On the Moldavian Wikipedia it says for over a month "This wiki has been
closed for now." Is there any outlook on whether 'for now' means 'for ever'
or that it will be re-opened at some time? I am asking because I want to
know what to do with the interwiki for the bot. If the wiki is closed down
for good, I intend to remove them silently; if it will be opened up again
some time soon, I want to keep them in the same way as to 'normal'
Andre Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
... that every time community input is asked on a subject by a board
member, little to none is given?
And why is it that every time the same things that were put up for
discussion are said "approved' or "official" suddenly everyone finds
something to say?
Shouldn't it be the other around?
NB. This address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
this address will probably get lost.
Casey Brown wrote:
>What kind of situations does Meta have that would call for "office
>actions" as they were practiced on the English Wikipedia?
>With respect to the larger issue, the Wikimedia Foundation office must
>have the authority to intervene on all projects when necessary for legal
>reasons. It would be difficult to abdicate this. The details and process
>might vary (the closure of the French Wikiquote was done rather
>differently), and I wouldn't recommend referring everyone to the English
>Wikipedia version as the blanket official policy, but the principle
>remains the same.
I am not sure which would be the preferred mailing list for this kind
of a suggestion (wikitech, comcom, internal, this one) so I flipped
As far as I know, we are constantly blocking people when they are
live-mirroring Wikipedia (instead of downloading the dump or
negotiating a data feed). Apart from that, there is no consequence for
the people running a live mirror. I remember at least one instance in
which the person running the mirror tried to change IP addresses
faster than they were blocked.
I can imagine that this is a time-consuming and sometimes frustrating
effort. My suggestion would be not to block these IP addresses any
more but to deliver slightly modified content to them, basically the
same Wikipedia text plus a ad banner or Google Adsense box right above
the text or next to it. That way, it would at least be of some sort of
reward for the foundation running the servers...
What do you think about it?
I have read the numerous comments on the fact that we should be
planning Wikimania well in advance, and I fully agree that choosing
the city for Wikimania 2008 sometime at the end of 2006 or beginning
of 2007 makes perfect sense, and we have started working on it.
Just for the record though, Wikimania 2006 was only the second
edition, and I wish people would remember that when planning 2006, we
did not even know whether it was going to happen at all. So please
keep that in perspective. There is room for improvement, and I believe
Wikimedia has done a good job in trying to keep everyting into
consideration for the next editions.
On the subject of size. I am personally not in favour of an
*international Wikimedia conference* (keywords international and
Wikimedia) that will hold more than 500 people, ever. The reason for
this were clear last year, but even clearer this year, ie. opening the
conference to 1000 people makes it, in my opinion, lose the
"Wikimedia" touch, by bringing many people in who have in the end
nothing to do with Wikimedia. Mind you, I find the interaction with
other organisations and people with different web, collaborative,
knowledge experiences very fruitful and interesting, but this year
showed a trend that I wish we did not facilitate too much. There were
many many local (as in US) people who had but a far fetched interest
in our projects, and thus did not pertain to the "Wikimedia Community"
or had no intention of ever pertaining to it.
My dream is that Wikimedia got their hands on enough money in due time
to provide scholarships to far away contributors wherever they may be
and make sure that the core attendance of the conference is filled
Basically the real question is what do we want Wikimania to be? Is it
the ultimate wiki conference? Is it the Wikimedia conference? Is it a
free knowledge or access to knowledge conference? Is it an open source
conference? Is it all of that? Some of that?
In my opinion, and in an ideal world, Wikimania would probably almost
be booked solid before registration even happens, because we have
managed to bring in all the people that count in the Wikimedia
I would hate to see Wikimania be taken away from the Wikimedians. I
would hate for it to be so big that you would not have a clue who this
or that person is, or worse, that some people would come to Wikimania
and ask "what is Wikipedia?".
I believe we have shown the world that we can put together interesting
programs and that we should use this opportunity to make sure we
provide different events, aiming at different publics. I would love to
see a Wikimedia Academic Conference, or a Wikimedia Wiki Practices
Conference. I would also love to see more regional Wikimedia
conferences, such as the Chinese and Dutch edition this year who would
bring together people who did not make it to the international
conference or who need to concentrate in a language or on specific
In short, I do not think that Wikimania would benefit from becoming a
huge thing that everyone would attend because they happened to be in
I'd like to invite you to participate in a survey about Wikimedia's
brands, their uses, and possible changes to our brand strategy:
Peace & Love,
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
Looking at the new branding survey on meta, i'm struck by the fact that
"Wikibooks" isn't trademarked. Is it an error that it's trademark simply
wasnt listed on the page with the rest, or is the name simply not
trademarked at all?
Not having that name is a little scary to me because an external entity
could take it and demand that we quit using it. I know some people are
interested in rebranding, but that should be an internal decision, not a
hostile external one.
Like the way Microsoft Office Outlook works? Youll love Windows Live
>Sorry if i'm in the wrong place, but i wonder what one can do if they
>think their ban on meta is unjustified.
>trying to talk to the blocking admin by email or irc (and to others)
>m:user:Azdiyy was blocked indef on may 24 with no warning. if meta is
>for my postings i am willing to learn. but an indef ban is too much imo.
Guillom said to complain about users on the individual wiki, not Meta. Maybe
your postings were not suitable for Meta (I haven't actually looked at all
your edits, but your most recent ones on talk pages seem rather unsuitable
New, exclusive and FREE - Download Madonna's "Hey You" now!