Wikimedia-l August 2009

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

160 participants
115 discussions

Re: [Foundation-l] Missing audio of WMF Board candidates
by Durova 20 Aug '09

20 Aug '09

Greg has a legitimate grievance here; within the last few minutes it's come to my attention just how substantial it is. Something needs to be said in reply (and apologies written to the candidates who participated). What transpired is this: WikiVoices currently has a shortage of reliable audio editors. Under those circumstances I was reluctant to host an election episode when one was suggested, and agreed to do so only after making arrangements to prevent the pitfalls that have delayed publication in the past. Obviously those preventative measures were not effective. Unfortunately I am not an audio editor. Nor do I possess copies of the raw files. If I can obtain them I will convert to .ogg format and post promptly. Please accept my sincere regrets. -Durova -- http://durova.blogspot.com/

6 5

[Foundation-l] Alphascript Publishing: 1900+ copy&pasted books from Wikipedia
by Renata St 19 Aug '09

19 Aug '09

It was raised before on the Village Pump, but I think this is so disturbing that we ought to do something. "Alphascript Publishing" has published over 1900 (and counting) books, all available on Amazon. Prices range from $31 to $179. All of these books are simple computer-generated copies from Wikipedia and (at least according to one Amazon reviewer) couple other public domain websites. Trouble is, from book description page there is absolutely no way of knowing that the book is a Wikipedia mirror on paper. At least several Amazon buyers have been fooled. What really gets my blood boiling is that Amazon user "VDM Verlag Dr.Müller" (I think someone exposed him as 100% shareholder of the publishing co) goes on rating these products as "five star".... The publisher seems to observe the copyright (even includes full edit history) so legal action seems impossible. Someone already contacted Amazon, but they "are not responsible for the quality of books sold". In the meantime the number of such books grew from 900 in June to almost 2000 as of today... I think we should do something. At the very least publishing product reviews warning that what this is.... See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PrimeHunter/Alphascript_Publishing_sells_… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive… http://rufftoon.livejournal.com/59337.html Thanks, Renata P.S. on a happier note: half of Wikipedia editors now can claim to be "published authors".

9 15

[Foundation-l] Multimedia Usability Hiring: Product Manager
by Erik Moeller 19 Aug '09

19 Aug '09

As you may have seen we recently received a $300,000 grant to work on multimedia usability. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Wikimedia_Ford_Foundatio… A critical position for the project is the product manager role. We've just posted the position as we're imagining it. Originally we conceived of this as two part-time roles, but if we can find the right skills in a single person, we'd prefer that. This job is in some ways tailored to an experienced Wikimedia Commons community member who also knows a thing or two about designing good software and optimizing user experience. (Please no jokes that the current site is evidence that such a person doesn't exist. ;-) Take a look at the job description here: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Job_openings/Product_Manager_%28Multime… Ideally we'd like to bring the person to San Francisco if they aren't already there, but I'm open to investing in the right person for visa process and relocation if we think there's a long-term perspective beyond the project. (We would likely only initially be able to commit to a project contract, though.) If you're interested please send us your background and some thoughts on the project and how you feel you could work together with an engineer to make good things happen (see application instructions in posting above). Thanks, Erik -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

