Wikimedia-l May 2007

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

128 participants
137 discussions

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikikids
by Mathias 30 May '07

30 May '07

Hi, Robert Horning a écrit : > > mathias.damour wrote: > > Another point is that Wikijunior "only" aims to produce and > > offer content for children whereas Wikikids.nl and Vikidia > > want children to be involved in building this content. We want > > to let them be active with knowledge for pedagogical interest. > > See this article : http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/Writing-to-learn > > I have serious doubts about the ability of children to get involved in > this process, other than to the extent that they already are involved > with Wikimedia projects. There are minors (including some that have > administrator access... as discussed in some earlier threads) who are > involved with Wikipedia content (and a few I suspected on Wikibooks as > well), but these tend to be kids that are exceptionally motivated. And > they participate on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects as peers to > everybody else who is a contributor, with no special distinction. While > the idea of having kids write for kids sounds appealing on paper, a > bunch of 4th graders write like... well... a bunch of 4th graders. They > are still trying to learn the basic mechanics of writing, and ought to > be learning how to write from those who have already mastered the skill, > not from those who are still apprentices in the subject. I digress if > you think some contributors on Wikipedia don't know how to write, but > that more or less proves my point as well. It would be nice to have a feed-back from those who are involved in the Wikikids.nl project on this point. I would say a few things : - We choosed not to make special distinction related to age on Vikidia (no more than on Wikipedia). It is just asked that if you tell your age on your user page, you shouldn't cheat about it, just as you shouldn't cheat about your Diploma/academic degree on Wikipedia. (It's written in the disclaimer that a user could be blocked if he cheat about his age, but that you shouldn't assumed that it has been checked.) - 8-13 years is the readers target age. They are welcomed to edit, but adults so as - say - 13-18 years are welcomed too. We could guess that quite a lot of these (teenagers) could be willing to edit in a wiki, but don't feel able to do it on Wikipedia. They can be pleased to do it for younger people. That's what happen on Vikidia, where teenage editors are quite importants. - it seems that children are not able to write as much as older people, but they could do a quite good job on one subject. Anyway, it's a wiki so their articles are to be bettered by others (which can be formative to them). They can aslo get involved in maintenance task (internal links...) which make them become active readers rather than only content recipient. Participation of children is nevertheless something like a pillar for these wikis. > What I'm trying to point out is that those who are involved with > Wikijunior were not even contacted about this idea in the first place > when the idea was originally brought up on Meta, and suggestions on Meta > to look at the Wikijunior project as perhaps something to work with were > met with incredible hostility by those suggesting this Wikikids > project. This doesn't have to be an either-or situation, as I believe > the sum is healthier than the individual parts alone. I'm not sure I understand well ; "This doesn't have to be an either-or situation" do you mean that they can be book for children AND adults on Wikibooks, or that they can be wikibooks AND an encyclopedia for children. That's what I would say. > I am presuming that you are writing about this because you want to seek > input from the Wikimedia community, and would like to enlist support for > those who might want to get involved with a project of this nature. I'm > merely suggesting here that there are individuals who may want to join > in this sort of project, and you should try to join with these efforts. > There have been some attempts in the past to move Wikijunior to a > completely separate project and domain name, including forming > Wikijunior as a completely independent Wikimedia sister project. One of > these proposals, and not rejected by the Wikijunior community, was to > move to a more Wikipedia-like format of articles rather than the themed > collections organized into books such as currently exist on Wikibooks. > Please ask those involved with the development of Wikijunior to at least > comment on your ideas. For English Wikijunior, the best place is at > http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Talk:Wikijunior > > What all this concept is lacking is a very motivated leader who is > willing to take the next step and demonstrate that there is a large > concensus among those want to go this route. And unlike the problems > that existed with Wikiversity on Wikibooks, there is virtually nobody > who wants to see Wikijunior "kicked off" of Wikibooks. Wikijunior > enjoys a nearly independent existence without having to worry about the > project overhead of maintaining a separate group of admins, and a > strongly symbiotic relationship exists as well between Wikibooks and > Wikijunior to bring new users and contributors to both projects. I > think that Wikijunior would struggle with a great many issues if it had > an independent existence at the moment that it doesn't have to worry > about right now. I had a look to the wikijunior pages in english and french. On the english talk page, the topic on a separated website is about either a read-only website for safe reading for children, or a separate wikibooks. I can understand that if wikijunior should still aim to writes books, there is no determining utility to make a separate wiki for it. But the wikikids idea is quite different, since it has a "Wikipedia-like format" as you say, and for it aims to let children write on it. I don't know if wikijunior could (and would like) to move to that, and anyway "This doesn't have to be an either-or situation" ;-) Mathias Damour

