On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 11:38 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Now we have Jimmy's and Stallman's billboards all over Belgrade. I'll
> send photos ASAP. For now, there are their images at
> http://likilik.org/
>
http://likilink.org/
On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Jeffrey Peters
<17peters(a)cardinalmail.cua.edu> wrote:
> Austin,
>
> Maybe you didn't realize but I am the top organizer of Wikiversity. Gerard's
> call for political activism against that organization is completely
> unacceptable and harms projects like my own that have to deal with large
> institutions and the rest.
>
> If you want to claim that I should be moderated, then push that fringe
> political view as you just did, then there is something very wrong here.
> Your statements about the legality have been 100% wrong, to an embarrassing
> extent. These two combined represent a very major problem.
>
> The Foundation-l is for Foundation discussion, and not for pushing fringe
> views that would embarrass our projects. You do realize that, right?
> Moderators serve only as long as they enforce that, and are you going to
> demonstrate in the above that you will be doing 100% opposite of your job?
>
> Sincerely,
> Jeffrey Peters
> aka Ottava Rima
>
1. My name is André, not Austin
2. The first one to call for moderation was you
3. If copyleft is embarassing wikiversity, then I propose you leave
the Wikimedia Foundation, because it happens to be one of our
principles
4. I did not abuse my moderator status, i donáf [pyojh[- n[ ¾»bnyttfg
--
André Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com
In a message dated 6/27/2010 12:45:55 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com writes:
On 27 June 2010 20:42, William Pietri <william(a)scissor.com> wrote:
> Given that this is recurring drama-creating behavior, perhaps we can
> move on to the "ignore" stage of WP:RBI.
On enwiki, we did that ages ago. I don't believe he is blocked on
Wikiversity (yet). >>
--------------
Challenging the use of the word "ages" above.
_http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:
Ottava+Rima_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:…)
To me ages implies a term longer than six months.
An interesting and verbose block log.
Unsolicited and probably unwanted advice, possibly from a person who has a
similar personality -- I have learned to never, ever, ever look at my
Watchlist.
I make my changes, and move on, and never look back. Thus, I never weep
over the massacre made on my beautiful workmanship. Weeping does not turn
into gnashing of teeth, and does not proceed into daggers of vengeance, then
to the remorse caused by unwanted punishment.
Interesting that a recent mod (prior to banning) was to Ada Lovelace. I
*just yesterday*, believe it or don't, posted an update on Ada's pre-modern
ancestry to the gen-med list. / soc.gen.med group.
Odd co-incidence. Makes me wonder what cosmic significance I'm supposed to
draw here.
Will "Co-incidentally connected" Johnson
Andre, I think you and I are doomed to be forever confused with each other.
Austin
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jeffrey Peters <17peters(a)cardinalmail.cua.edu>
Date: Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 4:45 PM
Subject: Foundation-l
To: adhair(a)gmail.com
Dear Andre,
I already removed my access from foundation-l and filed an official
protest as the lead operator at Wikiversity against political
advocacy, the promotion of piracy that undermines our credibility, and
your inability to appropriately moderate.
Your actions and behavior, as others on that list, are shameful.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey Peters
aka Ottava Rima
It has been proposed that people from chapters and people wanting to
form chapters get together at Wikimania in order to share experiences
and offer each other advice. I am trying to organise such a gathering.
I'm currently proposing an informal gathering during the Saturday
morning coffee break. If you would be interested in attending such a
gathering (either at that time or another time), please add your name
to this page:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_Chapter_Gathering
If there is sufficient interest, I will contact that Wikimania
organisers and try to get us a room. Since we don't have much time
before Wikimania starts, please add your names quickly!
There's been discussion of the gender gap among Wikimedia editors on
and off for many years now, and it's a focus of the strategic planning
process. This is a part of a larger issue of how to get members of
underrepresented groups to edit more, to combat system bias on all
fronts. (Or, simply how to get more people to edit regardless).
I just read this article:
"International Collaboration for Women in IT: How to Avoid Reinventing
the Wheel"
http://iisit.org/Vol7/IISITv7p329-338Craig734.pdf
which is about how the ACM (Association for Computing Machinery, an
international academic computing membership organization) has a
women's interest group -- ACM-W -- which is tasked with increasing
women's participation in IT -- an equally daunting task. What's mostly
interesting about this article is it describes how ACM-W has an
ambassador program, with individuals tasked with increasing
participation in various countries. In turn these ambassadors report
that one size doesn't fit all -- increasing women's participation in
IT depends on a variety of factors, including the general status of
women's education in a country, and that the techniques one uses to
encourage female participation might vary quite a bit depending on
other cultural factors.
