-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Do WMF want enwp.org? Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 15:58:37 -0500 From: aude aude.wiki@gmail.com aude.wiki@gmail.com Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.orgfoundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.orgfoundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Thomas Wang tl-lomas@hotmail.com tl-lomas@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi!
If WMF want enwp.org I will gladly hand it over.
Thank you for running this service! I use it all the time for including wikipedia links in Twitter.
It would be nice if it was officially supported by WMF or you were given resources necessary to maintain the service.
Hi, Thomas!
Really appreciate the offer! We've been talking about this for a few months now; it's a great tool used by a lot of us here. We'll talk to a few folks from the tech team and see how they can help.
Thanks again!
Cheers, Moka
Cheers, Katie (@aude)
-Thomas
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing listfoundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I preffer wp.org (if is possible) to make internationalization easier. So to en.wiki would be "en.wp.org", de.wiki "de.wp.org" and etc. _____ *Béria Lima (Beh) *
2011/2/16 Moka Pantages mpantages@wikimedia.org
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Do WMF want enwp.org? Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 15:58:37 -0500 From: aude aude.wiki@gmail.com aude.wiki@gmail.com Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org<
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org> To:
Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org<
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Thomas Wang tl-lomas@hotmail.com <
tl-lomas@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi!
If WMF want enwp.org I will gladly hand it over.
Thank you for running this service! I use it all the time for including wikipedia links in Twitter.
It would be nice if it was officially supported by WMF or you were given resources necessary to maintain the service.
Hi, Thomas!
Really appreciate the offer! We've been talking about this for a few months now; it's a great tool used by a lot of us here. We'll talk to a few folks from the tech team and see how they can help.
Thanks again!
Cheers, Moka
Cheers, Katie (@aude)
-Thomas
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing listfoundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Cheers, Moka
Moka Pantages 415.839.6885 x 635 @moka _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
I preffer wp.org (if is possible) to make internationalization easier. So to en.wiki would be "en.wp.org", de.wiki "de.wp.org" and etc.
That would be a good thing to have, yes. However, what already exists and, what is owned by Thomas, is enwp.org. :-) Thomas is just offering something that's already being used actively so that the Foundation can ensure it's up for a long time.
+1 Thanks, Thomas :)
2011/2/16 Casey Brown lists@caseybrown.org
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
I preffer wp.org (if is possible) to make internationalization easier.
So to
en.wiki would be "en.wp.org", de.wiki "de.wp.org" and etc.
That would be a good thing to have, yes. However, what already exists and, what is owned by Thomas, is enwp.org. :-) Thomas is just offering something that's already being used actively so that the Foundation can ensure it's up for a long time.
-- Casey Brown Cbrown1023
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:27 PM, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
I preffer wp.org (if is possible) to make internationalization easier. So to en.wiki would be "en.wp.org", de.wiki "de.wp.org" and etc.
For the record (sorry I'm late btw :P), I had independently contacted the owners of wp.org shortly before this thread came up, and they basically said that even though they supported Wikipedia (they had even donated in the past), the domain has too much potential value (WordPress, the Washington Post, etc) for them to hand it over.
I also thought about this multi-language facet of Wikimedia, which is further aggravated by the existence of multiple projects. That is, even wp.org would have problems too, since we'd then need to get one for wikinews, commons, etc. The best solution would be IMO getting the domain * wi.ki*, since this could be adapted either through prefixes (i.e., subdomains, such as en.wi.ki) or suffixes (e.g. wi.ki/en) for languages and/or project codes. In addition to that we could generate links as the current shorteners do, like wi.ki/x23yz.
Now, the wi.ki domain at first seems to be unused, but http://whois.nic.kireveals it is registered at least until 9 Jan 2012, by domaininfo.com. A search on that page reveals that wi.ki is not available for registration, but seems to be buyable for 696 €. We could contact them and ask for a partial donation, but it would work best if the request comes from the WMF itself. Before figuring it was already registered, I sent an email to organization that manages the .KI domain. The text of that email might be useful for this effect: http://pastebin.com/L0v6uz1i
Here's a quote from that message that points out some of the advantages of having these short urls: * *
*"[Wikipedia] links are often long and hard to read (for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=.ki&oldid=408287624 ), which makes them not only inconvenient, but also prone to reproduction errors. Since the practice of citation is such a critical component of journalism and scientific publication, minimizing this risk would bring very significant benefits for scholars, journalists, and even users who want to share links in social media.*
So, who supports that we request them a donation of that domain? And is anyone from the WMF willing to send them the request? (Moka?)
It's fine if the tech team doesn't want to manage the domain; I'm sure plenty of volunteers could offer to do that. But it we'd be much more likely to get it in the first place if the request is made officially by the WMF.
So what do you guys think?
Waldir
I looked into this once...the domain price was quite steep or I would have gotten it. However, a donation might be possible.
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Waldir Pimenta waldir@email.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:27 PM, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
I preffer wp.org (if is possible) to make internationalization easier. So to en.wiki would be "en.wp.org", de.wiki "de.wp.org" and etc.
