> From: Steven Walling <steven.walling(a)gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 14:48:09 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Merge wikis
> That discussion was interesting for this one, because it brings up issues
> such as that merging even a relatively small wiki like ten (565 content
> pages, 3,204 total pages) into Meta would probably take some considerable
We did something similar when Simple English Wikibooks was closed and its
content merged to English Wikibooks .
I note that there's been protest on the discussion page that the content
would be out of scope for Meta, however. This reminds me when content was
pushed from Meta to Wikibooks  for MakerFaire 2010 , supposedly with
the blessing of stewards and Cary Bass . This content is "out of scope"
for Wikibooks, especially given its encyclopedic format, but it goes to show
that a project's scope can evolve. Wikibooks used to host video game
strategy guides, for instance (and had a lot more visitors as a result).
Forwarded on behalf of a non-member.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jutta von Dincklage <jutta.von(a)cancer.org.au>
Date: Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 10:14 PM
Subject: FW: Call for input: Strategic planning at Wikimedia Australia
To: "foundation-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org" <
Wikimedia Australia’s Strategic Planning group, a sub-committee of the WMAu
Committee, is currently working hard to develop a strategic plan for the
organisation. We are seeking input from all our members, the friends of
WMAu, and community stakeholders. An initial Strategic Planning Subcommittee
workshop on the 16th and 17th July will deliberate over these issues
including submissions received up to 15th July.****
We know that this is short notice, but Wikimedia Australia would welcome
your ideas by 15 July 2011 (before our first strategic planning workshop on
*How to contribute your ideas and suggestions*
**1. **Read our strategic planning
**2. **Submit your suggestions on our Wikimedia Australia's ideascale
Wikimedia Australia members can also discuss ideas on our public discussion
place <http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/Billabong> and the private mailing
*Timeline: 1 July - 15 July 2011*
We look forward to hearing about your suggestions.****
Wikimedia Australia Strategic Planning Sub-committee****
If merging existing wikis is resource intensive, lets start the
process by not creating new wikis for thins that should be projects
within existing wikis. So wikimania 2012, or if it is too late for
that Wikimania 2013 could be a project within meta.
But my suspicion is that a bit of development and the adding of
appropriate suffixes would make merger of wikis straightforward - and
worth doing as this would go a long way towards encouraging
collaboration across wikis and making the whole operation more
understandable and functional.
Remember the concept of the wisdom of crowds rather relies on there
being crowds, so the more we hive things off into standalone wikis the
more we undermine the essence that makes this place work.
> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2011 22:56:43 -0700
> From: Alec Conroy <alecmconroy(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Merge wikis
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>> That discussion was interesting for this one, because it brings up issues
>> such as that merging even a relatively small wiki like ten (565 content
>> pages, 3,204 total pages) into Meta would probably take some considerable
> We need to lower barriers to cross-project collaboration. A
> SUL-linked userspace and crossproject transclusion will be a good
> first start. We ultimately want to be in a place where merges can
> be done with only trivial effort.
> foundation-l mailing list
> End of foundation-l Digest, Vol 88, Issue 9
Forwarded to the list on behalf of a non-member.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jacob Franklin <jake.franklin2(a)gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 7:39 PM
Subject: wikiEducation: The Classroom Wikipedia
In recent weeks I have been reading about the work of your
foundation and all of the wikipages you have created. The scope of
your organization is vast, along with the amount of people who use its
tools. I believe that this incredible reach gives you a wonderful
opportunity to positively affect the lives of many people.
My name is Jake Franklin and I am an educator. I graduated from
Colby College with a degree in Philosophy in 2008. Since then I have
been teaching English in Shenyang, China and studying Chinese. Next
year I am planning to return to the US to go to graduate school for a
Masters in Educational Policy or International Education. I am
extremely passionate about improving the educational opportunities,
tools, and resources for all students. I believe that giving all
students access to quality education both enriches their educational
experience and provides them with a strong foundation to build towards
a better future.
It is because of this dedication to the enrichment of education
that I wish to develop a relationship with your foundation. I have an
idea that I am passionate about and dedicated to and am writing this
email to introduce it to you.
