May someone ask Internet Archive to open histories of the Main Pages
of Wikipedias in their Time Machine? If they harvested it at all.
Their Time Machine is usually the only exact way to find when early
Wikipedias were created, but histories of the pages are blocked
because of our robots.txt.
I am pleased to announce that Wikimedia Philippines has finally released its 2010 annual report, which is now available on Meta! Please take the time to read the report at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WMPH_2010_Annual_Report.pdf.
We hope that while the 2010 report is relatively short, the 2011 report, which will be the report of our first full year in action, will be full of activities, experiences and memories which are for all of us to share. I trust that Wikimedia Philippines, with the support of our members, partners and the Wikimedia community, will continue to aspire and strive for greater heights.
Maraming salamat po at Sulong Wikimedia!
Regards from Poland,
JAMES JOSHUA G. LIM
Block I1, AB Political Science
Major in Global Politics, Minor in Chinese Studies
Class of 2013, Ateneo de Manila University
Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines
Vice-President (2011-2012), Wikimedia Philippines
Member, Ateneo Debate Society
Member, The Assembly
Member, Ateneo Lingua Ars Cultura
jamesjoshualim(a)yahoo.com | +63 (927) 531-8301
Friendster/Facebook/Twitter: akiestar | Wikimedia: Sky Harbor
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Foundation-L, the public mailing list about the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects. For more information about Foundation-L:
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
Without seeing the responses to the "referendum", I am betting you
have in the comments a huge amount of _committed_ "You are on crack; I
will never stand for this." comments, a wide field of wishy washies
giving conditionals, and an almost as wide field of supports on the
lines of "I wouldn't use it, nor make my children use it, but meh, if
somebody want's it..." and last and definitely least, a tiny hardcore
segment of "Won't anyone think of the children!" -- Do I lose my bet?
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
2011/9/17 David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>:
> On 17 September 2011 10:16, John Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 7:11 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> We need people to try the technical basics of a fork, i.e. taking an
>>> en:wp dump, an images dump, ..
>> Is there an images dump?
> If there isn't, there should be.
> (I'm now trying to work out how to get the images without using up all
> my bandwidth allowances ever.)
I have no traffic limit on my home connection. Just ship a big enough
storage device and I'll be happy to provide you a full dump :P
Just kidding, of course. On a more serious note, what do you expect
the difficulties to be? I believe the most difficult part would be to
replicate the foundation's "secret sauce", i.e. the configuration
files that are not made public, if such thing exists. Then would come
the whole traffic balancing/caching/optimization settings, which would
greatly depend on the actual traffic a fork would have.
Sanity in IT terms and practicality in regulatory terms don't always go hand
in hand. Transporting an image dump on a hard drive might well be the most
practical way to move that much data - though it should be encrypted at
least whilst in transit. But forking doesn't sound to me a good reason to
disclose deleted edits. Or for that matter account passwords. So that drive
would need to be an extract of the material covered in the license.
> Message: 9
> Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 10:06:08 -0400
> From: MZMcBride <z(a)mzmcbride.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the
> introduction of the personal image filter
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Message-ID: <CA9A2190.1422E%z(a)mzmcbride.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> David Gerard wrote:
> > On 17 September 2011 10:16, John Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 7:11 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
> >>> We need people to try the technical basics of a fork, i.e. taking an
> >>> en:wp dump, an images dump, ..
> >> Is there an images dump?
> > If there isn't, there should be.
> > (I'm now trying to work out how to get the images without using up all
> > my bandwidth allowances ever.)
> It's easy enough to get a VPS with unlimited bandwidth. It's a few
> of data, though, depending on what you're talking about. Thumbnails,
> images, older versions of images, deleted images, math renderings, etc. The
> sanest solution probably involves mailing a hard drive to someone and then
> having them mail it back.
just a few clarifications:
I totally agree with Naoko of course. However, for me the main goal is not
even just the photos itself, but the reach it gives us to involve more
people. If I understand the statistics correctly; up to date, we have been
able to involve roughly 1000 people throughout Europe in this contest who
never before uploaded/edited anything.
Involving new people was also the reason to set WLM up as a contest - that
assists at least in Europe very well in attracting attention of people who
normally do not edit Wikipedia, and persuade them to participate. However,
in the end they often keep participating because it is fun and because they
like it that their images appear on Wikipedia.