For the record (sorry I'm late btw :P), I had independently contacted the owners of wp.org shortly before this thread came up, and they basically said that even though they supported Wikipedia (they had even donated in the past), the domain has too much potential value (WordPress, the Washington Post, etc) for them to hand it over.
I also thought about this multi-language facet of Wikimedia, which is further aggravated by the existence of multiple projects. That is, even wp.org would have problems too, since we'd then need to get one for wikinews, commons, etc. The best solution would be IMO getting the domain * wi.ki*, since this could be adapted either through prefixes (i.e., subdomains, such as en.wi.ki) or suffixes (e.g. wi.ki/en) for languages and/or project codes. In addition to that we could generate links as the current shorteners do, like wi.ki/x23yz.
Now, the wi.ki domain at first seems to be unused, but http://whois.nic.kireveals it is registered at least until 9 Jan 2012, by domaininfo.com. A search on that page reveals that wi.ki is not available for registration, but seems to be buyable for 696 €. We could contact them and ask for a partial donation, but it would work best if the request comes from the WMF itself. Before figuring it was already registered, I sent an email to organization that manages the .KI domain. The text of that email might be useful for this effect: http://pastebin.com/L0v6uz1i
Here's a quote from that message that points out some of the advantages of having these short urls:
*"[Wikipedia] links are often long and hard to read (for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=.ki&oldid=408287624 ), which makes them not only inconvenient, but also prone to reproduction errors. Since the practice of citation is such a critical component of journalism and scientific publication, minimizing this risk would bring very significant benefits for scholars, journalists, and even users who want to share links in social media.*
So, who supports that we request them a donation of that domain? And is anyone from the WMF willing to send them the request? (Moka?)
It's fine if the tech team doesn't want to manage the domain; I'm sure plenty of volunteers could offer to do that. But it we'd be much more likely to get it in the first place if the request is made officially by the WMF.
So what do you guys think?
Waldir _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Back to the issue at hand though: Thomas is (quite generously) offering the enwp.org domain. Would the foundation like to have it?
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 6:58 AM, Mono mium monomium@gmail.com wrote:
I looked into this once...the domain price was quite steep or I would have gotten it. However, a donation might be possible.
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Waldir Pimenta waldir@email.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:27 PM, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com wrote:
I preffer wp.org (if is possible) to make internationalization easier. So to en.wiki would be "en.wp.org", de.wiki "de.wp.org" and etc.
For the record (sorry I'm late btw :P), I had independently contacted the owners of wp.org shortly before this thread came up, and they basically said that even though they supported Wikipedia (they had even donated in the past), the domain has too much potential value (WordPress, the Washington Post, etc) for them to hand it over.
I also thought about this multi-language facet of Wikimedia, which is further aggravated by the existence of multiple projects. That is, even wp.org would have problems too, since we'd then need to get one for wikinews, commons, etc. The best solution would be IMO getting the domain * wi.ki*, since this could be adapted either through prefixes (i.e., subdomains, such as en.wi.ki) or suffixes (e.g. wi.ki/en) for languages and/or project codes. In addition to that we could generate links as the current shorteners do, like wi.ki/x23yz.
Now, the wi.ki domain at first seems to be unused, but http://whois.nic.kireveals it is registered at least until 9 Jan 2012, by domaininfo.com. A search on that page reveals that wi.ki is not available for registration, but seems to be buyable for 696 €. We could contact them and ask for a partial donation, but it would work best if the request comes from the WMF itself. Before figuring it was already registered, I sent an email to organization that manages the .KI domain. The text of that email might be useful for this effect: http://pastebin.com/L0v6uz1i
Here's a quote from that message that points out some of the advantages of having these short urls:
*"[Wikipedia] links are often long and hard to read (for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=.ki&oldid=408287624 ), which makes them not only inconvenient, but also prone to reproduction errors. Since the practice of citation is such a critical component of journalism and scientific publication, minimizing this risk would bring very significant benefits for scholars, journalists, and even users who want to share links in social media.*
So, who supports that we request them a donation of that domain? And is anyone from the WMF willing to send them the request? (Moka?)
It's fine if the tech team doesn't want to manage the domain; I'm sure plenty of volunteers could offer to do that. But it we'd be much more likely to get it in the first place if the request is made officially by the WMF.
So what do you guys think?
Waldir _______________________________________________ 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
Hoi, The wp.org is probably for sale ... It makes more sense to acquire that domain. Thanks, GerardM
On 8 May 2011 15:18, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoekstra@gmail.com wrote:
Back to the issue at hand though: Thomas is (quite generously) offering the enwp.org domain. Would the foundation like to have it?
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 6:58 AM, Mono mium monomium@gmail.com wrote:
I looked into this once...the domain price was quite steep or I would have gotten it. However, a donation might be possible.
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Waldir Pimenta waldir@email.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:27 PM, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com
wrote:
I preffer wp.org (if is possible) to make internationalization easier.
So
to en.wiki would be "en.wp.org", de.wiki "de.wp.org" and etc.
For the record (sorry I'm late btw :P), I had independently contacted
the
owners of wp.org shortly before this thread came up, and they basically
said
that even though they supported Wikipedia (they had even donated in the past), the domain has too much potential value (WordPress, the
Washington
Post, etc) for them to hand it over.
