There is a request for a Wikipedia in Ancient Greek. This request has so far
been denied. A lot of words have been used about it. Many people maintain
their positions and do not for whatever reason consider the arguments of
In my opinion their are a few roadblocks.
- Ancient Greek is an ancient language - the policy does not allow for
- Text in ancient Greek written today about contemporary subjects
require the reconstruction of Ancient Greek.
- it requires the use of existing words for concepts that did
not exist at the time when the language was alive
- neologisms will be needed to describe things that did not
exist at the time when the language was alive
- modern texts will not represent the language as it used to be
- Constructed and by inference reconstructed languages are effectively
We can change the policy if there are sufficient arguments, when we agree on
When a text is written in reconstructed ancient Greek, and when it is
clearly stated that it is NOT the ancient Greek of bygone days, it can be
obvious that it is a great tool to learn skills to read and write ancient
Greek but that it is in itself not Ancient Greek. Ancient Greek as a
language is ancient. I have had a word with people who are involved in the
working group that deals with the ISO-639, I have had a word with someone
from SIL and it is clear that a proposal for a code for "Ancient Greek
reconstructed" will be considered for the ISO-639-3. For the ISO-639-6 a
code is likely to be given because a clear use for this code can be given.
We can apply for a code and as it has a use bigger then Wikipedia alone it
clearly has merit.
With modern texts clearly labelled as distinct from the original language,
it will be obvious that innovations a writers needs for his writing are
This leaves the fact that constructed and reconstructed languages are not
permitted because of the notion that mother tongue users are required. In my
opinion, this has always been only a gesture to those people who are dead
set against any and all constructed languages. In the policies there is
something vague "*it must have a reasonable degree of recognition as
determined by discussion (this requirement is being discussed by the language
subcommittee <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_subcommittee>)."* It
is vague because even though the policy talks about a discussion, it is
killed off immediately by stating "The proposal has a sufficient number of
living native speakers to form a viable community and audience." In my
opinion, this discussion for criteria for the acceptance of constructed or
reconstructed languages has not happened. Proposals for objective criteria
have been ignored.
In essence, to be clear about it:
- We can get a code for reconstructed languages.
- We need to change the policy to allow for reconstructed and
We need to do both in order to move forward.
The proposal for objective criteria for constructed and reconstructed
languages is in a nutshell:
- The language must have an ISO-639-3 code
- We need full WMF localisation from the start
- The language must be sufficiently expressive for writing a modern
- The Incubator project must have sufficiently large articles that
demonstrate both the language and its ability to write about a wide range of
- A sufficiently large group of editors must be part of the Incubator
There are opinions on Commons that Moeller's statement in this list
("[W]e've consistently held that faithful reproductions of
two-dimensional public domain works which are nothing more than
reproductions should be considered public domain for licensing
purposes") has been "overruled" by Mike Godwin's statement (which was
adressed on a Wikisource case)
We should not accept such nonsense.
Every Wikimania bid has strengths and weaknesses. Once a bid is chosen,
the ritual of criticizing the selection by focusing on some weakness
seems to have become inevitable. I would be more impressed to reconsider
the jury's selection if somebody presented a serious evaluation that
reached a different result after weighing all the issues, instead of
harping on only the one most favorable to the argument.
Since that is not yet forthcoming, I'd like to refocus the discussion on
the concept of Wikimania in general, since it seems to produce so much
debate. As an idea, Wikimania is being pulled in too many directions,
and it cannot be all things to all people. Supposing we have a consensus
that in the most basic sense it's a good idea (do we have that?), what
can we make of this idea? What kind of event should it be? What values
do we prioritize - intimacy, mass appeal, accessibility, outreach,
infrastructure, culture? Others that I haven't listed? If we care about
diversity, what is that? When we consider costs, whose costs do we mean?
How do we balance the competing considerations?
Currently the conference is planned for roughly 400 people. So far I'm
not aware of any location having difficulty attracting attendees. The
argument for catering to the highest concentrations of contributors
would be more appealing if coupled with the idea that it makes sense to
accommodate more people. But expanding Wikimania would change other
dynamics of accessibility - the type of facility used, individual costs
and overall conference expenses, the character of the event. At least so
far, nobody has been presenting this as a vision for Wikimania's future.
