(forwarding to f-l)
---------- Forwarded message ---------- To:Wikibooks textbook-l@wikimedia.org, wikisource wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Dear Wikimedians --
A project to build a national public digital library in the US, the "Digital Public Library of America", is asking for statements of interest from people or groups who have ideas for what this might look like -- and mean to create a prototype or detailed proposal over the course of this summer.
Actual proposals, of whatever form, are due in September, but a statement of interest is due by June 15. If you are interested in the subject, or currently working on a project you could see being part of such a public resource, you can submit a statement online:
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/dpla/forms/statement-of-interest/
See below for background on the DPLA. While this group is focused on a national project for a single country (formed by a consortium of US libraries, foundations, and academics) , they are conscious of the need to do something similar worldwide, and committed to making this process and resulting tools as open and reusable as possible.
SJ
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: John Palfrey jpalfrey@law.harvard.edu Date: Mon, May 23, 2011 at 10:20 AM Subject: [berkmanfriends] DPLA Beta Sprint: Calling all Submitters! To: "berkmanfriends@eon.law.harvard.edu" berkmanfriends@eon.law.harvard.edu
At the Digital Public Library of America, we've just announced a "Beta Sprint" to gather creative ideas, models, and other innovations that could play a role in the building of a DPLA. We'd love to see submissions from members of this list, as we know many of you have excellent thoughts on how this effort might take shape. Please find the full announcement below, and let me, Rebekah Heacock, and/or Maura Marx know if you have any questions or want to team up with one of the groups that appear already to be forming to make a submission. Best, John -- The Digital Public Library of America (DPLA) Steering Committee is delighted to announce today a Beta Sprint that aims to surface innovations that could play a part in the building of a digital public library.
The Beta Sprint seeks, ideas, models, prototypes, technical tools, user interfaces, etc. – put forth as a written statement, a visual display, code, or a combination of forms – that demonstrate how the DPLA might index and provide access to a wide range of broadly distributed content. The Beta Sprint also encourages development of submissions that suggest alternative designs or that focus on particular parts of the system, rather than on the DPLA as a whole.
The DPLA Steering Committee is leading the first concrete steps toward the realization of a large-scale digital public library that will make the cultural and scientific record available to all. The DPLA planning initiative grew out of an October 2010 meeting at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, which brought together over 40 representatives from foundations, research institutions, cultural organizations, government, and libraries to discuss best approaches to building a national digital library. Subsequent workshops in March and May have addressed the content, scope, and technical aspects of a DPLA.
“As the DPLA planning initiative moves forward, we are optimistic that the DPLA community and public can help us think about what a DPLA might look like, in practical – and perhaps unexpected – ways, as platform, architecture, interface, and beyond,” said John Palfrey, chair of the DPLA Steering Committee. “We hope geeks and librarians, especially, will join forces to develop beta submissions in support of this initiative.”
“The Beta Sprint is where the dream of a seamless and comprehensive digital library for every person begins to grapple, technically and creatively, with what has already been accomplished and what still need to be developed,” said Doron Weber, Vice President of Programs at the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and a Steering Committee member. “The DPLA represents the broadest coalition of stakeholders ever assembled who are dedicated to free and universal access to knowledge for all, and the Beta Sprint will help us kick off an 18-month program to construct, brick by digital brick, this beautiful new edifice.”
For inspiration, Beta Sprint participants might consider the general approach taken by initiatives whose leaders are on the DPLA Steering Committee, such as the Internet Archive, Public.Resource.Org, the Hathi Trust, American Memory, and others, as well as the Europeana project and the national digital libraries in the Netherlands, Norway, and South Korea.
Submission instructions and more information are available at http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/dpla, where you can also watch a short video about the Beta Sprint. Statements of interest must be received by June 15, 2011. Final submissions will be due by September 1, 2011.
A review panel appointed by the Steering Committee and composed of experts in the fields of library science, information management, and computer science will review Beta Sprint submissions in early September. Creators of the most promising betas will be invited to present their ideas to interested stakeholders and community members during a public meeting in Washington, DC.
# # #
About the Digital Public Library of America The Digital Public Library of America (DPLA) planning initiative is an impact-oriented research effort that unites leaders from all types of libraries, museums, and archives with educators, industry, and government to define the vision for a digital library in service of the American public. The DPLA Secretariat is located at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University; the Steering Committee comprises library and foundation leaders across the nation. More information can be found at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/research/dpla.