I also thought about this multi-language facet of Wikimedia, which is further aggravated by the existence of multiple projects. That is, even wp.org would have problems too, since we'd then need to get one for wikinews, commons, etc. The best solution would be IMO getting the
domain *
wi.ki*, since this could be adapted either through prefixes (i.e., subdomains, such as en.wi.ki) or suffixes (e.g. wi.ki/en) for languages and/or project codes. In addition to that we could generate links as the current shorteners do, like wi.ki/x23yz.
Now, the wi.ki domain at first seems to be unused, but http://whois.nic.kireveals it is registered at least until 9 Jan 2012, by domaininfo.com. A search on that page reveals that wi.ki is not
available
for registration, but seems to be buyable for 696 €. We could contact
them
and ask for a partial donation, but it would work best if the request
comes
from the WMF itself. Before figuring it was already registered, I sent
an
email to organization that manages the .KI domain. The text of that
might be useful for this effect: http://pastebin.com/L0v6uz1i
Here's a quote from that message that points out some of the advantages
of
having these short urls:
*"[Wikipedia] links are often long and hard to read (for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=.ki&oldid=408287624 ), which makes them not only inconvenient, but also prone to reproduction
errors.
Since the practice of citation is such a critical component of
journalism
and scientific publication, minimizing this risk would bring very significant benefits for scholars, journalists, and even users who want
to
share links in social media.*
So, who supports that we request them a donation of that domain? And is anyone from the WMF willing to send them the request? (Moka?)
It's fine if the tech team doesn't want to manage the domain; I'm sure plenty of volunteers could offer to do that. But it we'd be much more
likely
to get it in the first place if the request is made officially by the
WMF.
So what do you guys think?
Waldir _______________________________________________ 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
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Although we maybe only doing this for Wikipedia, here's a few comparisons / ideas
== Projects * domains:
(subdomain) en.wp.org / Title de.wt.org / Title (de.wiktionary) c.wm.org / Title (commons.wikimedia)
(directory) wp.org / en / Title wt.org / de / Title (de.wiktionary) wm.org / c / Title (commons.wikimedia)
== Editions * Project * domains
enwp.org / Title dewt.org / Title wikimediacommons.org / Title
== 1 domain ?
(directory) wi.ki / p / en / Title (Wikipedia EN) wi.ki / t / de / Title (Wiktionary DE wi.ki / commons / Title (Wikimedia Commons)
(interwiki root) wi.ki / w:en:Title wi.ki / t:de:Title wi.ki / commons:Title
Personally, I like the 1domain-root and projects-subdomains solution. Just a few thoughts :)
-- Krinkle Op 8 mei 2011, om 15:59 heeft Gerard Meijssen het volgende geschreven:
Hoi, The wp.org is probably for sale ... It makes more sense to acquire that domain. Thanks, GerardM
On 8 May 2011 15:18, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoekstra@gmail.com wrote:
Back to the issue at hand though: Thomas is (quite generously) offering the enwp.org domain. Would the foundation like to have it?
On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 6:58 AM, Mono mium monomium@gmail.com wrote:
I looked into this once...the domain price was quite steep or I would have gotten it. However, a donation might be possible.
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Waldir Pimenta waldir@email.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:27 PM, Béria Lima berialima@gmail.com
wrote:
I preffer wp.org (if is possible) to make internationalization easier.
So
to en.wiki would be "en.wp.org", de.wiki "de.wp.org" and etc.
For the record (sorry I'm late btw :P), I had independently contacted
the
owners of wp.org shortly before this thread came up, and they basically
said
that even though they supported Wikipedia (they had even donated in the past), the domain has too much potential value (WordPress, the
Washington
Post, etc) for them to hand it over.
I also thought about this multi-language facet of Wikimedia, which is further aggravated by the existence of multiple projects. That is, even wp.org would have problems too, since we'd then need to get one for wikinews, commons, etc. The best solution would be IMO getting the
domain *
wi.ki*, since this could be adapted either through prefixes (i.e., subdomains, such as en.wi.ki) or suffixes (e.g. wi.ki/en) for languages and/or project codes. In addition to that we could generate links as the current shorteners do, like wi.ki/x23yz.
Now, the wi.ki domain at first seems to be unused, but http://whois.nic.kireveals it is registered at least until 9 Jan 2012, by domaininfo.com. A search on that page reveals that wi.ki is not
available
for registration, but seems to be buyable for 696 €. We could contact
them
and ask for a partial donation, but it would work best if the request
comes
from the WMF itself. Before figuring it was already registered, I sent
an
email to organization that manages the .KI domain. The text of that
might be useful for this effect: http://pastebin.com/L0v6uz1i
Here's a quote from that message that points out some of the advantages
of
having these short urls:
*"[Wikipedia] links are often long and hard to read (for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=.ki&oldid=408287624 ), which makes them not only inconvenient, but also prone to reproduction
errors.
Since the practice of citation is such a critical component of
journalism
and scientific publication, minimizing this risk would bring very significant benefits for scholars, journalists, and even users who want
to
share links in social media.*
So, who supports that we request them a donation of that domain? And is anyone from the WMF willing to send them the request? (Moka?)