1 0

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikikids
by Nicholas Moreau 29 May '07

29 May '07

On this topic, I find it disappointing (at least in the footer and the "English explanation of WikiKids") that Kennisnet hasn't made the project's content available under a free license. On edit pages it notes: "GEBRUIK GEEN MATERIAAL DAT BESCHERMD WORDT DOOR AUTEURSRECHT, TENZIJ JE DAARTOE TOESTEMMING HEBT!" which means: "USE NO MATERIAL WHICH IS PROTECTED COPYRIGHT, UNLESS YOU HAVE TO THIS END AUTHORISATION!" But beyond shooing away plagiarism, there doesn't seem to be any obvious mention. They've even removed the default mention of the GNU FDL that appears by default on Wikia hosted wikis. Nick

3 2

[Foundation-l] Meta Ban
by Azdiyy 29 May '07

29 May '07

Hello, 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) led nowhere. m:user:Azdiyy was blocked indef on may 24 with no warning. if meta is not suitable for my postings i am willing to learn. but an indef ban is too much imo. many thanks, azdiyy

1 0

[Foundation-l] Wikikids
by Mathias 28 May '07

28 May '07

Hi, May I give you some news about 2 encyclopedic wikis intended for children (as readers so as editors), whose proposal was made first on meta : http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikikids and on this list two years ago: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2005-January/015108.html Such a wiki has been launched in french (in which I am involved) see an english explanation about it: http://fr.vikidia.org/index.php/Vikidia:About and in Dutch (see http://kennisnet.wikia.com/wikikids/wiki/Wikikids:English_explanation None of them are Wikimedia project.) Both have a quite active community and have reached 1000 articles. I would be glad to know what you think about them and about the original idea that was for it to be an international Wikimedia project. Mathias Damour

4 3

[Foundation-l] Licensing Policy
by Klaus Graf 27 May '07

27 May '07

> Following a deletion debate on Commons [1], we are left with the > problem whether or not Public domain images that are under other > restrictions, such as coats of arms, are allowed under the Foundation > Licensing policy. If I quote Erik Moeller, from another thread [2] on > the mailing list: > > '[...]the licensing policy has been specifically formulated to avoid > that problem. It requires content to be under a Free Content License, > which is defined as "a license which meets the terms of the Definition > of Free Cultural Works _specific to licenses_".[...]' > > However, since we are talking about public domain, this does not apply > for this image, since public domain is not a license. This means that > another section of the resolution applies: > > '[...] or which is otherwise free as recognized by the 'Definition of > Free Cultural Works' as referenced above.' > > Which is not the case, this specific image is under more restrictions; > see the deletion debate for details. Is this analysis correct? Or > should we just treat public domain as a "free content license"? > > Bryan > (cc'd to commons-l) > > [1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:SilaTonga.svg > [2] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-April/029468.html I agree with en/Commons user Lupo who has, referring to the discussion at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#Grundsatzfragen written: "Now, the problem is this: freedomdefined.org states that a "free" work "must not be covered by legal restrictions (patents, contracts, etc.) or limitations (such as privacy rights) which would impede the freedoms enumerated above." That would mean that we'd need to look beyond copyrights, and that the foundation's licensing policy did not consider COAs and the like "free" works, even if they were fine copyright-wise, because their use is often restricted by other laws. Ugh. Looks like the overarching "free culture" activism expressed at freedomdefined.org has some rather drastic and unpleasant consequences for us". There is a non exhaustive list of non-free content (content which can be used for any purpose) in the German Wikipedia at: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilfe:FAQ_Rechtliches#Sind_alle_Inhalte_der_Wi… According to the free content definition we cannot show at commons (nor in the local branches without EDP): * pictures of living persons (because according to German law commercial use is only allowed with the content of the person AND it is strictly forbidden to manipulate pictures, decision of Bundesverfassungsgericht) * pictures of coat of arms which are used by an institution (because there are non-copyright-restrictions in all cases) *pictures of Geschmacksmuster-protected objects like cars *the Olympic rings http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Olympic_Games and so on. Klaus Graf

5 6

[Foundation-l] Board election/Candidate presentation guideline
by Aphaia 26 May '07

