// Sorry for crosspost //
Dear all,
The deadline for make a proposal for Wikimania 2015 is very near: February
28 at 23:59 UTC. Currently we received many nice proposals but you have
less than three days to submit yet!
=> http://wikimania2015.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions
Please share this reminder into your contacts and social networks.
Best,
--
*Iván Martínez*
*Wikimanía 2015 Chief CoordinatorUser:ProtoplasmaKid
@protoplasmakidhttp://wikimania2015.wikimedia.org
<http://wikimania2015.wikimedia.org>*
A forward for technical and tech-curious people not subscribed to
wikitech-l. If you have or want to join a hackathon plan for Lyon (May
23-25), we want to know. Important note: Wikimedia Hackathons are not only
for developers, as good software development requires many other profiles,
including insightful users.
Chapter people and other organized wikimedians, your help funding volunteer
travel is welcome. Every year we are pooling more funds from more orgs,
opening our hackathons to more volunteers from more places and areas of
interest. Please send one volunteer or more to Lyon. More information and
feedback at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T88523
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Quim Gil <qgil(a)wikimedia.org>
Date: Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:02 AM
Subject: Wikimedia Hackathon travel sponsorship
To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Hi, we are hoping to open registration to the Wikimedia Hackathon in Lyon
next week. Those of you relying on travel sponsorship can start preparing
your requests already now:
# Familiarize yourself with the goals of the hackathon:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Hackathons#The_Wikimedia_Hackathon_model
# Join or propose a demo-able project in Phabricator:
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/wikimedia-hackathon-2015/
# Find a hackathon buddy in the Wikimedia communities or related projects
out there: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Lyon_Hackathon_2015/Buddies
Here you have a draft form to get an idea of what questions you will be
asked: http://goo.gl/forms/MPzx8q7BBz (not a real form; data submitted will
be ignored and deleted)
Your feedback about the process is welcome, especially in the related
Phabricator task: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T88406
--
Quim Gil
Engineering Community Manager @ Wikimedia Foundation
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
<nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Federico Leva (Nemo), 22/02/2015 18:41:
>>
>> Moderators of this list are crazy, I was apparently put on moderation by
>> Austin without expiry for forwarding a Commons-l message.
>> I'll unsubscribe in 24 hours if I'm not unmoderated by that time.
>
>
> This is now done. (Bcc active list members.)
That's not actually what happened.
I moderated Nemo when, after protesting the fact that Odder was still
moderated (more on that later), he started forwarding messages for
him. Before I had any chance to clear the matter up, he sent that
message and quit in a huff.
I was willing to unmoderate him, on the condition that he doesn't try
to circumvent the moderation system in the future, but it seems that
ship has sailed. He's free to subscribe again if he wishes.
Austin
One of the areas that I would like to see the foundation putting in money is for the running and maintenance of wanted orphan bots. Wanted in the sense that editors are using them or would if they were still running, and orphan in the sense that the original developer isn't around or available to run them/migrate them to the latest platform.
If we work on the premise that community funds should go for things that volunteers want to have happen but aren't volunteering to do, then this is a classic and uncontentious niche. Programmers like to write new code and solve new problems, but the person with the idea or who writes new code doesn't always have the time and motivation to keep maintaining and running that code, let alone creating slightly bespoke version for scores of our thousand wikis.
Now it may be that we are in an unusual situation that the migration from toolserver to labs has cost us a number of bots that would otherwise have continued for years. But there will always be demand to localise existing bots for wikis where they don't currently run, and in the long run all of our volunteer bot writers are likely to move on.
Employing a python programmer or two somewhere cheap like India or South America would not be a huge investment for the foundation, but it would be a valuable service to the community, and unlike mediawiki development this could be completely volunteer driven with wikimedians deciding which bots are worth maintaining and their relative priority.
Disclosure: whilst I'm not pitching for the money for this, I would be front of the queue to ask such a maintainer to take on bots that I used to use the results of and in at least one case which I designed.
Regards
Jonathan/WereSpielChequers
> On 22 Feb 2015, at 11:42, wikimedia-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
>
> Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
> wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wikimedia-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 17:39:31 -0800
> From: Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Types of allowed projects for
> grant funding (renamed)
> Message-ID:
> <CAEg6ZHmFQ-K8tksj==b-cx1aNKCc+wy1gCfK+0+pkis38uk5zA(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>> On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 4:19 PM, MZMcBride <z(a)mzmcbride.com> wrote:
>>
>> Erik seems to be pushing toward a model that favors using OAuth and the
>> MediaWiki API over "deep integration" that comes with a MediaWiki
>> extension. He recently mentioned this here:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/glamtools/2015-February/000343.html
>>
>> He may be right that development for deployment to the Wikimedia
>> Foundation cluster may not be the best approach for every project, but I
>> think this view overlooks all the very real benefits that extension
>> deployment includes.