It's fine if the tech team doesn't want to manage the domain; I'm sure plenty of volunteers could offer to do that. But it we'd be much more
likely
to get it in the first place if the request is made officially by the
WMF.
So what do you guys think?
Waldir _______________________________________________ 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
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
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 12:14 AM, Krinkle krinklemail@gmail.com wrote:
... enwp.org / Title dewt.org / Title wikimediacommons.org / Title
http://en.ws/ , http://de.ws/, etc would be lovely.
== 1 domain ?
(directory) wi.ki / p / en / Title (Wikipedia EN) wi.ki / t / de / Title (Wiktionary DE wi.ki / commons / Title (Wikimedia Commons)
(interwiki root) wi.ki / w:en:Title wi.ki / t:de:Title wi.ki / commons:Title
Personally, I like the 1domain-root and projects-subdomains solution.
I prefer that as well.
http://commons.org/ would be nice. have we tried approaching them?
-- John Vandenberg
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:58 AM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
http://commons.org/ would be nice. have we tried approaching them?
-- John Vandenberg
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Who, exactly, is in charge of domain registration at the WMF?
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 3:09 AM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:58 AM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
http://commons.org/ would be nice. have we tried approaching them?
-- John Vandenberg
Who, exactly, is in charge of domain registration at the WMF?
I believe it's Rob Halsell. I forwarded Thomas's original e-mail to him yesterday to see if he could do anything to help; we'll see what he says. :-)
But we are still going offtopic. I guess we should take the offer for enwp.org how to go forward is later business right?
Huib
2011/5/9 Casey Brown lists@caseybrown.org
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 3:09 AM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:58 AM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com
wrote:
http://commons.org/ would be nice. have we tried approaching them?
-- John Vandenberg
Who, exactly, is in charge of domain registration at the WMF?
I believe it's Rob Halsell. I forwarded Thomas's original e-mail to him yesterday to see if he could do anything to help; we'll see what he says. :-)
-- Casey Brown Cbrown1023
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Huib Laurens sterkebak@gmail.com wrote:
But we are still going offtopic. I guess we should take the offer for enwp.org how to go forward is later business right?
Yes, we should. It's useful and already fairly widely used.
-Katie
Huib
2011/5/9 Casey Brown lists@caseybrown.org
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 3:09 AM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 1:58 AM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com
wrote:
http://commons.org/ would be nice. have we tried approaching them?
-- John Vandenberg
Who, exactly, is in charge of domain registration at the WMF?
I believe it's Rob Halsell. I forwarded Thomas's original e-mail to him yesterday to see if he could do anything to help; we'll see what he says. :-)
-- Casey Brown Cbrown1023
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Kind regards,
Huib Laurens WickedWay.nl
Webhosting the wicked way. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:18 AM, Huib Laurens sterkebak@gmail.com wrote:
2011/5/9 Casey Brown lists@caseybrown.org:
I believe it's Rob Halsell. I forwarded Thomas's original e-mail to him yesterday to see if he could do anything to help; we'll see what he says. :-)
But we are still going offtopic. I guess we should take the offer for enwp.org how to go forward is later business right?
Yes, by "Thomas's original e-mail" I was referring to enwp.org.
Just create your own tld ;)
Actually, what we should be doing is asking Afilias for one of the reserved 1-letter domains: w.org. Twitter has t.co, so why not?
Ryan Kaldari
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
Just create your own tld ;)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
+1
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
Actually, what we should be doing is asking Afilias for one of the reserved 1-letter domains: w.org. Twitter has t.co, so why not?
Ryan Kaldari
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
Just create your own tld ;)
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
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Neil Harris neil@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
On 09/05/11 23:57, Platonides wrote:
Just create your own tld ;)
Sadly, .wp wouldn't pass the new gTLD process: new gTLDs must have at least three characters.
-- Neil
How about:
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Brian J Mingus brian.mingus@colorado.eduwrote:
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Neil Harris neil@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
On 09/05/11 23:57, Platonides wrote:
Just create your own tld ;)
Sadly, .wp wouldn't pass the new gTLD process: new gTLDs must have at least three characters.
-- Neil
How about:
Would many people recognize or remember "wmf"? I suspect that, in terms of brand recognition, "Wikipedia" > "Wikimedia" > "Wikimedia Foundation" > "WMF".
Kirill
On 10/05/11 00:46, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Brian J Mingusbrian.mingus@colorado.eduwrote:
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Neil Harrisneil@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
On 09/05/11 23:57, Platonides wrote:
Just create your own tld ;)
Sadly, .wp wouldn't pass the new gTLD process: new gTLDs must have at least three characters.
-- Neil
How about:
Would many people recognize or remember "wmf"? I suspect that, in terms of brand recognition, "Wikipedia"> "Wikimedia"> "Wikimedia Foundation"> "WMF".
Kirill
en.wiki or en.wikipedia would do just fine
-- Neil
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Neil Harris neil@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
On 10/05/11 00:46, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Brian J Mingus<brian.mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Neil Harrisneil@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
On 09/05/11 23:57, Platonides wrote:
Just create your own tld ;)
Sadly, .wp wouldn't pass the new gTLD process: new gTLDs must have at least three characters.