26 May '07

Hello there, I'd invite you to take a look at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_election/Candidate_presentation_guidel… Eventually I'm in charge of the election organzation, I spoke there as one of regular meta editor. While it is a guideline about election, it is not written on behalf of Election committee (at least now, and currently I foresee no possiblity of changes). In my opinion the characters of this document may be suggestions from the community, so I would love all interested people to join its editing. At first, I put a widely heard complaint from translators, since it has been repeated by several translators. Some facts may be wrongly remembered. My wording may be brunt even to the unnecessary extent, so your copyedit would be very appreciated :) Cheers, -- KIZU Naoko Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org * habent enim emolumentum in labore suo * -- KIZU Naoko Wikiquote: http://wikiquote.org * habent enim emolumentum in labore suo *

1 0

[Foundation-l] Board Steering Committee formed
by Cary Bass 24 May '07

24 May '07

I would like to announce the board steering committee for the upcoming board elections. (All usernames are on meta unless otherwise indicated): Aphaia Mako Newyorkbrad en:Phillipe Jon Harald Søby Tim Starling As the committee organizes itself, you should expect to see the election official positions and roles be decided and presented on the meta site. Cary Bass Volunteer coordinator

2 3

[Foundation-l] About non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term
by shi zhao 23 May '07

23 May '07

Plese attention American non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term petitions http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/American_non-acceptance_of_the_rule_of_the_s… -- Chinese wikipedia: http://zh.wikipedia.org/ My blog: http://talk.blogbus.com CNBlog: http://blog.cnblog.org/weblog.html Social Brain: http://www.socialbrain.org/default.asp cnbloggercon: http://www.cnbloggercon.org/ [[zh:User:Shizhao]]

1 0

[Foundation-l] Firefox and its 52m budget
by David Gerard 23 May '07

23 May '07

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/21/technology/21link.html?_r=1&ref=technolog… Did we come up with a suitable selection of really good mission-furthering things to do with $100 million? - d.

5 11

[Foundation-l] Privacy Policy & users abusing Check User Privilege
by EP TYPES 23 May '07

23 May '07

Take Notice: User:Jpgordon (Arbitrator en.wiki) was granted Check User Privilege: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hipocrite&diff=13256710… Eptypes is a confirmed sock of [[User:Khunter]], [[User:Goingempty]], [[User:Parker007]], [[User:Shines8]], and/or [[User:Paracit]]. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]] 00:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC) User:Mackensen (Arbitrator en.wiki) was granted Check User Privilege: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitrat… Hello {{user|Endgame1}}. --[[User:Mackensen|Mackensen]] 02:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC) These 2 users have abused the check user privilege granted to them. There was No Check User Request filed. They are supposed to only use their privilege: Wikimedia privacy policy On Wikimedia <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia> projects, privacy policy <http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/privacy_policy> considerations are of tremendous importance. Unless someone is definitely violating policy with their actions (*e.g.* massive bot vandalism or spam), revealing their IP, whereabouts or other information sufficient to identify them is likely a violation. CheckUser requires the level of confidentiality one would apply to our most confidential user data. The relevant section of the privacy policy<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy>is: *Policy on release of data derived from page logs* *It is the policy of Wikimedia that personally identifiable data collected in the server logs, or through records in the database via the CheckUser feature, may be released by the system administrators or users with CheckUser access, in the following situations:* 1. *In response to a valid subpoena or other compulsory request from law enforcement* 2. *With permission of the affected user* 3. *To the chair of Wikimedia Foundation, his legal counsel, or his designee, when necessary for investigation of abuse complaints. * 4. *Where the information pertains to page views generated by a spider or bot and its dissemination is necessary to illustrate or resolve technical issues.* 5. *Where the user has been vandalising articles or persistently behaving in a disruptive way, data may be released to assist in the targeting of IP blocks, or to assist in the formulation of a complaint to relevant Internet Service Providers* 6. *Where it is reasonably necessary to protect the rights, property or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users or the public.* Wikimedia policy does not permit public distribution of such information under any circumstances, except as described above. *Information release* Even if the user is committing abuse, it's best not to reveal personal information if possible. - Generally, do not reveal IPs. Only give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If detailed information is provided, make sure the person you are giving it to is a trusted person and will not reveal it himself. - If the user has said they're from somewhere and the IP confirms it, it's not releasing private information to confirm it if needed. - If they're on a large national or international ISP (*e.g.* AOL, NTL, BT, Telstra) where they're one of millions of users, saying so is unlikely to be personally identifiable. - Revealing the country is generally not personally identifiable (*e.g .* "User:Querulous is coming in from the UK, User:Sockpuppet is coming in from Canada"). - If you're in any doubt, give no detail.

5 4

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Wikimedia-l May 2007