Of course this is not an earth-shattering conclusion, but it's also
clearly applicable to Wikimedia. I haven't seen many papers that take
an explicitly international view to the issue of women in IT, so I
thought it was interesting.
-- phoebe
--
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
<at> gmail.com *
In a message dated 6/25/2010 6:58:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
17peters(a)cardinalmail.cua.edu writes:
> If you want to know my fair use credentials and my involvement, I was one
> of
> the people involved in the fringe of one of the most important internet
> fair
> use court cases of the modern era, but I was lucky enough to not have any
> of
> my reproductions of newspaper articles be chosen as part of the lawsuit,
> so
> I was able to get out of the mess that ensued. However, I had the ability
> to, when young, witness the battle of fair use between the various groups
> first hand. >>
---------------------------
Could you please provide the full citation? I would like to read about
this case.
Thanks
Will
In a message dated 6/25/2010 3:55:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
17peters(a)cardinalmail.cua.edu writes:
> Do I have to request your termination for abuse of this list? >>
Why do I envision the Red Queen and the White Queen when I read that
remark?
David Gerard cut off your own head! Do it immediately!
But on a lighter note.
Whether or not the owner/author/creator/inventor of CC advocates piracy or
doesn't, is not material at all to what the *contributors* to CC are
actually doing.
As far as "music lyrics", since when can you actually buy the lyrics to any
piece of music, anywhere, ever, at any time, whatsover?
You BUY sheet music, or a song book, or a performance.
I've never, in my entire life, seen "lyrics" for sale by themself.
So please provide a place where they are. Otherwise you cannot protect the
profit from something from which there is no profit and was never intended
to be.
Next caller!
Will "the slammer" Johnson
Hi folks,
Just wanted to send you a heads up that we're going to be doing a
little bit of banner testing for a very brief period on the English
Wikipedia sometime soon. For about a 24 hour period, there will be
banners appearing to a small segment of users that direct users to a
couple of different sets of questions for a very quick informal survey.
This is primarily a test of the medium; it's not a message test.
We're trying learn something about people who click on our banners and/
or answer the questionnaire, not specifically testing the message that
gets them there.
Our hope is that this will be minimally intrusive, since it will only
run for one day. The idea is to maximize the targeting of the usage
of this tool.
The questions on the survey will be in a few broad buckets. We're
asking about:
- readership (how often?)
- editing frequency (for logged in users only)
- Foundation knowledge (did you know it's a non-profit? what do you
think the primary income source is?)
- Very basic demographics (age, sex).
We will most likely be doing more testing in the future, but for now
these are the base questions. We know it's not a scientific polling
or sampling, but the goal is to extrapolate some data from what we
find out here.
pb
____________________
Philippe Beaudette
Head of Reader Relations
Wikimedia Foundation
philippe(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
Do u have kids?
foundation-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
>Send foundation-l mailing list submissions to
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> foundation-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
>You can reach the person managing the list at
> foundation-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>than "Re: Contents of foundation-l digest..."
>
>
>Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Reconsidering the policy "one language - one Wikipedia"
> (Milos Rancic)
> 2. Re: Wikisource and reCAPTCHA (Samuel Klein)
> 3. Re: Reconsidering the policy "one language - one Wikipedia"
> (Samuel Klein)
> 4. Re: Reconsidering the policy "one language - one Wikipedia"
> (Birgitte SB)
> 5. Re: Reconsidering the policy "one language - one Wikipedia"
> (Mark Williamson)
> 6. Re: Wikisource and reCAPTCHA (Andre Engels)
> 7. Re: [Wikimedia Announcements] Board resolution commissioning
> study and recommendations (Ray Saintonge)
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Message: 1
>Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 01:06:25 +0200
>From: Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Reconsidering the policy "one language -
> one Wikipedia"
>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
>Message-ID:
> <AANLkTinUDX4CYVX6DBVIGOtH8mjl2u5WudJKHiGAKw9V(a)mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 12:26 AM, Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> as if we were dumb. I have heard (and I am not an expert) from many
>> people the idea that you will get what you give, meaning that if you
>> treat an adolescent as if they were a criminal, they will often become
>> a criminal; it seems to me that if we treat children as dumber
>> versions of adult human beings, they will grow up to be just that.