-- Neil
How about:
Would many people recognize or remember "wmf"? I suspect that, in terms
of
brand recognition, "Wikipedia"> "Wikimedia"> "Wikimedia Foundation"> "WMF".
Kirill
en.wiki or en.wikipedia would do just fine
-- Neil
Getting a .wiki TLD for our projects would be nice indeed.
Kirill
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Neil Harris neil@tonal.clara.co.ukwrote:
On 10/05/11 00:46, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Brian J Mingus<
brian.mingus@colorado.edu>wrote:
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Neil Harrisneil@tonal.clara.co.uk wrote:
On 09/05/11 23:57, Platonides wrote:
Just create your own tld ;)
Sadly, .wp wouldn't pass the new gTLD process: new gTLDs must have at least three characters.
-- Neil
How about:
Would many people recognize or remember "wmf"? I suspect that, in terms
of
brand recognition, "Wikipedia"> "Wikimedia"> "Wikimedia Foundation"> "WMF".
Kirill
en.wiki or en.wikipedia would do just fine
-- Neil
Getting a .wiki TLD for our projects would be nice indeed.
Kirill
Although, on the other hand, would this leave us too open to imitators, given that "wiki" is not a trademark? Consider the scenario of a group like, say, 4chan registering eng.wiki and filling it with assorted shock content; enough people might mistakenly visit the fake site to generate considerable bad publicity for us.
Kirill
wi.ki, on the other hand, would be safe in this regard :)
By the way, since no one at WMF offered to send the email requesting a donation/price reduction of the wi.ki domain, I'll do it as the president of Wikimedia Portugal, with my @wikimedia.pt email. Hopefully that'll give me some leverage -- only a fraction of what an email coming from an @ wikimedia.org would, but hey, it's better than nothing.
Waldir
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:54 AM, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.comwrote:
Although, on the other hand, would this leave us too open to imitators, given that "wiki" is not a trademark? Consider the scenario of a group like, say, 4chan registering eng.wiki and filling it with assorted shock content; enough people might mistakenly visit the fake site to generate considerable bad publicity for us.
Kirill _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
A while back, I think the WMF got offered the enwp.org domain for free, which is a fairly oft used shortener. Does anyone remember what ever happened to that offer?
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 1:07 AM, Waldir Pimenta waldir@email.com wrote:
wi.ki, on the other hand, would be safe in this regard :)
By the way, since no one at WMF offered to send the email requesting a donation/price reduction of the wi.ki domain, I'll do it as the president of Wikimedia Portugal, with my @wikimedia.pt email. Hopefully that'll give me some leverage -- only a fraction of what an email coming from an @ wikimedia.org would, but hey, it's better than nothing.
Waldir
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:54 AM, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.comwrote:
Although, on the other hand, would this leave us too open to imitators, given that "wiki" is not a trademark? Consider the scenario of a group like, say, 4chan registering eng.wiki and filling it with assorted shock content; enough people might mistakenly visit the fake site to generate considerable bad publicity for us.
Kirill _______________________________________________ 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
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 9:20 AM, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoekstra@gmail.com wrote:
A while back, I think the WMF got offered the enwp.org domain for free, which is a fairly oft used shortener. Does anyone remember what ever happened to that offer?
Casey has referred that to Rob Halsell.
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 6:20 PM, Martijn Hoekstra <martijnhoekstra@gmail.com
wrote:
A while back, I think the WMF got offered the enwp.org domain for free, which is a fairly oft used shortener. Does anyone remember what ever happened to that offer?
This is the thread we're discussing, which began Feb. 16.
With regards to the wi.ki domain, I asked people at the WMF back in 2009 about whether they were interested in buying it given that the owner at the time had a notice on the site saying he was willing to sell. The response came back that they were concerned it could be problematic since neither the Wikimedia community nor the WMF has a monopoly on the word "wiki" and the WMF didn't want to overstep their claim to the concept.
As a business decision it might be interesting for Wikia to purchase and use for their own sites, but that's not for us to determine.
Hope that helps, -Liam
wittylama.com/blog Peace, love & metadata
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:15 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
With regards to the wi.ki domain, I asked people at the WMF back in 2009 about whether they were interested in buying it given that the owner at the time had a notice on the site saying he was willing to sell. The response came back that they were concerned it could be problematic since neither the Wikimedia community nor the WMF has a monopoly on the word "wiki" and the WMF didn't want to overstep their claim to the concept.
I think that is a good reason to leave that alone.
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:22 PM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:15 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
With regards to the wi.ki domain, I asked people at the WMF back in 2009 about whether they were interested in buying it given that the owner at
the
time had a notice on the site saying he was willing to sell. The response came back that they were concerned it could be problematic since neither the Wikimedia community nor the WMF has a monopoly on the word "wiki" and the WMF didn't want to overstep their claim to the concept.
I think that is a good reason to leave that alone.
-- ~Keegan
It didn't get much attention, and since we've basically agreed against the .wmf TLD in addition to wi.ki, I'd like to throw my support behind Ryan Kaldari's suggestion of obtaining the w.org reserved name.