1 0

[Foundation-l] Missing audio of WMF Board candidates
by Gregory Kohs 19 Aug '09

19 Aug '09

At some time into the WMF Board candidates campaigning season, the Wikivoices project undertook a sort of "candidates debate", where a Skype conference served as a central meeting point for at least eight of the candidates to orally respond to questions posed them. This debate transpired about two hours of time, and I found it very informative of the critical issues facing the Wikimedia Foundation. I was a bit concerned with several things: (1) That the role of "campaign debate" was filtered into one available time slot -- if you were not able to participate, you had no voice. (2) That the English Wikipedia service (and not Meta, or Foundation) was the "proprietor" of the content. (3) That the Foundation itself had no representative helping to coordinate and assure professionalism in the volunteer execution of this effort. On that last concern, my worry seems to have come true. On July 26th, we were promised that an audio file of the Skype cast would be posted soon, as episode # 45: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikivoices&diff=next&ol… On August 5th, I made a worried complaint that the audio still had not been posted. Through the close of the election period (August 10th), I communicated via private e-mails about what had happened. Now, August 17th, we are even past congratulating the winners of this election (where 67% of the available seats are represented by candidates who offer no changes over the status quo -- huzzah!), and there is STILL NO AUDIO FILE POSTED. Along with others sharing my view, I find this to be disgraceful. It is an insult to the participants in the debate, and it reflects on just how little the Foundation actually cares about who gets seated on the Board, so long as they are a community rubber-stamp of the editors who hold sway over the English Wikipedia project, which is really most of what this represents. I apologize for sounding bitter, but the delay seems to have been in one audio editor abdicating his responsibility and dumping it in the lap of an unsuspecting back-up, then trying to "edit" the audio so that it was fair to those who had had communications problems during taping. I say, at some point, it would have been far better to simply post the unedited audio, so that voters still making decisions could have listened for themselves, before it was too late. As it stands, the audio is practically worthless now, and the Foundation should be ashamed that they let this happen under their noses, without so much as a public apology. Good luck to the new Board member and the returned two Board members to their warm seats. Will you be making use of the familiar rubber stamps, or will something actually be learned from this recent disgrace? P.S. Five days after the election results were announced, we are also still waiting for the requested data feed of the anonymized votes: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2009/Votes Greg

7 9

Re: [Foundation-l] Alphascript Publishing: 1900+ copy&pasted books from Wikipedia
by Jay Litwyn 19 Aug '09

19 Aug '09

Maybe there should be a [[:category:printed articles]]. It should ignore personal and educational use with a note at the top saying "Alphascript Publishing used this article in whole or major part for a commercial printing of Wikipedia.". It would be nice of them to create the category and make it complete.

6 5

[Foundation-l] Strategic Planning Office Hours
by Philippe Beaudette 18 Aug '09

18 Aug '09

Strategic Planning office hours happen tomorrow - Tuesday - at Tuesdays from 20:00-21:00 UTC, which is: 1-2pm PDT; 4-5pm EDT. We're going to try having this conversation in #wikimedia-strategy instead of taking over #wikimedia. Hope to see you there! ____________________ Philippe Beaudette Facilitator, Strategic Planning Wikimedia Foundation pbeaudette(a)wikimedia.org Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

2 2

[Foundation-l] Question to post...
by Cox, Serita 18 Aug '09

18 Aug '09

Google's new search engine, Caffeine, is supposedly kicking Wikipedia entries further down results page. Thoughts? Comments? http://software.silicon.com/applications/0,39024653,39484015,00.htm Thank, Serita ___________________NOTICE____________________________ This electronic mail transmission, including any attachments, contains confidential information of Bain & Company, Inc. ("Bain") and/or its clients. It is intended only for the person(s) named, and the information in such e-mail shall only be used by the person(s) named for the purpose intended and for no other purpose. Any use, distribution, copying or disclosure by any other persons, or by the person(s) named but for purposes other than the intended purpose, is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and then destroy this e-mail. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of Bain shall be understood to be neither given nor endorsed by Bain. When addressed to Bain clients, any information contained in this e-mail shall be subject to the terms and conditions in the applicable client contract. _______________________________________