About the Berkman Center for Internet & Society The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University is a research program founded to explore cyberspace, share in its study, and help pioneer its development. Founded in 1997, through a generous gift from Jack N. and Lillian R. Berkman, the Center is home to an ever-growing community of faculty, fellows, staff, and affiliates working on projects that span the broad range of intersections between cyberspace, technology, and society. More information can be found athttp://cyber.law.harvard.edu/.
Digital Public Library of America Steering Committee Paul Courant, Harold T. Shapiro Professor of Public Policy and Dean of Libraries at the University of Michigan Robert Darnton, Carl H. Pforzheimer University Professor and Director of the Harvard University Library Carla Hayden, Chief Executive Officer of the Enoch Pratt Free Library (Baltimore, Maryland) Charles Henry, President of the Council on Library and Information Resources (CLIR) Luis Herrera, City Librarian for the City and County of San Francisco Susan Hildreth, Director of the Institute for Museum and Library Services Brewster Kahle, Founder of the Internet Archive Michael A. Keller, Ida M. Green University Librarian, Director of Academic Information Resources at Stanford University Carl Malamud, President, Public.Resource.Org Deanna Marcum, Associate Librarian for Library Services at the Library of Congress Maura Marx, Berkman Center Fellow and Executive Director, Open Knowledge Commons Jerome McGann, John Stewart Bryan University Professor at the University of Virginia John Palfrey, Faculty Co-Director at the Berkman Center; Henry N. Ess III Professor of Law and Vice Dean of Library and Information Resources at Harvard Law School (chair) Peggy Rudd, Executive Director/State Librarian of the Texas State Library and Archives Commission Amy E. Ryan, President of the Boston Public Library Donald Waters, Program Officer for Scholarly Communications and Information Technology at the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Doron Weber, Vice President, Programs at the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
Contact: Rebekah Heacock Project Coordinator Berkman Center for Internet & Society rheacock@cyber.law.harvard.edu
---------- You are subscribed to the Berkman Fellows and Friends discussion list.
Mailing list options: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/lists/info/berkmanfriends Mailing list members: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/lists/review/berkmanfriends
Please mind that emails sent through this list are considered public unless otherwise noted.
--
Maura Marx Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet and Society Executive Director, Open Knowledge Commons ********************************************************** direct: 617-384-9131 mobile: 617-835-3510 email: maura@knowledgecommons.org
-- Samuel Klein identi.ca:sj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266
I am getting ready do to a little traveling. It works out that traveling light is going to be my best bet for various reasons. As I don't want to carry around the weight of a laptop; I have purchased a little closer to the cutting edge than I generally do. In setting up my iPad this is what shocked me. It is near impossible to edit a wiki. Well that wasn't to worrisome. I figured "there's an app for that". I searched "Wikipedia" and was presented with a large selection of apps that basically hide the fact that the websites are even editable. They offer helpful things to using the wiki on small screen wrt to TOC and general navigation, but they also strip out all the edit links. After specifically searching for edit, I found one app that made it possible to edit from iPad without pulling my hair out. [1].
The whole trend is a bit worrisome. Ever since I got the device I really don't want to use my laptop. I thought I would hate typing anything on it. But it not bad at all (and I am the sort to make sure and buy laptops with full-size keyboards). People are going use the free apps so long as WM wikis are hard to navigate natively. We will never convert readers to editors if they reading with the editing interface stripped away. Do these apps for read-only Wikipedia even support the central-notice? I am not sure. Some seem to completely convert the website to a magazine appearance; some seem more like sleek web-browser.
I can't help but think that WMF does't jump in soon with an inexpensive app which solves the difficulties of navigation while preserving the facets of the site that are important to WMF, it will be harder to recover the losses if this trend of hardware takes hold. I imagine an official WMF app would get some sort of preference when searching "wikipedia" in the App Store, which is why I really think the foundation might want to attend to this.
BirgitteSB
[1] http://www.wikieditapp.com/
Sent from my iPad
Why couldn't you edit it with the normal web browser in the ipad?
On Jun 9, 2011, at 8:23 PM, "K. Peachey" p858snake@gmail.com wrote:
Why couldn't you edit it with the normal web browser in the ipad?
I could edit from a browser, but it was rather difficult. That difficulty wasn't really important, but just what motivated me to look for an app. The issue I was writing about was what I found when searched the app store for "Wikipedia". People using many "wikipedia apps" can't edit because most of the apps don't support editing. And these apps have a lot of ratings and there are a variety of them. So people must be using them.