Brian Mingus Graduate student Computational Cognitive Neuroscience Lab University of Colorado at Boulder
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:28 PM, Brian Brian.Mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:22 PM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:15 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwyatt@gmail.com wrote:
With regards to the wi.ki domain, I asked people at the WMF back in
2009
about whether they were interested in buying it given that the owner at
the
time had a notice on the site saying he was willing to sell. The
response
came back that they were concerned it could be problematic since neither the Wikimedia community nor the WMF has a monopoly on the word "wiki" and
the
WMF didn't want to overstep their claim to the concept.
I think that is a good reason to leave that alone.
-- ~Keegan
It didn't get much attention, and since we've basically agreed against the .wmf TLD in addition to wi.ki, I'd like to throw my support behind Ryan Kaldari's suggestion of obtaining the w.org reserved name.
Here's an interesting bit of history from Wikipedia: http://enwp.org/Single-letter_second-level_domain
"Only 3 of the 26 possible Single letter Domains have ever been registered and this before 1992. All the other 23 Single Letter .com Domains were registered Jan 1 1992 by Jon Postelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Postel, the father of the Internet, with the intention to avoidthat a single company could commercially control a letter of the Alphabet. This makes it impossible for companies like Mc Donaldshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mc_Donalds or Deutsche Telekom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Telekom to buy their Logo "M" or "T" as an Internet address."
It seems that giving w.net/com/org to the WMF would be in line with his vision of no corporation controlling a letter.
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:33 AM, Brian J Mingus brian.mingus@colorado.eduwrote:
It seems that giving w.net/com/org to the WMF would be in line with his vision of no corporation controlling a letter.
+1 for the idealism, but I'd like to add the concept is quite silly if you consider the bulk of the internet users and their relevant care to domain names. It's pretty slim. Heck, pitchfork.com used pitchforkmedia.com for many, many years without qualms. Users see the URL and bookmark it.
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:51 PM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:33 AM, Brian J Mingus brian.mingus@colorado.eduwrote:
It seems that giving w.net/com/org to the WMF would be in line with his vision of no corporation controlling a letter.
+1 for the idealism, but I'd like to add the concept is quite silly if you consider the bulk of the internet users and their relevant care to domain names. It's pretty slim. Heck, pitchfork.com used pitchforkmedia.com for many, many years without qualms. Users see the URL and bookmark it.
-- ~Keegan
I think the advantage is that it would allow us to generalize the concept behind enwp.org, which is that we want short urls for all languages and all projects. I'm thinking along the lines of http://en.wp.w.org . From that angle I would say that short urls of this type have become rather popular. You could of course use goo.gl, but then your url is obfuscated, whereas in this case it's not.
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 1:02 AM, Brian J Mingus brian.mingus@colorado.eduwrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:51 PM, Keegan Peterzell <keegan.wiki@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:33 AM, Brian J Mingus brian.mingus@colorado.eduwrote:
It seems that giving w.net/com/org to the WMF would be in line with
his
vision of no corporation controlling a letter.
+1 for the idealism, but I'd like to add the concept is quite silly if
you
consider the bulk of the internet users and their relevant care to domain names. It's pretty slim. Heck, pitchfork.com used pitchforkmedia.comfor many, many years without qualms. Users see the URL and bookmark it.
-- ~Keegan
I think the advantage is that it would allow us to generalize the concept behind enwp.org, which is that we want short urls for all languages and all projects. I'm thinking along the lines of http://en.wp.w.org . From that angle I would say that short urls of this type have become rather popular. You could of course use goo.gl, but then your url is obfuscated, whereas in this case it's not.
-- Brian Mingus Graduate student Computational Cognitive Neuroscience Lab University of Colorado at Boulder _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I'm a fan of enwp.org as a URL shortener :) We can come up with countless possibilities for domain names, but this is one being handed to the Foundation as a well known link (we use it for helpmebot in #wikipedia-en-help on IRC). It's a starter for our flagship project.
Just a reminder, zhwp.org is also a shout url for Chinese Wikipedia which maintance by PhiLiP.
HW On 2011/5/11 (三) 2:02:34 PM
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:51 PM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.wiki@gmail.comwrote:
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:33 AM, Brian J Mingus brian.mingus@colorado.eduwrote:
It seems that giving w.net/com/org to the WMF would be in line with his vision of no corporation controlling a letter.
+1 for the idealism, but I'd like to add the concept is quite silly if you consider the bulk of the internet users and their relevant care to domain names. It's pretty slim. Heck, pitchfork.com used pitchforkmedia.com for many, many years without qualms. Users see the URL and bookmark it.
-- ~Keegan
I think the advantage is that it would allow us to generalize the concept behind enwp.org, which is that we want short urls for all languages and all projects. I'm thinking along the lines of http://en.wp.w.org . From that angle I would say that short urls of this type have become rather popular. You could of course use goo.gl, but then your url is obfuscated, whereas in this case it's not.