@Yaroslav: the main reason to focus on Europe this year was the large
concentration, intergovernmental support (European Commission & Council of
Europe) and lack of resources (mainly man power). If there are next year
enough people to carry on the idea, I'm sure we can include more countries,
*if* the concept works for them.
Then lists etc are a very practical precondition - not a fundamental one. If
we can find other ways to make it work, that is find of course. Also, if
countries rather run a project on different topics (volunteer involvement is
important, otherwise it won't work) they should definitely do that (I heard
suggestions for Wiki Loves Wildlife, Wiki Loves Rivers and many others!).
Finally a note about chapters. Yes, having a chapter is very helpful -
usually it is a group of organized volunteers who has existing experience
with media and volunteer coordination (because some coordination is
necessary) and they have access to some kind of budgeting / bank accounts.
But also this is very practical - this year four countries without any
chapter participated: Andorra (with the help of Amical), Belgium &
Luxembourg (with a lot of dedicated volunteers, mostly in Belgium) and
Romania (with the help of a local pro-linux association and local
volunteers). So there is definitely no rule against chapters without a
chapter to participate, but it does require a steeper learning curve, and
some extra dedication.
You can find much of the thinking behind this concept in our post-mortem of
2010 and the notes on the Berlin meeting last May with many participating
countries; all available on Commons. Of course I invite all comments
regarding improvements for next years in our post-mortem after September.
Am 12. September 2011 07:49 schrieb Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod(a)mccme.ru>:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 10:51:33 +0900, KIZU Naoko <aphaia(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Off topic alert:
> > I haven't given a closer look to your main topic, Milos, so I cannot
> > give a responsible statement in any way. But your reference to Wiki
> > Loves Monuments, while I agree it's heavily Europe-focused, I strongly
> > disagree with you on its decadency, as an (retired) aesthetic. While
> > the determination what artworks are heavily depends on the community
> > to appreciate, so partly I understand your concern, if WLM is carried
> > on only by European chapter people, it can hardly of NPOV at some
> > future moment, but artworks belong to the critical part of "the sum of
> > human knowledge" along with the information who created them and then
> > have appreciated or rejected them.
> Only countries which have lists of monuments compiled by the government
> and having the status of the law are eligible for WLM. This is in some
> sense POV but no more POV than say writing articles of members of
> parliament who were elected by direct vote. If Japan has such a list (I
> hope it does) next year it would be eligible to participate. My
> understanding is that somehow the organizers did not expect such interest
> and did not try to contact chapters outside Europe. Presumably next year
> they will do. On the other hand, by the next year some of the European
> countries may exhaust their monuments (in the sense that the most of the
> pictures will be taken and the articles written or judged to be impossible
> to write). Thus, NPOV does not seem to be a problem to me.
> I do see two other problems with WLM, which are (i) competition format,
> which implicitly stimulates certain strategies we normally do not want to
> stimulate; (ii) involvement of the chapters as a precondition - some
> countries do not have chapters, some chapters showed no interest, some were
> unable to organize anything in the end. But I am not sure such discussion
> belongs to this thread.
> foundation-l mailing list
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Today I read on a WMDE driven website:
"»Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der das gesamte Wissen der
Menschheit jedem frei zugänglich ist. Das ist unser Ziel.«
(Imagine a world in which the entire knowledge of mankind is freely
accessible to everyone. That is our goal.)
I never read that in English. Jimmy Wales actually said: "... the sum
of all human knowledge".
And I think that there is a huge difference between "the sum of
all..." and "all...". By the way, the traditional encyclopedias
described themselves by "the sum of all..."
But a number of Wikimedia national organizations seem to have
difficulties with Jimmy's phrase. They 'translate' it to "all..." I
did not succeed, for example, in explaining to my own national
organization why it is wrong what we have on our business cards.
Am I the only one seeing a problem here?
Ziko van Dijk
Phil Nash wrote:
> Nothing to make this firm notable within [[WP:CORP]], except that
> they've been criticised for their compensation-seeking techniques;
> well, hot dog, that isn't unusual in the post "ambulance-chasing"
> culture of some law firms since solicitors were deregulated from
> advertising in the early 1980s.
> I know Paul Rooney of old, and he was never the best criminal advocate
> amongst the solicitors who practised in Liverpool when I also
> practised law there; but this article is little more than a
> [[WP:COATRACK]] for his methods, even if it passes the
> [[WP:N|notability]] threshold- which, I have already opined, it does
> This article should go, as an attack page.
> [[User:Rodhullandemu]] - "still flying the flag for Wikipedia, for
> some inexplicable reason".