BirgitteSB
I totally agree with Steven and I think we really want to make this easier (especially for small edits). I use a nice app called "Wiki Edit" on my Ipad (along with some random editing on the browser) which is actually pretty nice (and handles wiki text well given the limitations). It works for basically any mediawiki wiki. http://www.wikieditapp.com/
James
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jun 9, 2011, at 8:23 PM, "K. Peachey" p858snake@gmail.com wrote:
Why couldn't you edit it with the normal web browser in the ipad?
I could edit from a browser, but it was rather difficult. That difficulty wasn't really important, but just what motivated me to look for an app. The issue I was writing about was what I found when searched the app store for "Wikipedia". People using many "wikipedia apps" can't edit because most of the apps don't support editing. And these apps have a lot of ratings and there are a variety of them. So people must be using them.
BirgitteSB _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Yes I eventually found that app. And it is much superior to editing from the browser. But it doesn't support ProofreadPage extension. Still between the app and browser it is definitely workable with two edits. My concern is much more that the reading/navigation experience seems to be driving people to these apps which strip out all of the editing and maybe even WMF messaging. And these people must be genuinely interested in Wikipedia to download a special app for it. Probably people who are decent candidates to convert to editors.
BirgitteSB
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 10, 2011, at 10:48 AM, James Alexander jalexander@wikimedia.org wrote:
I totally agree with Steven and I think we really want to make this easier (especially for small edits). I use a nice app called "Wiki Edit" on my Ipad (along with some random editing on the browser) which is actually pretty nice (and handles wiki text well given the limitations). It works for basically any mediawiki wiki. http://www.wikieditapp.com/
James
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jun 9, 2011, at 8:23 PM, "K. Peachey" p858snake@gmail.com wrote
Why couldn't you edit it with the normal web browser in the iPad
I could edit from a browser, but it was rather difficult. That difficulty wasn't really important, but just what motivated me to look for an app. The issue I was writing about was what I found when searched the app store for "Wikipedia". People using many "wikipedia apps" can't edit because most of the apps don't support editing. And these apps have a lot of ratings and there are a variety of them. So people must be using them.
BirgitteSB _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- James Alexander Community Fellow Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I forgot to say there are not website bugs, so much as browser bugs. Or just an extremely different interface. Perhaps a great mobile browser could be built to effectively kill apps. But is not something website changes could address. IMHO
BirgitteSB
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 10, 2011, at 6:14 PM, Birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
Yes I eventually found that app. And it is much superior to editing from the browser. But it doesn't support ProofreadPage extension. Still between the app and browser it is definitely workable with two edits. My concern is much more that the reading/navigation experience seems to be driving people to these apps which strip out all of the editing and maybe even WMF messaging. And these people must be genuinely interested in Wikipedia to download a special app for it. Probably people who are decent candidates to convert to editors.
BirgitteSB
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 10, 2011, at 10:48 AM, James Alexander jalexander@wikimedia.org wrote:
I totally agree with Steven and I think we really want to make this easier (especially for small edits). I use a nice app called "Wiki Edit" on my Ipad (along with some random editing on the browser) which is actually pretty nice (and handles wiki text well given the limitations). It works for basically any mediawiki wiki. http://www.wikieditapp.com/
James
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jun 9, 2011, at 8:23 PM, "K. Peachey" p858snake@gmail.com wrote
Why couldn't you edit it with the normal web browser in the iPad
I could edit from a browser, but it was rather difficult. That difficulty wasn't really important, but just what motivated me to look for an app. The issue I was writing about was what I found when searched the app store for "Wikipedia". People using many "wikipedia apps" can't edit because most of the apps don't support editing. And these apps have a lot of ratings and there are a variety of them. So people must be using them.
BirgitteSB _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- James Alexander Community Fellow Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
James - Wiki Edit is pretty nice. Is this a one-man project by Don Kosak?
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
Yes I eventually found that app. And it is much superior to editing from the browser. But it doesn't support ProofreadPage extension. Still between the app and browser it is definitely workable with two edits. My concern is much more that the reading/navigation experience seems to be driving people to these apps which strip out all of the editing and maybe even WMF messaging. And these people must be genuinely interested in Wikipedia to download a special app for it. Probably people who are decent candidates to convert to editors.
This is definitely a problem. New readership is growing much faster on mobile and tablet devices, and we don't have a single channel for them to participate in the edting/reading/communicating community, as you say.
On the positive side, we can find out a lot about people based on what tool they are using to visit and browse the site, so we can directly encourage them to become editors, or to download better apps/tools for using the projects.