On 11/05/11 11:32, HW wrote:
I think the advantage is that it would allow us to generalize the concept behind enwp.org, which is that we want short urls for all languages and all projects. I'm thinking along the lines of http://en.wp.w.org . From that angle I would say that short urls of this type have become rather popular. You could of course use goo.gl, but then your url is obfuscated, whereas in this case it's not.
I can't really see en.wp.w.org (11 characters, four components, hard to remember) as being that much better than en.wikipedia.org (16 characters, three components, easier to remember, contains the Wikipedia branding).
enwp.org, on the other hand, is 8 characters long, has only two components, and is a natural contraction of en.wikipedia.org.
-- Neil
Although you do have a point here, just to be complete, the number of characters for en.wikipedia.org is of course longer. You would have to compare en.wp.w.org/Example with en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example - which makes it 12 vs 22 (+article name), which is already more significant. Of course unless someone finds a way to redirect en.wikipedia.org/Example to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example .
Best, Lodewijk
2011/5/11 Neil Harris neil@tonal.clara.co.uk
On 11/05/11 11:32, HW wrote:
I think the advantage is that it would allow us to generalize the concept behind enwp.org, which is that we want short urls for all languages and
all
projects. I'm thinking along the lines of http://en.wp.w.org . From that angle I would say that short urls of this type have become rather
popular.
You could of course use goo.gl, but then your url is obfuscated, whereas
in
this case it's not.
I can't really see en.wp.w.org (11 characters, four components, hard to remember) as being that much better than en.wikipedia.org (16 characters, three components, easier to remember, contains the Wikipedia branding).
enwp.org, on the other hand, is 8 characters long, has only two components, and is a natural contraction of en.wikipedia.org.
-- Neil
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Of course unless someone finds a way to redirect en.wikipedia.org/Example to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example .
"Did you mean to type http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example? You will be automatically redirected there in five seconds."
:-)
It already redirects there, though we don't want to advertise that we have a "link shortener" because the 404 page redirects.
Casey Brown wrote:
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Of course unless someone finds a way to redirect en.wikipedia.org/Example to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example .
"Did you mean to type http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example? You will be automatically redirected there in five seconds."
:-)
It already redirects there, though we don't want to advertise that we have a "link shortener" because the 404 page redirects.
Nobody should rely on that redirect for any purpose. The redirect is only still there because someone forgot to remove the <meta> tag when the page was last synced (https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17316).
MZMcBride
Maybe I should rephrase that into "a way to redirect nicely to..." because with the current layout I would not be very tempted to use it since it suggests one made an error. (maybe with good reason, but still)
Lodewijk
2011/5/17 Casey Brown lists@caseybrown.org
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
Of course unless someone finds a way to redirect en.wikipedia.org/Example to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example .
"Did you mean to type http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Example? You will be automatically redirected there in five seconds."
:-)
It already redirects there, though we don't want to advertise that we have a "link shortener" because the 404 page redirects.
-- Casey Brown Cbrown1023
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 05/11/2011 12:32 PM, HW wrote:
I think the advantage is that it would allow us to generalize the concept behind enwp.org, which is that we want short urls for all languages and all projects. I'm thinking along the lines of http://en.wp.w.org . From that
Since I see this popping up repeatedly, if you have an URL shortener, you want to make the URLs as short as possible. en.wp.w.org defeats the point. w.org/wen would make more sense.
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 1:33 AM, Brian J Mingus brian.mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
It seems that giving w.net/com/org to the WMF would be in line with his vision of no corporation controlling a letter.
Last I checked, WMF was a corporation.
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoekstra@gmail.com wrote:
A while back, I think the WMF got offered the enwp.org domain for free, which is a fairly oft used shortener. Does anyone remember what ever happened to that offer?
I love this service, btw. Thanks for the offer, Thomas.
SJ
Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
Back to the issue at hand though: Thomas is (quite generously) offering the enwp.org domain. Would the foundation like to have it?
Gerard Meijssen replied:
The wp.org is probably for sale ... It makes more sense to acquire that domain.
Why is this an either-or proposition?
Even if the wp.org domain name is worth acquiring (most likely at a substantial cost, as Waldir Pimenta noted), why does this mean that the Wikimedia Foundation should decline Thomas Wang's generous donation of the enwp.org domain name?
—David Levy
On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 4:20 PM, David Levy lifeisunfair@gmail.com wrote:
Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
Back to the issue at hand though: Thomas is (quite generously) offering the enwp.org domain. Would the foundation like to have it?
Gerard Meijssen replied:
The wp.org is probably for sale ... It makes more sense to acquire that domain.
Why is this an either-or proposition?
Even if the wp.org domain name is worth acquiring (most likely at a substantial cost, as Waldir Pimenta noted), why does this mean that the Wikimedia Foundation should decline Thomas Wang's generous donation of the enwp.org domain name?
—David Levy
Which already is in fairly widespread use
On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoekstra@gmail.comwrote:
Back to the issue at hand though: Thomas is (quite generously) offering the enwp.org domain. Would the foundation like to have it?
I can only guess that the tech-oriented people don't seem to fancy the idea much. From this thread we have the following (explicitly stated):
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Ashar Voultoiz hashar+wmf@free.fr wrote:
Can we please stop multiplying the number of domains? Although the registration is cheap, the administration overhead is not that cheap.
