We're looking to add one more list moderator for foundation-l. On
foundation-l, the main role of a moderator is to approve posts made by
moderated users and users who are not subscribed to the list. Occasionally,
a list moderator has to step in and control discussion when it gets
out-of-hand, but, thank goodness, that is generally a rare occurrence here.
Anyone interested in serving as a list moderator, please send an e-mail to
foundation-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org, no later than 23:59 UTC on September
23rd. Please include the following information:
- Wikimedia username
- Projects you are active on
- Any roles you serve in on those projects (e.g. administrator, WikiProject
coordinator, mediator, etc.)
- Anything else that might be useful - info about yourself, etc.
Again, please send your submissions no later than 23:59 UTC on September
Austin Hair, list moderator
Ryan Lomonaco, list moderator
Just to let you know -- the second part of the Study of Controversial Content, with our recommendations, is available now for comment at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_C…. Look for Part 2. Looking forward to your comments, and we'll respond if need be to clarify things that might not be clear, although hopefully, there won't be too many of those.
Danese Cooper, the "open source diva", and Wikimedia's very own Chief
Technology Officer, will be our guest at office hours on Wednesday, 22
September at 23:00UTC (16:00 Pacific, 19:00 Eastern, 01:00 Thursday
CET). This is a great opportunity to spend time with Danese and talk
about her exciting plans for the future of Wikimedia's technological
You can access the chat by going to https://webchat.freenode.net/ and
filling in a username and the channel name (#wikimedia-office). You
may be prompted to click through a security warning. It's fine.
Another option is http://chat.wikizine.org.
As always, the chat will be logged and put on meta for those who are
unable to join.
Look forward to seeing you there!
Head of Reader Relations
Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
This week the Foundation is excited to be releasing four separate videos shot at the recent Wikimania Conference in Gdansk, Poland. The first video 'Username' is now posted on the WM Commons:
Later today the Foundation will be releasing the videos on a few other platforms as well, specifically to increase public visibility:
I'll be posting more about the links on the Wikimedia blog later this morning (San Francisco time) blog.wikimedia.org
And maybe some others.
What are these videos?
They were originally produced to complement the public outreach work going on now (and in the future) and to provide a short, energetic clip for folks to use in all sorts of presentations. A very good example of that would be in Sue's keynote presentation from Wikimania, which some of you may have seen. We hope everyone in the movement may find them useful, and we're particularly hopeful that they can be easily localized and shared even more widely. They shed a new light on the passionate people behind our projects.
Who made them?
The clips were created for the Wikimedia Foundation (led mostly by Communications and Public Outreach) by a team that's been working with the Foundation over the past year. They were directed by Jelly Helm, produced by Noah Stanik, shot by DP Reed Harkness, and edited by Sarah Marcus. The music is by Portland, Oregon based musician Matt Carey. The Germany-based film production crew Living Colour was an essential partner in bringing everything together at the shoot in Gdansk, Poland, and Fenton Communications, who have been supporting the Foundation over the past year, were our agency partners in pulling this project together. We also owe the organizers of 2010's Wikimania conference a great deal of thanks for helping us sort out the production on the ground and for letting us borrow participants for short interviews.
The remaining clips will be posted on Commons and other video sharing sites through Friday. Once they're all announced we'll share another note with all of the links. You can follow the progress and hear what the public thinks on identi.ca and twitter. We hope to see the videos make an appearance in media and other blogs too.
Hope you enjoy!
Head of Communications
+1 (415) 839 6885 x 609, @jansonw
In a message dated 9/21/2010 12:11:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> I brought it up because Johnson was insisting that someone
> without formal training in the humanities could write an article just as
> well as someone with formal training.
Peter I'm finding it hard to comprehend why you fail to understand my
meaning so often.
I never stated nor even insinuated that "someone without formal training in
the humanities could write an article just as well as someone with formal
I would point out however that I think you mean "in their field" as well,
since a person with "formal training in the humanities" whatever you think
that implies, could not write an article on nuclear interactions as well as
someone with "formal training in nuclear science". Or wait... perhaps they
could, but that's another point isn't it?