SJ
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
James - Wiki Edit is pretty nice. Is this a one-man project by Don Kosak?
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
Yes I eventually found that app. And it is much superior to editing from the browser. But it doesn't support ProofreadPage extension. Still between the app and browser it is definitely workable with two edits. My concern is much more that the reading/navigation experience seems to be driving people to these apps which strip out all of the editing and maybe even WMF messaging. And these people must be genuinely interested in Wikipedia to download a special app for it. Probably people who are decent candidates to convert to editors.
This is definitely a problem. New readership is growing much faster on mobile and tablet devices, and we don't have a single channel for them to participate in the edting/reading/communicating community, as you say.
+1 And this is something that I think about A LOT. This is why were laying down the engineering work right now to make it much simpler to build out browser based community, editing, and reading features. Our current setup of the Ruby gateway has scaled much better then we could have ever expected but its also complicated our operations setup, required extra time to port any features over to ruby, and generally required a whole separate development cycle to build out anything mobile related. Over the last two months we've hired a dedicated mobile engineer, ported the gateway, reached out to community members, and ran an intensive research study to help us where we should be focusing our resources. The community has also been busy working on mobile. We've seen both and Android and iOS app show up for uploading images to commons.
I fully believe that mobile development is a key strategic area for us to reach new contributors and I'm super happy that were taking it seriously. It's going to mean experimenting and trying lots of new and old things to see what works best.
Looking at apps vs browser I'm really eager to reach as many people as possible and these days there is nothing as ubiquitous and standards compliant as a web browser. Most phones have them and even if their a pain in the ass to develop for they've allowed us to reach so many people. That being said, apps provide a very interesting place to experiment with different ways of both presenting and interacting with content. As others have pointed out on this thread there are a number of really novel approaches to visualizing Wikipedia content and I think we can learn a lot from them. Not all of them are collaborative and thus won't fit into our strategy but ones like WikEdit do and i'd love to see more examples like them. Were going to learn a lot from their approaches and vice versa.
It's going to take working with both ends to really understand what works best and I'm eager to see it.
As always .. come by to our mobile project pages on meta at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Projects and let us know how we can best iterate and improve.
2011/6/14 Tomasz Finc tfinc@wikimedia.org:
As always .. come by to our mobile project pages on meta at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Projects and let us know how we can best iterate and improve.
I see no mention there of a roadmap for mobile editing, which I think was the main issue BirgitteSB raised. Do you have a plan for that in the future?
Thanks, Strainu
Totally,
Getting the platform in place is step one. Next we get to prioritize surfacing more reading features vs. adding more editing features. I'll add a calendar of what the current discussions have looked like so that everyone can easily see them.
--tomasz
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:32 AM, Strainu strainu10@gmail.com wrote:
2011/6/14 Tomasz Finc tfinc@wikimedia.org:
As always .. come by to our mobile project pages on meta at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mobile_Projects and let us know how we can best iterate and improve.
I see no mention there of a roadmap for mobile editing, which I think was the main issue BirgitteSB raised. Do you have a plan for that in the future?
Thanks, Strainu
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
I am getting ready do to a little traveling. It works out that traveling light is going to be my best bet for various reasons. As I don't want to carry around the weight of a laptop; I have purchased a little closer to the cutting edge than I generally do. In setting up my iPad this is what shocked me. It is near impossible to edit a wiki. Well that wasn't to worrisome. I figured "there's an app for that". I searched "Wikipedia" and was presented with a large selection of apps that basically hide the fact that the websites are even editable. They offer helpful things to using the wiki on small screen wrt to TOC and general navigation, but they also strip out all the edit links. After specifically searching for edit, I found one app that made it possible to edit from iPad without pulling my hair out. [1].
The whole trend is a bit worrisome. Ever since I got the device I really don't want to use my laptop. I thought I would hate typing anything on it. But it not bad at all (and I am the sort to make sure and buy laptops with full-size keyboards). People are going use the free apps so long as WM wikis are hard to navigate natively. We will never convert readers to editors if they reading with the editing interface stripped away. Do these apps for read-only Wikipedia even support the central-notice? I am not sure. Some seem to completely convert the website to a magazine appearance; some seem more like sleek web-browser.
I can't help but think that WMF does't jump in soon with an inexpensive app which solves the difficulties of navigation while preserving the facets of the site that are important to WMF, it will be harder to recover the losses if this trend of hardware takes hold. I imagine an official WMF app would get some sort of preference when searching "wikipedia" in the App Store, which is why I really think the foundation might want to attend to this.
