Foundation-l] Minimum standards for verifiability
by valdelli＠bluemail.ch 16 Sep '06

16 Sep '06

Wikipedia establish that if a group of persons has an opinion and another has got its own opinion, Wikipedia should take care of both (with different importance following the diffusione of the opinion). Not all could be verified, but all could have a reason, if this reason has got some references it's a good point. In any case the original points of view are not accepted. Ilario ----Messaggio originale---- Da: gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com Data: 16.09.06 0.11 A: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"<foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org> Oggetto: Re: [Foundation-l] Minimum standards for verifiability Christoph Seydl wrote: > > * Are there any rules (minimum requirements) how verifiability should be > designed in different Wikipedias? > * Must there be a source for every included material (e.g. a basket is a > cylindric vessel)? > * Is it enough that only disputed material must be sourced? > * May a poll abolish the requirement of verifiability? When a point of view is "verified" by sources, it does not mean that the point of view is correct. There are sources that say that the holocaust is a lie. If this is true because of there being sources that say that this is true, then there is a problem with the sources. When you then say that a court of law proved that something is not true, than it is a known fact that the world is flat. Thanks, GerardM

1 0

[Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimania 2007 - Bidding cities shortlist
by Delphine Ménard 16 Sep '06

16 Sep '06

I am very sorry, it seems this email never made it to the lists yesterday. Gmail or mailman ate all my emails sent to lists yesterday. I *did* send it yesterday. Delphine ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Delphine Ménard <notafishz(a)gmail.com> Date: Sep 15, 2006 10:50 AM Subject: Wikimania 2007 - Bidding cities shortlist To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org>, wikipedia-l(a)wikimedia.org, Wikimedia Translators <translators-l(a)wikimedia.org> Dear Wikimedians, first an foremost, the jury would like to thank all the people who have worked on putting together those bids. We all know it is a hard task and that it takes both time and ressources that volunteers already give for Wikimedia altogether. We have chosen 4 cities for the shortlist: Alexandria, London, Taipei, Torino The bids of Orlando, Hong-Kong and Istanbul were unfortunately not precise enough in what opportunities there are especially for conference venues. Singapore's bid almost made it to the shortlist but the lack of opportunities for common accommodation made it fall through. The jury will be asking questions on the talk pages of the chosen bids, please do make sure that you answer them. And do not hesitate to ask us questions too. We also encourage the cities that have not made it to the shortlist, and even those who have, to start thinking about opportunities for the coming years and especially 2008. We expect to be chosing the city for 2008 within a couple of months, so for those who are already at it, work your contacts and opportunities, for those who have not started thinking, it's time to come up with fresh ideas! Again, thanks to all of you who have worked hard on these bids, and as we say in French, "que le meilleur gagne ! " (May the best win!). We will have a public meeting with the bidding teams, the jury and and whoever wants to join on IRC in the #wikimania channel on freenode on Saturday 23rd September at 15.00 UTC. Stay tuned for more and happy further bidding! Cheers, Delphine PS. Merci to the translators in advance for forwarding this to the appropriate lists. -- ~notafish -- ~notafish

1 0

[Foundation-l] Wolf Mountain Group CEO Appointed/Wikimedia Foundation Issues
by Jeffrey V. Merkey 16 Sep '06

16 Sep '06

Ahead of the formal press release on US1, I wanted to maket the Foundation and Community aware of the following. Dr. Dusty Delso has been appointed as the CEO of the Wolf Mountain Group and the Wikimedia Foundation point of contact for all business and funding issues. Dr. Delso has left his position as the head of the Cherokee Nation Culture and Education programs and accepted his new role effective October 2, 2006. He remains the Dean of our School of Information Technology and our University and higher education programs and remains heavily engaged in Cherokee Nation and Federal Programs for our people. I will still update the Machine Translation meta project but have turned over all WMG and Wikipedia project issues to him and Bryan Sparks, both of whom are now managing Wolf Mountain Group. I remain however, the largest shareholder and chairman (though I will be busy with another company which was just acquired and I will be focued on this about 80% of the time from now on). I doubt Dr. Delso will dialouge on this list much or become involved heavily in community issues since he will be focused almost exclusively on Federally funded programs for our Native American Languages programs with the Federal Government involving Wikipedia and the Native Tribal Leaders and Linguists. I will be available for any projects involving machine translation for any languages and hadling all technical matters with the WikiTrans program. The Foundation may contact him directly if they wish to engage in discussions and joint opportunities. Our projects involving Wikipedia content are moving to the next phase with the Federal Government and deployment to the various tribes in North America. Love you all, Jeff

1 0

[Foundation-l] Clickable images
by effe iets anders 16 Sep '06

16 Sep '06

Hello all, I think we all saw them. Clickable images. Very usefull, especially on the main page etc, but there are some slight problems. You can not access the license-information without digging in the sourcecode of the page. And that might be in a template in a template etc. So that's why I am wondering: Should it be allowed at all to make images clickable, as people cannot check the license-information? Or should it maybe not be allowed to make images clickable when the licence requires that attribution should be given to the author? (Like GFDL, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA etc) So it should be allowed with PD? This is not because I want to hurry this through, but would like to share some thoughts on this behalf. Maybe it should be wise to make this "global" policy when we could come to a clear result. I am no lawyer myself, but I just have the feeling that we are very much searching the border of what is allowed with these clickimage-templates etc. (There is also some function in MediaWiki that shows one image but links to another, btw, the discussion is the same there) Greetings, hoping for fruitfull discussion, Lodewijk

8 16

← Newer
1
...
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
...
17
Older →

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Wikimedia-l September 2006