Another consideration is that admission fees have consciously been kept
low. Otherwise Wikimania doesn't make Wikimedia contributors a priority
- at least, not the kind of contributors I gather everyone is referring
to here. For any location most people already face costs related to
attendance, it's simply impossible to physically bring Wikimania to
everyone. Realistically, for any one person, Wikimania may be close
enough for you to come at minimal cost once or twice in your lifetime.
Some people may have to use a broad interpretation of "minimal" for even
Geographic proximity only goes so far in any case. Talking about Europe
and North America may sound as if that still leaves a vast range of
options. In the first place, this would be more persuasive if we saw a
larger number of cities bidding. When it's just one from each, the
chances of producing a bid superior to a highly-motivated team from,
say, South America are not exactly overwhelming. Furthermore, even if
this was the very highest consideration, it's not exactly neutral
between those. The varying population distributions and distances,
especially for North America, would have obvious logical consequences.
Basically, we should prefer any bid from the European core (defined by
London on the west, Rome on the south, Berlin or Rome on the east,
Berlin or Amsterdam on the north); the east coast of North America would
be a secondary option (maybe we could disqualify Europe every third
year); by comparison, the odds for the rest of North America would be
decidedly inferior (after ten or so years, we might make it to Chicago
or Los Angeles).
Wikimania could be bigger or smaller, reach the developing world or only
the already-developed, more expensive or less so, rotated widely or
narrowly. Leaving aside the security concerns specific to Alexandria,
the choice of options would have the following undesirable consequences,
depending on which course is taken:
*Complaints that the event is impersonal, lacks a sense of community, or
is merely a stage-managed public relations show
*After a cycle or two, it seems to be pretty much just the same group of
people getting together every few years
*Objections that the amount being spent is a poor use of foundation
funds (depending on how it works out, this would be about either the
size of the event or the travel costs incurred by the foundation itself,
making distance from San Francisco a factor)
*Inability to accommodate anyone beyond the local audience, thus being
hardly different from a random meetup and failing to reflect the diverse
character of Wikimedia participants
*Rumors and misperceptions of unfairness in timing of when registration
is opened or how tickets are allocated
*Outrage over high admission charges, resembling more closely a
I would like to understand what vision people have for Wikimania, and
see how their vision would deal with all of these issues. So far I have
heard only complaints and rebuttals, nobody offering their own vision
(on this list, at least). I fear an end result of the fights over this
would be to either abandon the idea of Wikimania, or simply to hold it
in the Moscone Center every year like Macworld. Before we get there,
let's hear some better alternatives.
On Jan 8, 2008 6:19 AM, Brian McNeil <brian.mcneil(a)wikinewsie.org> wrote:
Forgive me if some of this is retreading old ground, but I've over 50
> messages for this list since yesterday. Can we have a rerun (or a January
> run) of the top poster stats? I was 2nd last time and felt embarrassed
> despite having thought most of what I wrote was close to the topic in
Posts in December to Foundation-l
1 Thomas Dalton - 123
2 Anthony - 70
3 Andrew Whitworth - 64
4 David Gerard - 48
5 Florence Devouard - 47
6 Brian McNeil - 43
7 Nathan Awrich - 36
8 Ray Saintonge - 33
T9 GerardM - 32
T9 Mike Godwin - 32
T9 Erik Moeller - 32
Please, discuss at the page
* * * * *
'''Anti-vandal fighter''' is a global role on [[Wikimedia]] projects.
They have permissions on all Wikimedia projects comparable with
[[administrator]] rights on particular projects which they are using
at the projects without ''enough'' active administrators.
== Design ==
While anti-vandal fighters should have similar permissions to
administrators, their role is not to maintain wikis at the regular
basis, like wiki administrators are doing. Their role is to fight
against vandals and to allow to the community at a particular project
to take care about their own wiki. Because of that, while anti-vandal
fighters need and have permissions like deleting pages and blocking
users, they don't need and don't have permissions like "Mark others'
edits as patrolled", which is generally a feature which every
administrator should have.
== Permissions ==
This is the list of permissions with explanations which '''anti-vandal
=== Editing permissions ===
* '''Edit semi-protected pages''': This is a permission which has
every [[registered user]] after 4 days of the time when account is
registered. However, it may be useful to give to anti-vandal fighters
this permission explicitly because of possible technical problems.