BirgitteSB
Birgitte,
You are absolutely correct.
Just as an additional option for Wikipedians who use the iPad, I'd point out this little trick that makes it easier to edit from the browser: http://blog.tommorris.org/post/5662997343/custom-css-for-wikipedia-on-ipad
There are a whole host of opportunities and risks on mobile for Wikimedia. You've clearly been thinking about this, so I think it would be helpful if you could add your ideas to the relevant Talk pages on strategy wiki.[1] [2] If you could write in detail about your experiences with the iPad that would be helpful to the mobile team I'm sure, as a case study in user experience.
I completely share your fears about Wikipedia in an app-centric world. In general I'm glad to say that I hear all the time at the Foundation about what the mobile team is doing.
This isn't iPad-relevant per se, but they're in the middle of rewriting the mobile site and making sure that all mobile browsers actually redirect there. Another thing that will make things better is that Kul is hiring a person to develop partnerships with mobile businesses. That means that, with both app makers and big companies like carriers, we will have more of a fighting chance to make our feelings about edit buttons, donations, proper licensing attribution, and other issues heard. There are lots more, but if you have ideas please share.
Steven
1. http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Product_Whitepaper 2. http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mobile
Hello Birgitte,
Those same worries came up in me when I saw a video about the "Discover" app: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DSBEmkeUzQ
In a contribution to http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Kurier/Ausgabe_7_2010 I compared those new apps with the clones around 2005, with the difference, that the apps are a more serious threat because they look much better than the original Wikipedia site. In those apps you don't see the edit button, the donate button nor the site notice. Even in Safari, the Apple browser, on an iPhone or iPad you usually don't see the left side bar with the donate button.
I wonder whether in future we must take more, say, intrusive action to make people see the donate features...
Kind regards Ziko
2011/6/10 Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com:
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
I am getting ready do to a little traveling. It works out that traveling light is going to be my best bet for various reasons. As I don't want to carry around the weight of a laptop; I have purchased a little closer to the cutting edge than I generally do. In setting up my iPad this is what shocked me. It is near impossible to edit a wiki. Well that wasn't to worrisome. I figured "there's an app for that". I searched "Wikipedia" and was presented with a large selection of apps that basically hide the fact that the websites are even editable. They offer helpful things to using the wiki on small screen wrt to TOC and general navigation, but they also strip out all the edit links. After specifically searching for edit, I found one app that made it possible to edit from iPad without pulling my hair out. [1].
The whole trend is a bit worrisome. Ever since I got the device I really don't want to use my laptop. I thought I would hate typing anything on it. But it not bad at all (and I am the sort to make sure and buy laptops with full-size keyboards). People are going use the free apps so long as WM wikis are hard to navigate natively. We will never convert readers to editors if they reading with the editing interface stripped away. Do these apps for read-only Wikipedia even support the central-notice? I am not sure. Some seem to completely convert the website to a magazine appearance; some seem more like sleek web-browser.
I can't help but think that WMF does't jump in soon with an inexpensive app which solves the difficulties of navigation while preserving the facets of the site that are important to WMF, it will be harder to recover the losses if this trend of hardware takes hold. I imagine an official WMF app would get some sort of preference when searching "wikipedia" in the App Store, which is why I really think the foundation might want to attend to this.
BirgitteSB
Birgitte,
You are absolutely correct.
Just as an additional option for Wikipedians who use the iPad, I'd point out this little trick that makes it easier to edit from the browser: http://blog.tommorris.org/post/5662997343/custom-css-for-wikipedia-on-ipad
There are a whole host of opportunities and risks on mobile for Wikimedia. You've clearly been thinking about this, so I think it would be helpful if you could add your ideas to the relevant Talk pages on strategy wiki.[1] [2] If you could write in detail about your experiences with the iPad that would be helpful to the mobile team I'm sure, as a case study in user experience.
I completely share your fears about Wikipedia in an app-centric world. In general I'm glad to say that I hear all the time at the Foundation about what the mobile team is doing.
This isn't iPad-relevant per se, but they're in the middle of rewriting the mobile site and making sure that all mobile browsers actually redirect there. Another thing that will make things better is that Kul is hiring a person to develop partnerships with mobile businesses. That means that, with both app makers and big companies like carriers, we will have more of a fighting chance to make our feelings about edit buttons, donations, proper licensing attribution, and other issues heard. There are lots more, but if you have ideas please share.