What I actually stated or implied was that any editor could *modify* an
existing article, by adding details which are not in it, or editing the copy
for style, tense, usage. Fixing spelling errors, and so on. Any editor can
modify an article, any editor can create a stub article.
Editors with no real comprehension of what wider scope an article might
have, can still spot articles which seem to be written in a flowery or
aggressive style. That takes no "formal training in the humanities". Rather it
takes a sense of logic, balance, flow. Which applies to all writing, not just
writing on the humanities.
It's hardly fair for you to pick at an article that I was in the middle of
updating, with bits and pieces that I found here and there, in a rather
haphazard way, as is my wont when I'm *researching*, and then declare that I
don't know how to write. (How's that for a run-on sentence, Ma?)
But Peter, this is not about *me*, this is about the project, which has
rejected, and will continue to reject, the concept that experts get a "pass" on
citing their sources :)~~~ No one gets a pass, if that pisses off some
experts, then those are exactly the sort of trouble makers we do not want.
Following on from my previous posts about trying to classify the scope and
coverage of humanities subjects in Wikipedia, I have a practical question:
is it possible to query the Wikipedia database in such a way as to get a
list of all articles (current version)? Even better, with a second, larger
list that indexes each article with a list of categories it belongs to.
Name , ID
Thomas Aquinas, 1
William of Ockham, 2
1, 1225 births
1, 1274 deaths
2, 1285 births
2, 1347 deaths
2, 13th century philosophers
and so on. I appreciate the second list may be up to 20 times the size of
the first, thus 60 million rows. Perhaps there is a way to limit the number
of categories, I don't know.
This would allow me to see exactly what was there under the humanities. My
hunch is that most articles in Wikipedia are obscure stubs (from using the
random article function), and that the coverage of humanities subjects,
possibly other areas, is actually no different to a conventional
In a message dated 9/20/2010 12:41:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> > I can read a book on the History of the Fourth Crusade, and adds quotes
> > our articles on the persons and events, just as well as an expert in
> > specific field.
> If this
> is anything to go by, the answer is, no you can't. Sorry :(
What's the point of this sort of sniping?
I really don't see to what you're referring. This diff only shows the
addition of her third marriage, and one short sentence about "Boetia". If
you're claiming you want a source for the third marriage, than tag it! Otherwise
I don't know what you're saying.
You can respond to me privately on this point, since I doubt the list cares
about the intricate details of a rather obscure woman dead for 800 years.
Personally I think Nathan Salmon is wrong. Only in a single instance can I
recall being frustrated at the insistence of citing every tiny fact in an
article. Rather, in my experience, some rather outrageous claims stand, and
it's I who have had to come along and tag those claims, and then later
remove them. The problem, if we have a citation problem at all, is trying to
teach general editors who sort of things are credible sources and what sort are
not. In general I mean, not in particular.
Salmon makes the mistake of stating something like "known to those who
know". Excuse me? That's the very problem. We are not here to provide extra
details for experts to debate amongst themselves. We are a general work. We
need to talk to the general population, in a language they understand, with
citations that show the exact points we're making, at least when
challenged. That is how we show we are experts. Not in our use of jargonized
language and high-level sputterings, that few can get through. For Salmon to
declare that certain things "known to experts" cannot be challenged, is
frankly... outrageous. And highlights my point, that those sort of experts, the ones
who can't be cajoled into citing sources, and explaining points, simply do
not belong in this project.
Image by FlamingText.com
Just thought I'd tell you guys that's there's an upcoming Mozilla Drumbeat Festival this November in Barcelona whose theme is "Learning, Freedom and the Web". It's a festival that gathers librarians, creative commoners, wikimedians, hackers, open textbook authors, edupunks and people teaching web development from all over the world. Keynote guests include Mitchell Baker, Mozilla Foundation; Joi Ito, Creative Commons; to mention but afew. As far as I know, the only person from WMF will be SJ and Wikimedians from Catalan. Check: http://www.drumbeat.org/festival for more info. Also, Open Ed 2010 will be occuring during the same time. http://openedconference.org/2010/
Hope to see you guys there.