* '''Edit other users' CSS and JS files''': As it is assumed that
anti-vandal fighters are technically skilled contributors, they may
help to other contributors in fixing their CSS and JS files.
* '''Move pages''': Similarly as the option from the first paragraph.
* '''Quickly rollback the edits of the last user who edited a
particular page''': This is "rollback" function. One of the most
important permissions for anti-vandal fighters.
=== Delete / undelete and protection premissions ===
* '''Delete pages''': Vandals and destructive users are making
(nonsense) pages often.
* '''Mass delete pages''': This may be very useful to anti-vandal
fighters. <small>As far as the proposer of this policy understands,
the number deleted pages is limited. However, if a vandal already made
a very large number of pages, anti-vandal fighter should be able to
delete them with or without help of a program.</small>
* '''Change protection levels and edit protected pages''': Anti-vandal
fighter should be able to protect and unprotect pages.
* '''Overwrite an existing file''': This is useful when some vandal
made mess by moving pages.
* '''Undelete a page''': While this is the only option for undeleting
pages, anti-vandal fighers should have this permission. As the only
reason for undeleting pages is to fix their own mistakenly deleted
page, when/if the permission "undelete if I deleted" start to exist,
the new permission should substitute the old one.
=== Blocking permissions ===
* '''Block other users from editing''': This permission will be
obsolete when centralized blocking system starts to work. After that,
anti-vandal fighters will work on centralized blocking system together
* '''Block a user from sending email''': The same as previous.
=== Other functions ===
* '''Purge the site cache for a page without confirmation''': This is
a permission with has every [[registered user]]. However, it is useful
to force such permission because of possible technical problems.
== Policy for requesting anti-vandal fighter status ==
An admin of any Wikimedia project, following the requirements listed
below, can request being an anti-vandal fighter.
* Having been a participant for at least 2 months on at least one
project other than Meta (at least 100 contributions in the last two
* Having a user page on Meta, with link(s) to a local project user
page, and a valid contact address (registered and valid wikipedia
email address in preferences, or an email address indicated on their
* Being (or perhaps having been some time ago) an active contributor
on Meta (more than 100 contributions)
* Being a sysop, bureaucrat or checkuser on a local Wikipedia or related project
The request shall be done on [[Requests for anti-vandal fighter
status]]. A time for opinion of at least one week will be given. The
candidate will be named sysop here only if they are approved by a
qualified majority of at least 75%. All editors with an account on
Meta, at least one active account on any Wikimedia project, and a link
between the two, may participate and give their opinion on the
candidate. In case of an opposition, enough people must speak for the
candidate for them to become sysop on Meta.
If the candidate becomes an anti-vandal fighter, they should add their
name to the anti-vandal fighters list, and ensure they keep a valid
user name page, links to at least one other project, and valid
contact. Anti-vandal fighters not respecting these rules will loose
See also: http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=UserName&dbnam…
== Permission usage ==
Anti-vandal fighter should deal '''only''' with projects which don't
have enough of active administrators in a particular time frame. If
some wiki doesn't have administrators, they should take care about it
all of the time. If another wiki doesn't have administrators just in
some parts of the day (like night ours in a specific time zone are),
they should take care about those wikis in those times.
Even their permissions are global, anti-vandal fighters are not
allowed to use their rights on any developed project (e.g.
[[w:|Wikipedia in English]]) without explicitly asking the community,
even for usage of rollback permission. Anti-vandal fighters not
respecting this rule will loose their privileges '''immediately'''.
== Discussion and policy adoption ==
This page is a proposal and it should be discussed before adopted. If
the discussion goes normally, it should be finished at June 15th at
23:59, after which the community should vote about the policy
=== Discussion ===
We should discuss about all issues related to this policy.
<small>Please, fix proposal's English, too :)</small>
=== Voting ===
For successful adoption of the policy the next conditions are necessary:
* at least 30 votes in favor;
* at least 80% overall votes in favor, with neutral votes not counting
toward the overall total;
Right to vote has every Wikimedian with at least 500 edits on all
projects and 100 edits on all projects in the period January 1st, 2008
-- May 31st 2008.
Our Syrian users reported that Arabic Wikipedia access from Syria is being
blocked (reading and editing), the block started since 30/4/2008. The rest
of the languages are working properly. Advanced users can bypass the block
and view and edit (proxies) but the problem is that the majority cannot get
past the block. We don't know the reasons yet for this stupid block. Is
there anything to be done to help lift the block?