The basic idea is to create a version of wikipedia that is
exclusively written and edited by students. It is called
wikiEducation. There is one site for each grade level, and teachers
can sign up their classes to be writers and editors. The site grows
through students submitting their work as wikiEducation articles,
which are then edited by other students. By pairing collective
responsibility and a published presence, wikiEducation gives both
writers and editors a sense of achievement, a feeling of
responsibility and a relationship with each other that would be absent
without this tool. Moreover giving students ownership of the
information on the site motivates them to develop more intimate and
long-lasting relationships with the material.
I think the idea would work best if implemented through the
Wikimedia Foundation and therefore have come to you first. I think
that you have the people and experience to build the site in the best
possible way. I would like to work with you to bring this idea to
fruition. I don’t have the technical know-how to build a website but I
do have the desire, drive and experience to bridge the gap between the
technical aspects of website building and the creation of an effective
teaching tool. WikiEducation’s success depends on teacher use. I can
work with the teachers and the builders to create a highly functional
website that teachers will enjoy using.
The detailed business plan includes; a more detailed description of
the site, information about the site’s special features, market
analysis, and potential problems along with suggested solutions.
Please let me know whom I should send the plan to, and how I can
continue to play a role in its creation.
While preparing Missing Wikipedias , I've got numbers of speakers and
languages by area and country with chapter not covered by Wikipedias.
Numbers are preliminary, some of them should be corrected. I didn't
exclude Han languages, which mostly shouldn't be counted, and similar.
Note, also, that every language should be analyzed separately. Many
languages are spoken not just inside of one country.
Please, fix errors and comment.
* * *
Areas. They approximate the usual definitions of areas, but they are
different because of linguistic corrections.
* Afro-Asiatic Area: Area where Afro-Asiatic languages are dominant.
North Africa + Middle East + Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Somalia - Iran.
* Europe: Europe (including Caucasus) includes Turkey.
* South Asia: South Asia + Iran. Dominantly Indo-European and Dravidian
* Sub-Saharan Africa: The rest of Africa.
* Polynesia, Australia and Oceania: Includes Malaysia and Taiwan
(Taiwanese languages not covered in Wikipedias are dominantly Austronesian.)
* East Asia: Han China "China (Central)", Korea and Japan.
* South-East Asia: Includes non-Han south China "China (South)".
* Latin America: Parts of America where Spanish and Portuguese are
* Anglo-French America: Parts of America where English, French and Dutch
are official languages.
* North Asia: Asian part of former USSR, Mongolia and non-Han northern
and western China "China (North)".
The first column is number of speakers, the second number of languages,
the third is area.
399259294 592 South Asia
353676706 1805 Sub-Saharan Africa
221855457 253 Afro-Asiatic Area
138979263 2198 Polynesia, Australia and Oceania
107363760 37 East Asia
99260271 447 South-East Asia
47901185 143 Europe
30361602 724 Latin America
8481452 227 Anglo-French America
3724384 45 North Asia
* * *
Countries with chapters. (Numbers are not fully correct, as they include
some languages removed in the list below this one.)
If any chapter (or interested group) is interested in full list of
missing languages, I'll provide it by request before completing the
work. I suppose that some chapters are interested in languages with less
than 100K of speakers, as well.
