I have fixed it per Amir's comment. It makes sense, and we should use this note on every wiki we close - i.e. site we serve read-only.
Thank you.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
2014-03-09 11:14 GMT+02:00 matanya matanya@foss.co.il:
I have fixed it per Amir's comment. It makes sense, and we should use this note on every wiki we close - i.e. site we serve read-only. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
But we close wiki. We not set wiki read only. Why should we use another therm than the procedure is called? And also if follow the ask's logic - shan't it worry the hypothetical noob who doesn't know clearly what's "wiki" that Wikipedia has been set read only? For me it sounds not less armagedonically. --Base 09.03.2014 11:14, matanya написав(ла):
I have fixed it per Amir's comment. It makes sense, and we should use this note on every wiki we close - i.e. site we serve read-only. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 1:49 AM, Bohdan Melnychuk base-w@yandex.ru wrote:
But we close wiki. We not set wiki read only. Why should we use another therm than the procedure is called?
Because what we DO (no matter what we call it) is set it as Read Only, it is still 100% accessible you just can't edit it. I think it does make sense that 'read-only' is more understandable then 'close' which sounds like we completely shut it off and you can't read it either.
James
Is it *just *can't edit? I believe at least we can't create a new acc in there. Closing is more then setting read only. We should use proper therms instead of those that more understandable by noobs. --Base
09.03.2014 12:12, James Alexander написав(ла):
On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 1:49 AM, Bohdan Melnychuk base-w@yandex.ru wrote:
But we close wiki. We not set wiki read only. Why should we use another therm than the procedure is called?
Because what we DO (no matter what we call it) is set it as Read Only, it is still 100% accessible you just can't edit it. I think it does make sense that 'read-only' is more understandable then 'close' which sounds like we completely shut it off and you can't read it either.
James _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 3:24 AM, Bohdan Melnychuk base-w@yandex.ru wrote:
Is it *just *can't edit? I believe at least we can't create a new acc in there. Closing is more then setting read only. We should use proper therms instead of those that more understandable by noobs. --Base
Well, then we can disagree on this. I don't believe 'closed' is any more correct then 'read only' and I believe we should always strive to keep language as understandable as possible to as many people as possible. We don't always succeed, but we can always get better.
James
Makes sense to me too. Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Alexander" jamesofur@gmail.com To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 12:12 PM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] the big red notice on the top of http://strategy.wikimedia.org - done
On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 1:49 AM, Bohdan Melnychuk base-w@yandex.ru wrote:
But we close wiki. We not set wiki read only. Why should we use another therm than the procedure is called?
Because what we DO (no matter what we call it) is set it as Read Only, it is still 100% accessible you just can't edit it. I think it does make sense that 'read-only' is more understandable then 'close' which sounds like we completely shut it off and you can't read it either.
James _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Closed isn't the best word, but do most people know what 'read only' means?
From: peter.southwood@telkomsa.net To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 12:32:56 +0200 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] the big red notice on the top of http://strategy.wikimedia.org - done
Makes sense to me too. Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Alexander" jamesofur@gmail.com To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 12:12 PM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] the big red notice on the top of http://strategy.wikimedia.org - done
On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 1:49 AM, Bohdan Melnychuk base-w@yandex.ru wrote:
But we close wiki. We not set wiki read only. Why should we use another therm than the procedure is called?
Because what we DO (no matter what we call it) is set it as Read Only, it is still 100% accessible you just can't edit it. I think it does make sense that 'read-only' is more understandable then 'close' which sounds like we completely shut it off and you can't read it either.
James _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Probably not. How about 'archived'?
Thanks, Mike
On 10 Mar 2014, at 22:22, User Mono usermono@outlook.com wrote:
Closed isn't the best word, but do most people know what 'read only' means?
From: peter.southwood@telkomsa.net To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 12:32:56 +0200 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] the big red notice on the top of http://strategy.wikimedia.org - done
Makes sense to me too. Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Alexander" jamesofur@gmail.com To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 12:12 PM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] the big red notice on the top of http://strategy.wikimedia.org - done
On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 1:49 AM, Bohdan Melnychuk base-w@yandex.ru wrote:
But we close wiki. We not set wiki read only. Why should we use another therm than the procedure is called?
Because what we DO (no matter what we call it) is set it as Read Only, it is still 100% accessible you just can't edit it. I think it does make sense that 'read-only' is more understandable then 'close' which sounds like we completely shut it off and you can't read it either.
James _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Why not? People know what the words 'read' and 'only' mean. Putting them together should be pretty self explanatory: It can only be read.
On 10/03/14 22:32, Michael Peel wrote:
Probably not. How about 'archived'?
Thanks, Mike
On 10 Mar 2014, at 22:22, User Mono usermono@outlook.com wrote:
Closed isn't the best word, but do most people know what 'read only' means?
From: peter.southwood@telkomsa.net To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 12:32:56 +0200 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] the big red notice on the top of http://strategy.wikimedia.org - done
Makes sense to me too. Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Alexander" jamesofur@gmail.com To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 12:12 PM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] the big red notice on the top of http://strategy.wikimedia.org - done
On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 1:49 AM, Bohdan Melnychuk base-w@yandex.ru wrote:
But we close wiki. We not set wiki read only. Why should we use another therm than the procedure is called?
Because what we DO (no matter what we call it) is set it as Read Only, it is still 100% accessible you just can't edit it. I think it does make sense that 'read-only' is more understandable then 'close' which sounds like we completely shut it off and you can't read it either.
James _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Maybe. I worry that it is computer jargon - but perhaps what I suggested is historian jargon...
Thanks, Mike
On 10 Mar 2014, at 22:33, Isarra Yos zhorishna@gmail.com wrote:
Why not? People know what the words 'read' and 'only' mean. Putting them together should be pretty self explanatory: It can only be read.
On 10/03/14 22:32, Michael Peel wrote:
Probably not. How about 'archived'?
Thanks, Mike
On 10 Mar 2014, at 22:22, User Mono usermono@outlook.com wrote:
Closed isn't the best word, but do most people know what 'read only' means?
From: peter.southwood@telkomsa.net To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 12:32:56 +0200 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] the big red notice on the top of http://strategy.wikimedia.org - done
Makes sense to me too. Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Alexander" jamesofur@gmail.com To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 12:12 PM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] the big red notice on the top of http://strategy.wikimedia.org - done
On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 1:49 AM, Bohdan Melnychuk base-w@yandex.ru wrote:
But we close wiki. We not set wiki read only. Why should we use another therm than the procedure is called?
Because what we DO (no matter what we call it) is set it as Read Only, it is still 100% accessible you just can't edit it. I think it does make sense that 'read-only' is more understandable then 'close' which sounds like we completely shut it off and you can't read it either.
James _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 3/10/2014 3:36 PM, Michael Peel wrote:
Maybe. I worry that it is computer jargon - but perhaps what I suggested is historian jargon...
It's not so much jargon that's the problem - it's that nearly all websites are read-only, and to some visitors it will be rather puzzling why we should go out of our way to highlight that aspect for this one.
--Michael Snow
On 10 Mar 2014, at 22:42, Michael Snow wikipedia@frontier.com wrote:
On 3/10/2014 3:36 PM, Michael Peel wrote:
Maybe. I worry that it is computer jargon - but perhaps what I suggested is historian jargon...
It's not so much jargon that's the problem - it's that nearly all websites are read-only, and to some visitors it will be rather puzzling why we should go out of our way to highlight that aspect for this one.
True. But is that a feature or a bug?
Thanks, Mike
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org