I agree something like "Open Knowledge Project" would be a more suitable
term. Do they have any decals like those of Health on the Net that people
could add to their websites? Should there be different degree of
inclusiveness depending on non commercial or commercial reuse? I see this as
the first step towards a greater sharing of content between sites.
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
This is indeed one of the greatest suggestion I have heard in a long
time. Having people add "Part of the Wikimedia Movement" would benefit
both parties. All of us here I think support free knowledge wherever
it is found. Allowing our GLAM partners to use this wording and those
who are actively collaborating with us would be a start.
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
Congratulations Liam, you've just made the case for micro stubs.
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 01:11:35 +0000
> From: Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia as seen through 1964 acoustic, 300
> baud modem
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Saw this today:
> It's a video of a guy demonstrating his 1964 Livermore Data Systems "Model
> A" Acoustic Coupler Modem that still works
> and in order to demonstrate it still works he requests the mainpage of en.wp
> :-) The page starts loading at 6:40 of the video.
> Three cheers for open standards and and backwards compatibility!
> I would like to know if it is technically possible to edit a WP article
> through that system.
> Peace, love & metadata
Saw this today:
It's a video of a guy demonstrating his 1964 Livermore Data Systems "Model
A" Acoustic Coupler Modem that still works
and in order to demonstrate it still works he requests the mainpage of en.wp
:-) The page starts loading at 6:40 of the video.
Three cheers for open standards and and backwards compatibility!
I would like to know if it is technically possible to edit a WP article
through that system.
Peace, love & metadata
This time I've cleaned the list of Wikimedia [content] projects from
meta:Special:SiteMatrix  and calculated some numbers .
So, for statistics, there are:
* 270 Wikimedia languages (however, you would see below that the term
"language" is not quite precise)
* 270 Wikipedias
* 146 Wiktionaries
* 83 Wikibooks
* 29 Wikinews
* 67 Wikiquotes
* 58 Wikisources
* 12 Wikiversities
* 665 total content projects
* 12 languages with all 7 projects
* 16 languages with 6 projects (usually without Wikiversity)
* 22 languages with 5 projects (usually without Wikiversity and Wikinews)
* 16 languages with 4 projects
* 24 languages with 3 projects
* 59 languages with 2 projects
* 121 languages with 1 project
* 19 languages with all projects "closed".
Note that just small number (if any) of closed projects are actually
closed. The most of them is possible to edit.
Interesting part in this part of statistics  is that Wikimedia
projects are by number of projects dominated by languages with smaller
number of projects. 121 languages with just one project (up to now
exclusively Wikipedia) have 44.81% share in the number of Wikimedia
languages, but also 18.20% share in the number of all Wikimedia
projects (which is the biggest share).
Fortunately, Wikimedia projects are dominated by individual living
languages : 240 of 270 languages.
22 of the rest of Wikimedia languages are treated [by SIL] as
"macrolanguages". That definition is vague: from practically the same
languages up to the groups which could be treated as language family.
Anyway, it says that we have a number of not solved issues related to
the projects which serve multiple languages.
We have 8 Wikipedias in constructed languages, 5 in historical, 3 in
dialects or different written forms, 2 in individual living languages
but without ISO 639 codes, and one in revived language (Manx).
Prompted by discussions in another thread, I ask a related question--
;1-- A roadmap towards affiliation
How should a currently-unaffiliated project go about becoming 'part
One easy step they could take would be to simply say, on their
website, "This site considers itself to be part of the Wikimedia
Movement". (alternate text welcome )
Later, a self-identified affiliate could be formally designated as
"part of the Wikimedia Movement" by the global community or the
foundation or both.
Such recognition would have lots of benefits for the new projects that
share our values-- other WM projects would know to visibly link to
them whenever they have relevant content (as we currently do across
WMF projects). We could permit access to the unified login, we could
allow template-sharing or image-sharing. We could set up
interwiki-linking, and other interoperability functions.