>> (again, I'm not an expert)
>
>A kind of virtuous circle and vicious circle. Dumb adults are creating
>dumb articles because they think that their children are dumb, which
>in turn transforms children into dumb adults ;)
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:43:00 -0400
>From: Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikisource and reCAPTCHA
>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
>Message-ID:
> <AANLkTim8gNMpYMODDj5WL6pMSBuRIJw38CCn1Fvc9zee(a)mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 11:16 AM, James Forrester <james(a)jdforrester.org> wrote:
>> On 24 June 2010 15:37, Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I love those proofreading features, and the new default layout for a
>>> book's pages and TOC. ?Wikisource is becoming AWESOME.
>>
>> Ahem. Even more awesome, you mean. :-)
>
>It used to be just lowercase awesome... THINGS HAVE CHANGED. >:-)
>
>> Disclaimer - my PGDP account dates from 2004, but I only get involved
>> in fits every couple of years.
>
>Could you ask some of the wiki-savvy continuously active proofreaders
>to join this discussion for a little while? I like the work PGDP
>does, and bet we can find a way to support and amplify it.
>
>SJ
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 3
>Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:51:33 -0400
>From: Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Reconsidering the policy "one language -
> one Wikipedia"
>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
>Message-ID:
> <AANLkTimeH7bAor5Lpmf75WLRuUKzMkz1rToKAyGZthW7(a)mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> The fact that 10 years old child probably doesn't know what density
>> means, doesn't mean that she or he can't read about that on
>> encyclopedia.
>
>Of course. Children who specialize in a topic often make excellent
>teachers, and sometimes featured-article writers. I like Greg's
>notion of defining the project in terms of "expected level of
>education" of the reader, not age. Almost everyone may want to refer
>to a simplified reference for topics that confuse them -- and there is
>a niche of popularizers of {science, mathematics, economics} who do
>just that, for readers of all ages. Some of them win the highest
>literary awards for their work.
>
>
>One data point on language complexity:
>
>In Peru, I work with families and teachers in rural areas with little
>access to books or references, whose children have a snapshot of
>Spanish Wikipedia (offline, on their OLPC laptop). For perhaps
>100,000 families and teachers, this is their primary general
>reference.
>
>The teachers like this and use it; it is part of a national
>project-based curriculum for grades 3-5.
>http://www.perueduca.edu.pe/olpc/OLPC_fichasfasc.html
>
>But the teachers there also asked for a simpler-language project in
>Spanish, and a simple project in English to help students with
>language learning.
>
>> My personal responsibility for creating a Wikijunior project
>> would be much higher than for creating a Wikinews project.
>
>Yes. We should definitely lay the groundwork well, as Ziko says. But
>there are good projects underway today and doing this, in spanish,
>french, and dutch. Some of the organizers of those projects have
>contributed to the Wikikids proposal on meta. We can start by
>directing energies there, finding out what Vikidia has learned running
>projects in French and Spanish, what their standards for
>project-creation are, and how we can help them.
>
>SJ
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 4
>Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 17:25:52 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com>
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Reconsidering the policy "one language -
> one Wikipedia"
>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
>Message-ID: <606274.71969.qm(a)web113706.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>
>
>--- On Thu, 6/24/10, Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Reconsidering the policy "one language - one Wikipedia"
>> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
>> Date: Thursday, June 24, 2010, 6:06 PM
>> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 12:26 AM,
>> Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > as if we were dumb. I have heard (and I am not an
>> expert) from many
>> > people the idea that you will get what you give,
>> meaning that if you
>> > treat an adolescent as if they were a criminal, they
>> will often become
>> > a criminal; it seems to me that if we treat children
>> as dumber
>> > versions of adult human beings, they will grow up to
>> be just that.
>> > (again, I'm not an expert)
>>
>> A kind of virtuous circle and vicious circle. Dumb adults
>> are creating
>> dumb articles because they think that their children are
>> dumb, which
>> in turn transforms children into dumb adults ;)
>
>
>I think you all are getting rather sidetracked over the details of content of some proposed project that I do not believe you are actually interested in joining. Surely any detailed decisions as exactly how to approach writing medical articles for children would be an internal conclusion. The real issue here is what merits the creation of a new wiki versus some specific project being setup as subset of an existing wiki.
>
>I have come the conclusion the biggest factor leading to success of a new wiki is a large enough community with a strong sense of a separate mission. If all you have is a small group of hard core content editors you will be more successful as subset of an existing wiki, if one is so kind enough to make room for you. One thing that happens in a small wiki is all the happy energy which was geared towards the content must be siphoned off into seemingly endless administration tasks. It takes a while for the community to grow enough to overcome that deficit. I would not recommend anyone to be in a hurry to make their own new space. The longer you can use an existing wiki to experiment with the your project the stronger you can grow your community, and maybe you can find a way to permanently fit within the existing scope while meeting the needs of your specific mission. If you can it do that it will greatly improve your ability to work on content. I would
> advise this group that as exciting as having their own Wikipedia must sound, they might be more successful as a project within de.WP or de.WB And even if they are dead-set on an independent wiki, they will benefit from starting within an existing structure to grow a good sized proof of concept.