Steven
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2011/6/10 Birgitte_sb@yahoo.com:
In setting up my iPad this is what shocked me. It is near impossible to edit a wiki. Well that wasn't to worrisome. I figured "there's an app for that".
I hate the whole idea of "apps" for accessing websites through iPhone, iPad, Android, OVI or whatever. And i hate it with a passion. Websites should be accessed through web browsers, not through a custom app for every website and for every brand of mobile device.
Please report any difficulties with reading or editing Wikipedia through your regular mobile web browser in Bugzilla ( http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org ). If you never reported bugs through Bugzilla, it may be a bit intimidating at first, but this is the right thing to do for our websites and for the whole movement.
There's also the Mobile Feedback mailing list ( https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-feedback-l ), where people who don't use Bugzilla report bugs quite often.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com "We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace." - T. Moore
You are third person to respond as if my email was about me personally looking for help editing. And the second to snip my writing out of all context. Steven seemed to actually get what my concern was. You can hate whatever you like, or dislike as the case may be. It is not going to help WMF reach all the people who will be using apps despite your opinion. I don't need any help, as I have figured out a workable solution. There are thousands of people, going by the ratings number, that are consuming Wikipedia in way that will make it very difficult to convert them editors and possibly even to communicate with them through banners. That is what concerns me.
BirgitteSB
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 10, 2011, at 12:58 PM, "Amir E. Aharoni" amir.aharoni@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
2011/6/10 Birgitte_sb@yahoo.com:
In setting up my iPad this is what shocked me. It is near impossible to edit a wiki. Well that wasn't to worrisome. I figured "there's an app for that".
I hate the whole idea of "apps" for accessing websites through iPhone, iPad, Android, OVI or whatever. And i hate it with a passion. Websites should be accessed through web browsers, not through a custom app for every website and for every brand of mobile device.
Please report any difficulties with reading or editing Wikipedia through your regular mobile web browser in Bugzilla ( http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org ). If you never reported bugs through Bugzilla, it may be a bit intimidating at first, but this is the right thing to do for our websites and for the whole movement.
There's also the Mobile Feedback mailing list ( https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-feedback-l ), where people who don't use Bugzilla report bugs quite often.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com "We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace." - T. Moore
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 11 June 2011 00:27, Birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
You are third person to respond as if my email was about me personally looking for help editing. And the second to snip my writing out of all context. Steven seemed to actually get what my concern was. You can hate whatever you like, or dislike as the case may be. It is not going to help WMF reach all the people who will be using apps despite your opinion. I don't need any help, as I have figured out a workable solution. There are thousands of people, going by the ratings number, that are consuming Wikipedia in way that will make it very difficult to convert them editors and possibly even to communicate with them through banners. That is what concerns me.
+1
This is the actual problem.
What would happen to a Bugzilla entry flagging systemic problems of the sort Birgitte flags? It would get marked INVALID in short order.
- d.
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 5:55 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
This is the actual problem.
What would happen to a Bugzilla entry flagging systemic problems of the sort Birgitte flags? It would get marked INVALID in short order.
I'm not sure this is true. What about a Bugzilla tag flagging such problems? There are many of them, they need to be prioritized because each could be a large topic, and they take effort to convert into smaller fixable problems.
SJ
2011/6/12 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 11 June 2011 00:27, Birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
You are third person to respond as if my email was about me personally looking for help editing. And the second to snip my writing out of all context. Steven seemed to actually get what my concern was. You can hate whatever you like, or dislike as the case may be. It is not going to help WMF reach all the people who will be using apps despite your opinion. I don't need any help, as I have figured out a workable solution. There are thousands of people, going by the ratings number, that are consuming Wikipedia in way that will make it very difficult to convert them editors and possibly even to communicate with them through banners. That is what concerns me.
+1
This is the actual problem.
What would happen to a Bugzilla entry flagging systemic problems of the sort Birgitte flags? It would get marked INVALID in short order.
I'm not talking about systemic problems. A particular bug saying "It's hard/impossible to edit Wikipedia using device X, because the Save button is too small" is perfectly valid. Even if it's a bug in the browser of that device - that's what upstream is for. I have at least one example of productive communication between MediaWiki developers and Mozilla developers [1] and i'm sure that there's more.
An app may be a temporary solution when all else fails, but submitting to this ecosystem, which causes the proliferation of non-standard, over-customized and often proprietary solutions is not the way to go.
[1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=629878
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com "We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace." - T. Moore
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org