11 14

[Foundation-l] Knol, a year later
by Milos Rancic 17 Aug '09

17 Aug '09

More than a year ago Google lunched Knol. It was a sensation then (BTW, it was a sensation for more time than Wolfram Alpha was). Today I just may say that I don't remember when I heard for the Knol last time. More than a year ago, I've wrote a blog post about Knol [1] (I didn't read it again, so I am not so sure what did I write there :) ) and today I've got one comment about Knol at my blog post. Person who made it introduced himself as Michael: "There is the Verifiability of Knol. I never found anything relevant or reliable on knol. Knol is starting to be used as a spam platform and self promotion platform. There are high chances that the info you get from knol is false or subiective, not to say that I’ve found articles promoting xenofobism, antisemitism and a lot of ill guided authors. At this time knol seem to be nothing more than a blog platform (with clever marketing) where people can write anything they want. I hardly see any resilience between Wikipedia and Knol, Wikipedia has Verifiability (”editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged”) while on knol you can write any phantasmagoric or lunatic thing you want nobody really cares if it’s false or true or what repercussions may have on people seeking knowledge. Knol has nothing to do with knowledge, it’s just library of opinions not knowledge, unless we agree on the fact that anything that can be written by anybody is knowledge. So from my point of view knol should not be taken serious at this time, at least not more serious than anybody’s blog on the internet." My response is: "Michael, thanks for the comment. Yes, I’ve supposed, at Knol’s beginnings, that bias may become its significant problem. It doesn’t have self-regulation and collaboration as a default, like Wikipedia has. And the product is obviously bad. We’ve got, also, one significant lesson: An organization which is very good in many businesses, like Google is, don’t need to be even average in another business. (Wikia is, for example, much better than Knol in that business.) Also, I think that voluntarily knowledge building can’t be built as a [commercial] business model. Nobody cares to make a lot of money to someone else and almost nothing for herself, but a lot of humans care to build knowledge for all of us." [1] - http://millosh.wordpress.com/2008/07/24/google-knol-and-the-future-of-wikip…

5 7

Re: [Foundation-l] Lack of research on Wikipedia
by Ronald Beelaard 17 Aug '09

17 Aug '09

> Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 13:06:40 +0100 > From: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Lack of research on Wikipedia > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Message-ID: > <fbad4e140908160506t55a8411vb5e8b25772acfedb(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > 2009/8/16 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>: > > > For me while interesting, it is hardly new and therefore not that > > interesting what people like Ed H Chi write about > Wikipedia. They do not > > write about Wikipedia, they write about the English > language Wikipedia. > > Invariably news written about Wikipedia concentrates on > just one of over 260 > > projects. It diminishes what Wikipedia is about and it > ignores important > > things that are happening. > > > Yes, completely. Do other Wikipedias show the same S-curve of growth? > Large ones, small ones? *That* is interesting. Let's see if we can > encourage PARC along these lines. Or indeed competing researchers. > > > - d. I've been plotting growth for en:, de:, fr: and nl: for many years (to use in presentations) and observed the same flattening effect happening in all. To understand a bit better the cause, the following graph http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nl-EditsPerDay.jpg, showing the edit activity over time, might be more interesting. The peak of edit activity for all four WPs lies somewhere around 2007. Since then it is going down. Communities of non en:wp obviously are smaller than en:. But in absolute terms still a fraction of # of people speaking the language. Visiting popularity of WP has grown tremendously during the past couple of years. That all together supports PARC's tentative conclusions. Rgds Ronald

1 0

[Foundation-l] Why hasn't the LocalisationUpdate extension been enabled?
by Waldir Pimenta 17 Aug '09

17 Aug '09

When the Vector skin became available, I tried it on my home wiki, pt.wikipedia, and noticed that a great deal of its interface was still in English. So I went to translatewiki.net and translated the remaining strings to Portuguese. Then I waited, and waited.. and I am waiting until today, and the skin still has the English strings on it. It's been almost a month. This is bad for several reasons. On this specific context, it means that non-English users of the Vector skin, which is supposed to increase usability, will actually have potentially more trouble using it simply because it is using a foreign language. On a more general stance, this is also bad for translators, since we don't have as much motivation to contribute when our translations lay unused for so much time. It's exactly one of the arguments that was used a lot to oppose the FlaggedRevisions extension: the immediacy of the edits going live is what makes wikis so compelling. (disclaimer: I'm actualy in favor of flagged revs; I would trade some immediacy for more stability. But not if the delay means a month!) It's also bad for MediaWiki in general, since the expansion of its language support grows in a much slower pace. I understand why it was chosen not to always run bleeding edge versions of the software on the live Wikimedia wikis. But the LocalisationUpdate was created precisely as a workaround to this, i.e, to allow updating the localisation without needing to update the software. So my question is: why is it not enabled yet on most Wikimedia wikis?

7 16

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
...
12
Older →

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 August 2009