>
>Birgitte SB
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 5
>Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 18:09:13 -0700
>From: Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Reconsidering the policy "one language -
> one Wikipedia"
>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
>Message-ID:
> <AANLkTikpefpnslNgtGYGtlSI4_VnWnEOIymp9p4Wlutu(a)mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
>Birgitte, what I am discussing is whether or no t I see any merit in
>this idea at all. Thanks.
>
>
>On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> --- On Thu, 6/24/10, Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> From: Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Reconsidering the policy "one language - one Wikipedia"
>>> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
>>> Date: Thursday, June 24, 2010, 6:06 PM
>>> On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 12:26 AM,
>>> Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > as if we were dumb. I have heard (and I am not an
>>> expert) from many
>>> > people the idea that you will get what you give,
>>> meaning that if you
>>> > treat an adolescent as if they were a criminal, they
>>> will often become
>>> > a criminal; it seems to me that if we treat children
>>> as dumber
>>> > versions of adult human beings, they will grow up to
>>> be just that.
>>> > (again, I'm not an expert)
>>>
>>> A kind of virtuous circle and vicious circle. Dumb adults
>>> are creating
>>> dumb articles because they think that their children are
>>> dumb, which
>>> in turn transforms children into dumb adults ;)
>>
>>
>> I think you all are getting rather sidetracked over the details of content of some proposed project that I do not believe you are actually interested in joining. ?Surely any detailed decisions as exactly how to approach writing medical articles for children would be an internal conclusion. The real issue here is what merits the creation of a new wiki versus some specific project being setup as subset of an existing wiki.
>>
>> I have come the conclusion the biggest factor leading to success of a new wiki is a large enough community with a strong sense of a separate mission. ?If all you have is a small group of hard core content editors you will be more successful as subset of an existing wiki, if one is so kind enough to make room for you. ?One thing that happens in a small wiki is all the happy energy which was geared towards the content must be siphoned off into seemingly endless administration tasks. It takes a while for the community to grow enough to overcome that deficit. ?I would not recommend anyone to be in a hurry to make their own new space. ?The longer you can use an existing wiki to experiment with the your project the stronger you can grow your community, and maybe you can find a way to permanently fit within the existing scope while meeting the needs of your specific mission. ?If you can it do that it will greatly improve your ability to work on content. I would
>> ?advise this group that as exciting as having their own Wikipedia must sound, they might be more successful as a project within de.WP or de.WB And even if they are dead-set on an independent wiki, they will benefit from starting within an existing structure to grow a good sized proof of concept.
>>
>> Birgitte SB
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 6
>Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 05:13:57 +0200
>From: Andre Engels <andreengels(a)gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikisource and reCAPTCHA
>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
>Message-ID:
> <AANLkTik1Phpcg-hKyGYqfSHngEX-I-aAg5nhaKbi0IwB(a)mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 4:37 PM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> I love those proofreading features, and the new default layout for a
>> book's pages and TOC. ?Wikisource is becoming AWESOME.
>>
>> Do we have PGDP contributors who can weigh on on how similar the
>> processes are? ?Is there a way for us to actually merge workflows with
>> them?
>
>I am quite active on PGDP, but not on Wikisource, so I can tell about
>how things work there, but not on how similar it is to Wikisource.
>
>Typical about the PGDP workflow are an emphasis on quality above
>quantity (exemplified in running not 1 or 2 but 3 rounds of human
>checking of the OCR result - correctness in copying is well above
>99.99% for most books) and work being done in page-size chunks rather
>than whole books, chapters, paragraphs, sentences, words or whatever
>else one could think of.
>
>There's a number of people involved, although people can and often do
>fill several roles for one book.
>
>First, there is the Content Provider (CP).
>
>He or she first contacts Project Gutenberg to get a clearance. This is
>basically a statement from PG that they believe the work is out of
>copyright. In general, US copyright is what is taken into account for
>this, although there are also servers in other countries (Canada and
>Australia as far as I know), which publish some material that is out
>of copyright in those countries even if it is not in the US. Such
>works do not go through PGDP, but may go through its sister projects
>DPCanada or DPEurope.