Public Outreach: Report and Newsletter (05/08)
Status: 30 May 2008
Prepared by: Frank Schulenburg
1. ENCOURAGING UNDERREPRESENTED GROUPS
* Survey Generation 50plus
* Workshops for senior citizen internet tutors
* Lecture at the course "Manager for virtual learning projects
in seniors' education in Europe"
* Online course "Wikipedia in internet cafés for older people"
* Workshops in Africa supported by Namibian ambassador
* UCT and UWC declared interest to stage Wikipedia workshops at
Capetown, South Africa
2. WIKIPEDIA ACADEMY SERIES
* Third German Wikipedia Academy in Berlin
3. EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
* Outlook: Production of Wikipedia video tutorials
* Partnership with ZAWiW (Centre for General Scientific Education)
5. GRANTS AND FUNDING
* Wikimedia Deutschland: New budget for international outreach
* Lecture at the University of Hildesheim (06/2008)
* Workshop at the 13th Annual Conference of the Society for
Media in Science, Danube University of Krems (09/2008)
1. UNDERREPRESENTED GROUPS
SURVEY GENERATION 50PLUS
A survey conducted among older German Wikipedians in March 2008 treats
the question of how to encourage
senior citizens of the 50-plus age group to contribute. The
participants answered to the following questions:
* How much time do you spend on reading Wikipedia articles / editing
Wikipedia / contributing to discussions per day?
* What ist your motivation to contribute to Wikipedia?
* What are the specific problems older people have to deal with when
contributing to Wikipedia?
* What keeps older people from contributing to Wikipedia?
* How do you rate the findability and comprehensibility of Wikipedia's
* Which measures fit best to help older people to start contributing
* Have you ever motivated other older people to contribute to Wikipedia?
* Would you be willing to give Wikipedia introductions to other older
people (e.g. workshops, lectures)
* How do you rate the Wikimedia Foundation's efforts to encourage
contributions from older people?
The survey is part of the Wikimedia Foundation's strategy to encourage
contributions from targeted
Summary of the results:
It is not so much technical barriers what keeps older people from
contributing, but a lack of self-confidence, lack of personal contact
persons and an atmoshere of conflict and stress. Even if some
usability problems exist (e.g. templates, infoboxes and tables are too
difficult to handle), these problems are not age-specific.
What distinguishes senior citizens from younger people is the size of
their "biographical backpack". Many of them are used to hierarchical
structures they experienced during their working life. As Wikipedia's
internal structures and work flows are subject to frequent changes,
outreach material for senior citizens should list a number of good
arguments why openness is important for a lively web project like
Outreach material should also give reasonable answers to the question
"Why should I sacrifice my time by contributing to Wikipedia?"
Generativity as well as the possibility to learn by teaching others
are important motivational factors for senior citizens.
Many participants of the survey are willing to help. This is a big
opportunity: older Wikipedians are much more convincing for people of
their age and may give them more self-confidence ("If he/she succeeded
to contribute at his/her age - why shouldn't I be able to do the
Senior citizens are an auspicious target group - not only because of
their bigger time budget but also due to their knowledge and
experiences. Outreach activities should refer to existing structures
("Wiki-adoption"), concentrate on measures that are most likely to
satisfy the needs of older people (printed material) and try to
achieve sustainability by encouraging volunteerism.
WORKSHOPS FOR SENIOR CITIZEN INTERNET TUTORS
On March 17 and 18 I held a lecture and two Wikipedia workshops for
senior citizen internet tutors in Bad Urach, Germany. Senior citizen
internet tutors are older people with an above-average understanding
of computer issues who teach internet skills to people of their age.
Around 60 participants from various organisations active in the field
of adult education attended the workshops.
LECTURE AT THE COURSE "MANAGER FOR VIRTUAL LEARNING PROJECTS IN
SENIORS' EDUCATION IN EUROPE"
On April 24 I held a lecture at the course "Manager for virtual
learning projects in seniors' education in Europe", an introductory
course of the european Grundtvig lifelong learning programme. The
Grundtvig programme seeks to respond to the challenges raised by the
necessity to update knowledge and to provide adults with pathways to
improve their know-how and competences, as they progress through life
so that they can adapt to changes in the labour market and society.
