hey all!
I set up a wiki for myself and would like to use the wiki category feature.
They don't seem to work out of the box. I put things like the following in
my documents:
[[Category:People]]
Now I wish to have a category page that shows all the documents of the
Category people, how can I make that work?
thanks a lot,
stan wiechers
September 15 no longer feels so far away... (crossposting to wikipedia-l).
As to other versions of the release : Do you think it is worth
creating a simple, one-paragraph version for the tiny languages, in
which we may not be able to find someone conversant in both that
language and english? Will there be separate HTML and text-only
versions again?
I copied the en: page to [[m:How to distribute a press release]], and
added a few FAQ at the end. For the meta page, it would be nice to get
information on distributing press releases from people outside the
US... I imagine it is rather different in Japan, for example.
--Sj
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 07:22:41 -0700, Michael Snow
<wikipedia(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
> The press release is now in its final version. The text has been frozen
> should not be edited any further. If you have started translating the
> press release already, please update your translation to reflect the
> final version.
>
> If the press release has not been translated into your language yet,
> please post an announcement on your Wikipedia asking for someone who can
> do that. Translation is being coordinated at:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Translation_requests/PR-1mil
>
> Different languages may add content that would be of local interest to
> media in that language. I would recommend that any such additions be
> kept brief, so that the overall press release is not too long.
>
> We are still planning for the press release to start going out on
> September 15 when we reach one million articles. Thank you to everyone
> who has helped so far, and to everyone who will help when it comes time
> to distribute the press release as well.
--
+sj+
http://tinyurl.com/4df8s
Hello all,
I am happy to announce that a Wikimedia newsletter is underway. The
plan is to publish it online next week, then lay it out for print
publication. You can see an outline of the first issue here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Newsletter_(outline)
We are looking for a managing editor in each language, a lead
copyeditor, a print editor, and a community reporter. If you would
like to work on the newsletter in any capacity, please leave a note on
the talk page, or email me directly.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Newsletter
Everyone is encouraged to suggest content; particularly compelling
wiki-statistics, notes about local wikiprojects, symbolic articles
(preferably from the [[meta:List of articles all languages should
have]], and 'feature-quality' in more than one language) and images
for the gallery. Please leave suggestions for newsletter content on
the discussion page above.
We also need translators, and proofreaders in each language. You can
follow the translation effort or contribute to it here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Translation_requests/NL-1
Rundschreiben der Wikimedia
Wikimedia newsletter
Boletín de noticias de Wikimedia
Lettre de diffusion de Wikimedia
ウィキメディア広報誌
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Translation_requests/NL-1
Wer Lust hat, sich an der deutschen (oder anderen) Fassung zu
beteiligen, schreibt bitte an meta.sj(a)gmail.com
If you would like to help translate or edit the newsletter, please
send mail to meta.sj(a)gmail.com
Si Usted quiere traducir entre español y otro idioma, o corregir en
español, favor de mandar un email a meta.sj(a)gmail.com.
Si vous voulez faire une traduction ou rédacter en français,
écrivez-nous a meta.sj(a)gmail.com.
日本語への翻訳、日本語からの翻訳や、
日本語での編集作業を手伝っていただける方はmeta.sj(a)gmail.xn--com-u63b3a4a5b7b6byd5nri11b9dykl273d.
=====
On the subject of translations, I want to repeat Michael Snow's notice
of the press release being prepared in honor of the one millionth
Wikipedia article. Please spread the word, and help us translate this
into every one of our hundred+ languages (currently we only have
translations in 15). Note that the original is still being edited, and
is not yet ready for release.