296,097,274 349 India
71,356,176 681 Indonesia
46,676,395 157 Philippines
7,819,010 9 Germany
7,994,871 76 Russian Federation
5,386,580 5 Serbia
4,785,299 6 South Africa
2,841,300 17 Israel
1,139,750 4 Ukraine
1,085,931 125 United States
832,000 3 Netherlands
705,967 70 Canada
472,470 1 Czech Republic
375,704 17 Taiwan
313,642 6 Chile
246,900 3 United Kingdom
200,500 4 Spain
191,430 5 Poland
151,240 7 Sweden
132,809 12 Argentina
86,390 155 Australia
50,000 1 France
30,000 1 Hungary
29,980 4 Switzerland
17,460 5 Finland
15,000 1 Portugal
10,500 2 Norway
5,000 1 Denmark
4,500 1 Estonia
Languages with more than million or more than 100,000 of speakers
without Wikipedia and with chapter in the country:
India (more than million)
3633900 Konkani, Goan
2680000 Indian Sign Language
1950000 Gondi, Northern
1045000 Panjabi, Mirpur
1000000 Pahari, Mahasu
Indonesia (more than million)
2350000 Malay, Central
2000000 Batak Toba
1880000 Malay, Makassar
1200000 Batak Simalungun
1200000 Batak Dairi
1100000 Batak Mandailing
1000000 Malay, Jambi
Philippines (more than 100k)
2500000 Bicolano, Central
1900000 Bicolano, Albay
540000 Bontoc, Central
319000 Sama, Southern
234000 Bicolano, Iriga
185000 Sorsogon, Waray
150000 Blaan, Koronadal
140000 Subanen, Central
122000 Bicolano, Northern Catanduanes
100000 Philippine Sign Language
2000000 Saxon, Upper
460090 Mari, Meadow
Serbia and Kosovo
4156090 Albanian, Gheg
709570 Romani, Balkan
318920 Romani, Sinte
4101000 Sotho, Northern
1762320 Yiddish, Eastern
352500 Arabic, Judeo-Tunisian
258930 Arabic, Judeo-Moroccan
100130 Arabic, Judeo-Iraqi
600000 Hawai’i Creole English
250000 Sea Island Creole English
472470 Romani, Carpathian
102000 Spanish Sign Language
109600 Finnish, Tornedalen
It seems silly to proliferate so many wikis when many of them focus on
related issues. It becomes the nightmare of having to visit the web site
of every user group every few hours vs having all the new posts sent via
email to one address so you save time. The real question to me seems to
be how to make the software capable of sharing data across silos. Our
hardware is much more robust than 10 years ago, our software has matured
and now it is time to do content aggregation. We can (and probably
should) use the name with the widest recognition as the root of our
tree. Then all the branches can continue to function "as if" they were
independent for a time - even though they are part of the same trunk.
Over time their quirks will need to be harmonized and fiefdoms
consolidated into a coherent whole.
We already use disambiguation pages to distinguish between topics with
similar names, go one step further and have a multiple articles page.
Some contributors have great insight but terrible writing skills and
that is where the skills of an editor are needed. Having to police all
the differing opinions of supposedly factual matters is more of a
censorship (shudder - who will watch the watchers?) or judicial
function. Thank goodness for the page history function.
I've setup and used several wikis inhouse, and currently run MediaWiki
on the server. The biggest problem I have is with user fears - fear of
creating a new page, fear of doing something someone else "should" be
doing, learning curve issues. Currently teams are working on a better
GUI experience that will (hopefully) make it much easier for a new user
to be able to contribute productive work without having to learn a new
programming language. Creating a disambiguation page is a good example
of something that should be relatively easy to do the first time rather
than spend 3 or 4 hours learning how to do it in the current wiki
On 30 June 2011 17:00, Alec Conroy <alecmconroy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
[a git-like distributed wikisphere]
> It's not my idea, I believe it's been independently suggested at
> least five different times that I know of. But it's a HUGE step that
> would require a big, bold push from developers and thus potentially a
> large initial commitment from the foundation to spur development of
> such a thing. That commitment might not be huge in terms of
> resources-- a few professional lead developer-coordinators, perhaps.
> But it would require some courage, leadership, and a vision to rally
> volunteer developers around. If you visibly agree to it being built,
> an amorphous 'they' will likely show up to actually build it for you,
> free of charge. It would will radically change things for everyone
> the instant such a tool is actually created.
Adapting MediaWiki to git has been tried a few times. I suspect the
problem is that the software deeply assumes a database behind it, not
a version-controlled file tree. Wrong model for an easy fix to
Pouring en:wp's entire history into git is feasible (Greg Maxwell
posted about doing it, IIRC).
svnwiki exists - a wiki engine which uses files version-controlled by
Subversion. Perhaps something like that - articles as files in a git
repository, read by the new parser when that's done.
> Such a wiki is inevitable, I just hope we can be the ones to develop it.
Someone else could actually do it without our weight of organisational
inertia and NIH. We need competitors.
Further to your idea: people developing little specialist wikis along
these lines, and said wikis being mergeable. This makes such wikis
easier to start, without having to start yet another wiki-based
general encyclopedia that directly competes with Wikipedia. Disruptive
innovation starts in niches, not in a position where it'll just end up
a bug on Wikipedia's windscreen.