>
> I don't think one size fits all -- every case needs to be judged on
> its merits, though in the case of GLAMWikiToolset I am definitely
> arguing for considering separation from the MediaWiki codebase because
> it is so highly specialized. I also think we sometimes still have a
> tendency to underestimate the value of non-MediaWiki tools and apps,
> even though they've contributed millions of edits to Wikimedia wikis
> already (though to be fair, without Magnus Manske the tally would not
> be nearly as awesome).
>
> Regarding the criteria for grantmaking, I think this initial blanket
> prohibition against all MediaWiki extension development is indeed
> something we ought to revisit. These grants can cover tens of
> thousands of dollars of paid work, so we shouldn't treat the review
> and integration burden lightly, and avoiding stalled projects that are
> going nowhere was a reason I advocated for this restriction to begin
> with. But as long as there is a good plan in place -- either not
> significantly dependent on WMF or with clear commitments negotiated
> upfront -- I do agree that the risks can be significantly mitigated.
>
> Damon, Luis and members of their teams will need to weigh in on this,
> and will want to think through the implications for their respective
> areas, but it's a good conversation to have -- keeping in mind that
> Luis is just starting in his new role, so please give him at least a
> few days to get up to speed. ;-)
>
> Erik
> --
> Erik Möller
> VP of Product & Strategy, Wikimedia Foundation
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 18:12:02 -0800
> From: Luis Villa <lvilla(a)wikimedia.org>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Types of allowed projects for
> grant funding (renamed)
> Message-ID:
> <CAM2wSz6x5DQdLjNwjS3Va_SU57nUp0UhXLQ6zktAhEeY2t4SEg(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>> On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 5:39 PM, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>> Damon, Luis and members of their teams will need to weigh in on this,
>> and will want to think through the implications for their respective
>> areas, but it's a good conversation to have -- keeping in mind that
>> Luis is just starting in his new role, so please give him at least a
>> few days to get up to speed. ;-)
>
> Thanks for at least a few hours of cushion, Erik ;)
>
> I'm a big believer in the power of/need for software tools, and at least
> philosophically I'm very open to funding software development outside the
> Foundation (though obviously there are lots of pragmatic difficulties -
> code review, etc.) So, yes, as part of our broader review of how we support
> communities and contributor growth, CE will look at funding code very
> seriously.
>
> Luis
>
> --
> Luis Villa
> Sr. Director of Community Engagement
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
>
>
As some of you know, we are working on the project [1] with Matica
srpska [2]. Basically, that opens numerous possibilities and here is
one of them.
My professor, a Board member of Matica srpska and one of two
co-authors of the Normative Grammar of Serbian Language wants to open
the Grammar.
Before I continue, I want to explain how good faith academics and
university professors in Serbia treat their work in relation to the
open and free access (and I suppose it's quite common for any part of
the world):
* Personally, they are not motivated by money. They are well
established socially, financially secure and they are mature people,
not fascinated by luxury, living modest lives.
* They want their works to be as much accessible as it's possible, as
well as as much used by other scientists as it's possible.
* The only financial issue in such circumstances is related to the
financial safety of particular institution (in this case Matica
srpska). However, financial gains from selling the books are
relatively small, it's about capital works and having them is a kind
of obligation of every intellectual in Serbia and it's questionable
would they lose (small amount of) money by opening the content or they
would actually gain. In other words, I am addressing this issue on the
level of going slowly to the process and making financial analysis of
every step.
* They don't really get variety of the licensing options. For them,
it's practically the same if it's CC-BY or Encarta web license. If
they open content, their default is that they are not counting on
money from published books.
* The only issue which they have is to keep their integrity and not to
present their work as their if it could be edited by anyone. (Thus,
inclusion of the dictionaries will go in the form similar to "Milos,
based on Serbian Ornithological Dictionary".)
And all of those things are clear while we are talking about regular content.
What we have here is the *Normative* Grammar. From my perspective,
that can't go under anything which doesn't assume ND part. Obviously
to me, if something is prescriptive work, it should go as-is.
However, that's my initial assumption. If there is an option to open
it more freely, I'd be happy to hear the argumentation.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:PEG/Interglider.ORG/Wiktionary_Meets…
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:Matica_srpska
When was odder put on moderation, and what for?
On 24 Feb 2015 14:49, "Federico Leva (Nemo)" <nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> John Mark Vandenberg, 23/02/2015 21:59:
>
>> Which email ? the crowdfunding email?
>>
>
> Yes, because odder is in moderation (like many others, it seems).
>
> Nemo
>
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:59 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <jayvdb(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Which email ? the crowdfunding email?
> Austin, do the list admins have another perspective to justify their
> action?
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
I'd like the answer to this question too.