>
>Next, the CP will scan the book, or harvest the scans from the web,
>and run OCR on them. They will usually also write a description of the
>book for the proofreaders, so those can see whether they are
>interested. The scans and the OCR are uploaded to the PGDP servers,
>and the project is handed over to the Project Manager (PM) (although
>in most cases CP and PM are the same person).
>
>The Project Manager is responsible for the project in the next stages.
>This means:
>* specifying the rules and guidelines that are to be followed when
>proofreading the book, at least there where those differ from the
>standard guidelines
>* answer questions by proofreaders
>* keep the good and bad words lists up to date. These are used in
>wordcheck (a kind of spellchecker) so that words are considered
>correct or incorrect by it
>
>The project then goes through a number of rounds. The standard number
>is 5 rounds, of which 3 are proofreading and 2 are formatting, but it
>is possible for the PM to make a request to skip one or more rounds or
>go through a round twice.
>
>In the first three, proofreading, rounds, a proofreader requests one
>page at a time, compares the OCR output (or the previous proofreader's
>output) with the scan, and changes the text to correspond to the scan.
>In the first round (P1) everyone can do this, the second round (P2) is
>only accessible to those who have been at the site some time and done
>a certain amount of pages (21 days and 300 pages, if I recall
>correctly), for the third round (P3) one has to qualify. For
>qualification one's P2 pages are checked (using the subsequent edits
>of P3). The norm is that one should not leave more than one error per
>five pages.
>
>After the three (or two or four) rounds of proofing, the foofing
>(formatting) rounds are gone through. In these, again a proofreader
>(now called formatter) requests and edits one page at the time, but
>where the proofreaders dealt with copying the text as precisely as
>possible, the formatter will deal with all other aspects of the work.
>They denote when text is italic, bold or otherwise in a special
>format, which texts are chapter headers, how tables are laid out,
>etcetera. Here there are two rounds, although the second one can be
>skipped or a round duplicated, like before. The first formatting round
>(F1) has the same entrance restrictions as P2, F2 has a qualification
>system comparable to P3.
>
>After this, the PM gives the book on to the Post-Processor (PP).
>Again, this is often the same person, but not always. In some other
>cases, the PP has already been appointed, in others it will sit in a
>pool until picked up by a willing PP. The PP does all that is needed
>to get from the F2 output to something that can be put on Project
>Gutenberg: they recombine the pages into one work, move stuff around
>where needed, change the formatters' mark-up in something that's more
>appropriate for reading, in most cases generate an HTML version,
>etcetera.
>
>A PP that has already post-processed several books in a good way can
>then send it to PG. In other cases, the book will then go to the PPV
>(Post-Processing Verifier), an experienced PP, who checks the PP's
>work, and gives them hints on what should be improved or makes those
>improvements themselves.
>
>Finally, if the PP or PPV sends the book to PG, there is a whitewasher
>who checks the book once again; however, that is outside the scope of
>this (already too long) description, because it belongs to PG's
>process rather than PGDP's.
>
>To stop the rounds from overcrowding with books, there are queues for
>each round, containing books that are ready to enter the round, but
>have not yet done so. To keep some variety, there are different queues
>by language and/or subject type. A problem with this has been that the
>later rounds, having less manpower because of the higher standards
>required, could not keep up with P1 and F1. There has been work to do
>something about it, and the P2 queues have been brought down to decent
>size, but in P3 and F2 books can literally sit in the queues for
>years, and PP still is a bottleneck as well.
>
>
>--
>Andr? Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Message: 7
>Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 21:42:26 -0700
>From: Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Board resolution
> commissioning study and recommendations
>To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
>Message-ID: <4C2433B2.80404(a)telus.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
>David Gerard wrote:
>> On 24 June 2010 19:28, Michael Snow <wikipedia(a)verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> That's the meaning, definitely, same as it was in the previous board
>>> statement. I would observe, too, that for material on user pages, if
>>> you're even going to ask whether it's educational, what is it going to
>>> educate people about? That particular user, presumably. And in that
>>> context, it's pretty hard to rule out any kind of self-expression that
>>> person has chosen as not being educational about them. It may be
>>> inappropriate for other reasons, such as community policy or social
>>> concerns, but this wouldn't really be a basis for enforcing that.
>>>
>> Nevertheless - if you're going to make official statements like this,
>> you can't assume that hundreds of thousands of people are all going to
>> interpret them the same way, as you seem to have here.
>>
>Precisely. We already have too many people ready and willing to take a
>common sense idea and turn it into rigid policy.
>
>Ec
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>End of foundation-l Digest, Vol 75, Issue 110
>*********************************************