Such recognition would have even bigger benefits for us. We could
get an affiliation with an established, successful project that shares
our values. The kinds of project that we would build ourselves if
someone else hadn't already built it. Their userbases and readership
would see get to Wikimedia as something larger than just WP, and it
would help cement public understanding that Wikimedia is a Movement,
very big, very diverse, and very special.
; 2-- We need a name for self-identified project affiliation.
External projects needs to be able to claim, on their own initiative,
that they are "part of" something. That something should be a
something that is connected to us.
But self-identified affiliation has no gatekeeper, so whatever it is
new projects can be "part of", there could be lots that we don't
I'm the founder of a project and I want signal my ideological
affiliation to WM. I think my own project's values match the
Wikimedia's values, in my opinion anyway.
Recognizing that I may or may not be right-- what should I say I am a
We could just tell projects in this situation to say they are "Part of
the Wikimedia Movement", but perhaps that name is one we want to
reserve just for officially recognized projects. If so, what name
should such projects use instead?
Note that they need to be saying something different than just "I like
Wikipedia, here's a link". They need to be _identifying_ their own
efforts as _under the umbrella_ of what we do. They need to be
"investing" in us and our mission, saying "This project is our attempt
to help share the world's information".
Right now, I think we can craft any statement, logo, or button we want
and like-minded projects would use it if prompted. We just have to
be thoughtful about what we want those things to look like. We will
no longer have total control over whichever name or logos we recommend
projects use for self-identified affiliation.
So that's my question -- what should third-party wikis say they are
"part of", if they want to express a connection to us?
I have been working on collaborations with a couple of groups including
ECGPedia (http://en.ecgpedia.org/) and TRIP Database (
http://www.tripdatabase.com/). Both are fairly well known sites and share
our values. They are both interested in working with us in some manner. Is
this something I could offer them? Right now ECGpedia is offer us 2000 ECG
images and TRIP Database is looking at linking to our high quality medical
content thus increasing our exposure.
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
Speaking of the British tabloids, of course.
The lesson for us is to not take a leading position, be topical, but to
report events which have occurred and on which there is some sort of
considered opinion and a set of known facts, even if it takes a day or
two for them to develop. In the case of these tabloids its going to take
The power of topical media is two-edged, seemingly exceedingly powerful,
king-makers, but, as anyone familiar with our limited resources knows,
quite weak if under serious attack, as is being shown in the case of the
principals involved in this crisis. The British government is sick of
kowtowing to them and seems to have just been waiting for an opportunity.
Back in the 1980's BBS sysops validated new users on some of the more
abused dial-up BBS systems via snail mail. The person had to provide a
real address in order to receive their login password - just as many
systems use email addresses today. The big difference between these two
mechanisms is that using snail mail has a chain of custody and implies
the possibility of some kind of legal action for misuse whereas email
has no real chain of custody or rarely any legal standing.
So is it going to be a hoop to jump through or something more?
Making a copy and mailing it isn't much better than forging a document
and mailing it. Who knows whether the copy even belongs to the person in
I'd say that if you've blocked someone who is a sockpuppet or other
abuser the burden of validating such a person should be on them, not the
wiki staff. At least a notary (or other public official) would have to
look at an identity document - verify its validity as well as see that
it indeed matches the person in question - then sign a document to that
effect. This completely removes the wiki staff from the need to access
the validity of a copy.
No it isn't free, but that's the price a blocked user might have to pay
for abusing what was freely given in the first place. :-/
>> Do they have notaries in the Netherlands? ?Why not simply ask them to mail a notarized statement that "I am Foo at such an address and request an ublock so I may edit as Bar"? I still am not sure if this is something I would completely endorse, but at least it would be meaningful and not so easily forged.
> Notaries usually charge for that kind of thing. It's not usually much,
> but it's substantially more than the cost of a stamp, which is all the
> current policy costs.