I suppose you may be interested:
But, don't expect it to be an actual usable judgement about those
projects, because it's more like a pretext to comment some recent
A Google translation to English contains "only" 2-3 completely wrong
In a message dated 9/19/2010 10:47:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> You have made your view very clear. I've tried to be polite, and to
> any talking-down, and I am sorry if it has appeared that way. You use the
> collective 'we', meaning you speak for all Wikipedians. To the other
> Wikipedians here: is there a problem with academics 'talking down'? Do
> have a problem explaining their ideas in articles? Are they 'too
> to be included in Wikipedia? If so, can Wikipedia do without them? If
> how could they be encouraged to contribute better?
Your reading comprehension is lacking. If you again review my post you
will find that I was quoting and thus responding to the quote you made where
your colleague (or sock-puppet?) was stating that a particular article should
be written and edited only by experts. I find that it's never the case that
an encyclopedia article cannot be understood enough by myself, to be able
to add a word, or fix a usage, or add a source, at the least. To make a
claim like that is shocking to my senses, I fell right on the floor.
Some academics do not have a problem explaining their articles or edits,
*some do*. And some think they have an acknowledge high position from which
to dictate. That is false.
The point of view of an academic contributition, imho should be, "I'm in a
better position to EXPLAIN this article, paragraph, sentence, edit". Not
"I'm in a better position to ENFORCE same." The latter view is anathema to
the project and must be shunned by all right-thinking people (the rest will be
dealt with later by the re-education committee).
I hope my position is more clear now. If you can't support your posiiton
in such a way that most editors, non-experts, would say, "Oh I see, yes that
seems clear and seems to have evidence..." then you have failed, not the
reader and not the co-contributor who may not be an expert.
In a message dated 9/18/2010 10:10:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> I think you misunderstand the meaning of 'enduring'.
I think you misunderstand the purpose of an 'argument'.
Your one-line remarks do not propel your purpose forward, they make it look
like you're being jocular.
(subject was: Cyn Skyberg joins Wikimedia as CTCO!)
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 4:03 AM, Bod Notbod <bodnotbod(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> I've always
>> thought that if for some reason all of the Wikimedia projects suddenly
>> disappeared (and no one had any backups) we would be upset about it for a
>> couple of days but then we would just start again ...
> O RLY!?
This was my first thought as well. But as Liam said after that...
>> ... and we would do it better!
If this scenario ever did happen, I expect that the first step would
be to ensure it never happened again.
We, the people, should start planning for this worse case scenario now.
A mirror system would be great; that is how project gutenberg, linux
and sf.net do disaster recovery. It is simple, cheap and effective.
English, French, German, Italian, Polish, Portugeuse, Swedish and
Chinese Wikipedia all appear to have some mirrors, but are any of them
reliable enough to be used for disaster recovery?
It would be nice to have an agreement with these mirrors that they
will make the most recent dump available if WMF is unable to provide
I don't see any mirrors listed on the Spanish page about mirrors.
Are there mirrors of other Wikimedia projects?
The smaller projects are easier to backup, as they are smaller. I am
sure that with a little effort and coordination, chapters,
universities and similar organisations would be willing to routinely
backup a subset of projects, and combined we would have multiple
current backups of all projects.
Only wimps use tape backup: real men just upload their important stuff
on ftp, and let the rest of the world mirror it ;)
- Torvalds, Linus (1996-07-20).
If we wish to improve the quality of academic articles than we need to
increase Wikipedia's ties with academia. Poor coverage of topics exists in
We need to figure out why the academics we have now do contribute and why
others do not. What do this group see as barriers to getting involved?
We need to liaison or partner more with Universities. Have Wikipedia used
more in class projects. So much student work is just filled away to never
be look at again after a term has ended. Wikipedia gives student a chance
to make lasting changes to an academic field.
We need to look at why other wikis are being created such as wikidocs,
medpeadia, and radiopedia (there are 87 dealing with science alone) rather
than they joining us. Others in academia obviously perceive some problems
with our system. Are this preceptions justified? Can we work with these
other 87 wiki in a collaborative way to reduce a duplication of effort on
similar content? Could we convince some of them to simply join us?
MD, CCFP-EM, B.Sc.
Your position is flawed. What is "enduring" is not the same as what will
be "interesting" to future generations. Enduring to me means, "yet
existing". Some sex toys will be yet existing in 100 years, but I'm sure they will
all be "interesting" especially to researchers of the use of sex toys which
no longer exist.
And that is the very issue. We need to cover items of historical interest,
not just present. And in doing that, we must cover all items of present
interest because we cannot *presume* to discern what in the future may be of
The most frustrating thing in genealogy, and biography are those exact
points that persons of that day past, thought wouldnt' be of interest and on
which today major points of contention are yet turning. We should cover
whatever our authors *wish* to cover provided it is written in encyclopedic
language and is balanced in what is presented, not in what *ought* to be
presented. That is covered by SOFIXIT.
We don't have experts in every field, it's doubtful we ever will. We
shouldn't denigrate those articles in fields x y and z simply because no expert
in field a b or c is present.
In a message dated 9/18/2010 12:59:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> "There will always be more television programmes, long playing records,
> popular beat combos and innovative sex toys than there will be Einsteins,
> paradigm shifting scientific discoveries and philosophical enquiries." -
> course but don't confuse that point with the question of which of these
> subjects should be included in an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia should
> a bias towards what is enduring.
As promised, the draft report on our study of Controversial Content on Wikimedia projects is now available at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content. We're actually planning to release the study on that page in three segments, with a day or two in between This first one discusses the general principles that animated our observations and recommendations. We are very interested in your comments, and will be monitoring them carefully. Your feedback will be built into the report we eventually make to the Board in early October. And thanks to all for the welcoming reception we've been given since our appearance in late June. These are difficult questions to deal with, as you all know -- your openness has made it easier for us to do so. Robert Harris and Dory Carr-Harris.
On Sep 16, 2010, at 6:44 AM, Bod Notbod <bodnotbod(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Aude <aude.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Surely there are third parties with such experience and interested in
>> this. [...] Surely google has or should have copy?
> It would be interesting to know what Google has. I recently began a
> new article and was stunned to see that Google had indexed, given a
> high ranking to, and (IIRC) had a cache of the article within the day.
I see new articles & edits appear in Google searches almost immediately.
> I'm not technical, so I speak from ignorance, but I imagine they
> wouldn't have article histories.
Probably. If i remember correctly, WMF gets some modest income from
google (& others?) for providing priority feeds of recent changes (as
feeds or through API) whereas normal users have API limits. Please
clarify if someone knows better!
> The notion that Wikipedia was currently vulnerable to data loss had
> honestly never occurred to me; I thought that the reference sites that
> use our content meant that back-ups are ubiquitous. You've all given
> me the fear.
I don't fear anything bad but concerned.
But suppose (very very very unlikely) there was some massive scandal
and fundraising dried up or some massive lawsuit or other scenario and
WMF ceased to exist? Not impossible? (what's the reserve? How long can
wmf survive if fundraising dried up today?)
Distributed mirrors and database dumps are in my view fundamental top
priority, providing peace of mind, right along w/ keeping servers
running. All the other WMF staff programs (awesome that they are!) are
Would also be cool to see more innovative uses of wikipedia content,
made possible with good dumps
> foundation-l mailing list
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
As Karen fixed her anonymity issue, archives of the Language committee
will be public by default starting from September 12th, 2010. We will
continue to use the same method for the list archives, as it allows us
to talk about confidential (mostly personal) issues. Previous emails
will stay as they are, according to the old rules.