Plus the implicit indifference signaled by the absence of other inputs from the tech staff despite their being asked at least once --so we were told-- to comment on the issue.
There's also a thread about this from 2008 in wikitech, especially this message from Brion
On Sun, Jul 6, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
I strongly recommend against making links through *any* unofficial alternate domain, whether WMF owns it or not. (Perhaps especially if WMF owns it!) Sooner or later someone will forget to renew it and it'll become a squatted spam site. :)
-- brion
[source: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/wikitech/137602#137602]
Well, I don't think this should be a valid impediment. I mean, don't domain registrars send reminders when the expiration date is close? Even if they don't, can't the tech people set one themselves? There must be some sort of system already in place for the several top-level domains we already have: one for every project (which amounts to 7), plus wikimediafoundation.org, mediawiki.org, and the .com, .net variants of many of these and god knows what else (funny, mediawiki.net seems to be owned by WM-IT).
So, on one hand I can understand the resistance towards adding even more domains to that mix: the enwp.org would set a precedence for others in the same vein, and this would mean up to 7 (projects) * ~200 (languages) domains. Even if we assume only a handful of these would get enough demand to be registered, it could easily double or triple the number of domains currently managed by the WMF. In fact, if we assume only the .org domains I noted above (9 in total), adding the current shorteners I have knowledge of (enwp.org, frwp.org, enwn.net) means a 33% growth.
On the other hand, as I said, there are likely more than the 9 .org TLDs I mentioned, so there probably is (if not, should be?) an automated system of reminders or something to that effect. This system could easily be extended to add one or a few more.
Waldir
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 1:15 AM, Waldir Pimenta waldir@email.com wrote:
On the other hand, as I said, there are likely more than the 9 .org TLDs I mentioned, so there probably is (if not, should be?) an automated system of reminders or something to that effect. This system could easily be extended to add one or a few more.
Btw, if we consider the wi.ki domain, which would be the _only one_ we'd need to add for this purpose, so I really can't see any reason to not do it (except perhaps unwillingness to add to the "wiki" --> "wikipedia" misconception?)
Waldir
ps - ok, even if we didn't get a price reduction from the current owner and have to buy it for the $992 it currently costs (see https://domaininfo.com/search_result_xml.asp?domain=wi&tld=ki%C2%A4cy=US...), we would have to pay $1,000/yr for the renewal ( http://www.tak.ki/what-we-do/domain-name-registration.html), which doesn't sound very cost-effective. But you'd think an email from, say, Jimmy Wales ;) could get a price reduction from the Telecommunications Authority of Kiribati, wouldn't you? :D
pps - I just wanted to point out to a related thread, from 2010, in the Village pump: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29/Archive_...
Waldir Pimenta, 11/05/2011 02:15:
On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
Back to the issue at hand though: Thomas is (quite generously) offering the enwp.org domain. Would the foundation like to have it?
I can only guess that the tech-oriented people don't seem to fancy the idea much.
I don't think this is the main problem. enwp.org is certainly not the best solution, compared to a project domains + language subdomains or single domain one (by the way, not only w.org but also wm.org should be considered for that; we should start using our Wikimedia brand, sooner or later); but if we had a general service we could have enwp.org and so on redirect to it and all projects would still have a fair treatment, without great technical hassles. The problem is that Rob, last time I checked, was definitely not the responsible of domain acquisition, and I'm quite sure this didn't change. Domain acquisition itself has never been a priority (not even a lowest one) for the WMF. I don't know (and we never managed to understand) who decided to ignore the subject or if it's just because of a lack of legal/management staff or other unknown internal problems, but whatever the reasons, the result is that we have a lot of valuable (or less valuable) domains around, registered by individual wikimedians or chapters, unregistered or even (very very sadly) squatted by impersonators, but no strategy at all about that. The WMF could (and should) decide not to buy or take control (as trademark owner) of all possible domains which can or have been requested (10 second level domains multiplied by 2-3 hundreds TLDs plus hundreds of shortcut domains etc. etc. makes a problem), but it should definitely define some priority. This hasn't happened for years even for blatantly higher priority squatted domains (there's a list on Internal wiki) and I don't expect it will happen soon just to provide URL shorteners, therefore the only hope you have is to ask chapters, which maintain hundreds of domains to help users. Luckily, they don't need to be the trademark owner if the owner of the domain is willing to transfer it.
Nemo
On 16/02/11 23:06, Moka Pantages wrote:
If WMF want enwp.org I will gladly hand it over.
Thank you for running this service! I use it all the time for including wikipedia links in Twitter.
It would be nice if it was officially supported by WMF or you were given resources necessary to maintain the service.
Really appreciate the offer! We've been talking about this for a few months now; it's a great tool used by a lot of us here. We'll talk to a few folks from the tech team and see how they can help.
Just for info, Wikimedia CH registered frwp.org a few months ago, and we provide redirects to the corresponding fr.wikipedia.org articles. I am happy that WM CH can help by providing this tiny but useful service, but it could also fit within a global shortcut tool for all languages, managed by the WMF tech team.
Frédéric
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org