The workshop was intended for those who wish to apply the new
information and communication media in seniors' education. The
participants belonged to an important target group as they act as
multipliers for information about new media in their respective
ONLINE COURSE "WIKIPEDIA IN INTERNET CAFÉS FOR OLDER PEOPLE"
An online course entitled "Wikipedia in internet cafés for older
people" has been developed by de:User:Lyzzy, Christian Carls of the
"Forum Seniorenarbeit NRW" and me . The course is intended for
volunteers in internet cafés for older people who are willing to stage
Wikipedia workshops on their own.
The course will start on 9 June 2008 and will be funded in parts by
the German Wikimedia Chapter. During the first weeks we will teach the
participants the basics of how to edit Wikipedia articles. In a second
phase we will develop a concept for Wikipedia courses for senior
citizens. After six weeks the participants should be able to act as
Wikipedia evangelists and motivate other people of their age to
contribute to Wikipedia.
A map  drawn by commons:User:Lencer illustrates the internet use of
people between 55 and 74 years of age in Europe. If the course
succeeds, its concept can be transferred to other European countries
with an above-average internet usage rate among people of the 50-plus
WORKSHOPS IN AFRICA SUPPORTED BY NAMIBIAN AMBASSADOR
On 14 March I met the Namibian ambassador at Berlin. We talked about
the Foundation's plans to stage more Wikipedia startup workshops in
Africa and he showed great interest in the opportunity to document
African history and culture in the African-language Wikipedias. The
ambassador will write letters of recommendation to both the Namibian
government and the University of Namibia in Windhoek to support our
goals and activities. Furthermore he invited me to attend the next
regular meeting of the African ambassadors at Berlin to present our
plans to a bigger number of representatives of African countries.
UCT AND UWC DECLARED INTEREST TO STAGE WIKIPEDIA WORKSHOPS AT CAPETOWN
The University of Cape Town (UCT) and the University of the Western
Cape (UWC) declared their interest to stage Wikipedia workshops in
2008. I'm in contact with a representative of the Multilingual
Education Programme (MEP) at UCT and with the Dean of the Faculty of
Education at UWC and will develop a programme for the events within
the next month.
2. WIKIPEDIA ACADEMY SERIES
THIRD GERMAN WIKIPEDIA ACADEMY IN BERLIN
Next month the third German Wikipedia Academy  will take place at
Berlin. The event is organised by Wikimedia Deutschland in partnership
with the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities (the
formerly Prussian Academy of Sciences, founded in 1700 by the German
polymath Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz).
Under the motto "Mathematics. Knowledge. Wikipedia" the event will be
official part of the German "Year of Mathematics", an annual event
organized by the German Ministry for Education and Research that
started in 2000 and focussing on a different discipline each year.
The German Federal Ministry of Education and Research will support the
event with funds.
3. NEW EDUCATIONAL MATERIAL
OUTLOOK: PRODUCTION OF WIKIPEDIA VIDEO TUTORIALS
Video tutorials make learning much easier than printed material or
online help pages. We will try to use this effect by producing two
initial videos demonstrating the basics of Wikipedia editing.
On 28 April I met some professionals of a film production company
which has a track record of developing short films and online videos
(amongst their customers is Greenpeace). They submitted a quote for
the production of two videos, 3-4 minutes each. As the board of
Wikimedia Deutschland agreed to take over the costs, we will begin
with the pre-production within the next weeks.
PARTNERSHIP WITH ZAWIW
The Wikimedia Foundation and the ZAWiW will collaborate in the
development of learning material suitable to encourage contributions
to Wikipedia from senior citizens.
The Zentrum für Allgemeine Wissenschaftliche Weiterbildung (ZAWiW,
Centre for General Scientific Education)  is a centre of learning
specialised in the development of innovative education programs for
seniors. Located in Ulm, Germany, the ZAWiW was founded by the
University of Ulm in 1994. It was a reaction on the increasing request
for general multidisciplinary education for adults of any age,
especially in the "third age".
Among the objectives ZAWiW has been
* qualifying seniors for new tasks and activities in society, economy
* encouraging self-directed learning supported by new information and
* showing the usefulness and improving the use of new communication
technologies for seniors and organisations of senior education
At the European level ZAWiW coordinates education programs like
"eLearning in Later Life" (eLiLL), SeniorLearning and ICT4T.
5. GRANTS AND FUNDING
WIKIMEDIA DEUTSCHLAND: NEW BUDGET FOR INTERNATIONAL OUTREACH ACTIVITIES
On 15 March a board meeting of Wikimedia Deutschland took place at
Berlin. The German board decided to increase its budget for
international outreach activities in 2008 as part of its commitment
for the global promotion of free knowledge. Amongst other things the
money will allow the Wikimedia Foundation to support its chapters with
printed versions of the brochure "Das kleine Wikipedia-Einmaleins"
("Wikipedia basics", an introduction for beginners) . A Swedish
version of the brochure is in preparation.
LECTURE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF HILDESHEIM (06/2008)
A Wikipedia lecture for senior citizens will take place on 10 June
2008 at the University of Hildesheim, Germany. Around 80 participants
of the 50-plus age group will attend.
WORKSHOP AT THE 13TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE SOCIETY FOR MEDIA IN
Under the motto "Open Trends in Higher Education: Imperatives and
Challenges" the 13th Annual Conference of the Society for Media in
Science will take place at the Danube University Krems, Austria from
September, 16-18 2008. The conference is directed towards researchers,
lecturers, and persons in decision making positions who are involved
in technologically supported learning and are interested in recent
developments in theory and practice.
Dr. Klaus Wannemacher, consultant at the Higher Education Information
System (the Higher Education Information System (HIS) supports German
institutions of higher education and their administrations as well as
higher education policy-makers in their efforts to fulfil their tasks
effectively) and me will participate at the pre-conference with a
workshop entitled "Wikipedia in University Teaching - sharing
knowledge being (too) easy?". Topics will be the increasing plagiarism
practiced by students copying and pasting Wikipedia articles into
their own works and the opportunities to integrate Wikipedia in
academic teaching (ie. encouraging students to write Wikipedia
articles as part of University courses). The outcome of the workshop
shall be published as a brochure for University staff members.
Public Outreach Coordinator
Wikimedia Foundation Inc.
Phone: +49 551 2726447
Cell: +49 172 5635243
Weblinks and notes:
 Programme (in German): http://www.wikipedia-academy.de/2008/programm.php
 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Einmaleins.pdf (5.4 MB)
NB. This mail address is used for public mailing lists. Personal
emails sent to this address will get lost.
Hmm, it appears it didn't forward properly last time. Let's try again.
On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 03:55 +0300, White Cat wrote:
> We should require interwiki bot operators to
> Know each language they operate their bot so that they can read and memorize
> each and every bot policy.
> Expect them to watch and follow each and every talk page on every wiki.
> Require them to have 5-10 checks of these talk pages per day.
> Wait several years (for the wiki to grow) before getting a bot flag.
> Or would that be unreasonable?
> Perhaps a unified standard bot policy is needed for mindless tasks like
> interwiki linking, double redirect fixing and commons delinking.
> The interwiki bot policy would set the standard for these mindless tasks.
> Such a standard would let bot operators to operate more efficiently.
> Particularly the largest wikis and the smallest wikis are very aloof from
> such a standard.
> Very small wikis often have a mini dictatorship by a few users (not
> referancing anybody spesific). Such small wikis generally have cooperative
> people but sometimes the wikis regulars do not understand what interwiki
> bots and botflags are about and why such are necessary.
> Very large wikis often have overly complicated policies. For someone only
> interested in dealing with mindless bot tasks these pose an unnecessary
> bureaucracy. Due to the language barrier reading these policies alone can be
> quite a challenge.
> - White Cat
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine
Hello knowledgeable people!
I'm trying to write about unified login for a larger text about
Wikimedia and wanted to double-check my understanding of the process:
1) is this text currently correct? What should be added to it?
"At this time, you must create an account on for each new project you
wish to work on. This is changing with the introduction in mid-2008 of
single-user login, where users can link their existing accounts across
all Wikimedia projects."
2) in future, will people be able to create just one account on a
project and be able to log in with it on all of the projects? Or will
new users still have to manually create their account (using the same
name) on each wiki they wish to work on?
3) After SUL is fully deployed, when users create a new account (on,
say, the english wikipedia) will that name automatically be 'reserved'
for use on all Wikimedia wikis? [if so, when will this happen?]
3) is there a preferred name for SUL yet? Single-user login? Unified
Thanks in advance, and feel free to send me edits/comments off-list. :)