Globale Presseerklärung (millionstel Seite)
Global press release (millionth article)
Lanzamiento de prensa global (millonésimo artículo)
Communiqué de presse global (millionième article)
１００万記事達成の全世界向けプレスリリース
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Translation_requests/PR-1mil
This is also a good time to think of local newspapers and radio
stations that you could contact about the announcement (it's not too
early to start contacting them now). For a list of organizations
contacted earlier this year, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Press_releases/Logbook
September cheer,
Sj
On nl:wikipedia a valid reason for the deletion of pictures is that they
are not used. I have asked at "the kroeg" that they should not be
deleted in anticipation of WikiCommons.
Andre Engels asked me why I thought that there will be a WikiCommons as
both he and I have so far been given the cold shoulder treatment on
WikiCommons. His question is fair. What do I base my trust on that there
will be in the near future a WikiCommons ?
Question:
*Should these pictures be deleted from nl:wikipedia ?
*When will there be a place where we can upload material that is not
used on nl:wikipedia and that will be eventually available in WikiCommons ?
Thanks,
GerardM
I think it would be a good idea to have the information in a tab
called "Metrics", which could have those numbers, as well as the
number of unique authors, and number of edits. (And of course some
heuristic to filter out effects from edit wars, etc.)
BTW, this is the recent experiment that has caused the latest buzz:
http://www.frozennorth.org/C2011481421/E652809545/index.html
Note that each of the five articles used in this person's experiment
are very low traffic - one had only three authors and four edits,
another had two authors and two edits. Certainly it was not
Wikipedia's finest hour, but he certainly chose (and if an appropriate
word, cherrypicked) the right ones to highlight the weaknesses.
Articles were: Layzie Bone; Magni; Empuries; Philipsburg, PA; Bernice
Johnson Reagon
-Andrew (User:Fuzheado)
On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 11:20:05 -0400, Alex Krupp <amk63(a)cornell.edu> wrote:
> On the top of each Wikipedia article should be two things: The time
> since each article was last edited and the average number of views
> that article gets per day. This would form a rough system of
> accountability for every article. For example, a page that hasn't
> been edited in twenty days and gets over a hundred views per days
> would be likely to contain fewer errors than a page that was last
> edited three days ago and gets four views per day.
>
> This way one could even come up with a simple heuristic combining the
> two statistics so that editors could surf through articles looking
> for the ones most likely to contain mistakes. One could also surf
> through the articles least likely to contain mistakes as an
> admittedly imperfect although useful way of finding articles to
> nominate for 1.0. I know you can check all of the edits and their
> dates through the edit history, but there is no easy way for the
> average user to check how many views any given page gets. This could
> potentially go a great way for increasing the amount of faith the
> average population has in Wikipedia.
>
> Also, I should mention this has been inspired by the recent
> controversy involving the article by Al Fasoldt and the subsequent
> discussion on this list and now slashdot.
>
> Alex Krupp
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> Wikipedia-l(a)Wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
--
Andrew Lih
andrew.lih(a)gmail.com
On the top of each Wikipedia article should be two things: The time
since each article was last edited and the average number of views
that article gets per day. This would form a rough system of
accountability for every article. For example, a page that hasn't
been edited in twenty days and gets over a hundred views per days
would be likely to contain fewer errors than a page that was last
edited three days ago and gets four views per day.
This way one could even come up with a simple heuristic combining the
two statistics so that editors could surf through articles looking
for the ones most likely to contain mistakes. One could also surf
through the articles least likely to contain mistakes as an
admittedly imperfect although useful way of finding articles to
nominate for 1.0. I know you can check all of the edits and their
dates through the edit history, but there is no easy way for the
average user to check how many views any given page gets. This could
potentially go a great way for increasing the amount of faith the
average population has in Wikipedia.
Also, I should mention this has been inspired by the recent
controversy involving the article by Al Fasoldt and the subsequent
discussion on this list and now slashdot.
Alex Krupp
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_meetuphttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedian_meetings_in_Europe
Many meetings took place in Europe and US. Some are
reported on meta, but not all of them. Could those who
participated to these meetings list them on meta
(place, date and notable events if appropriate, plus
relevant links to local project with all the great
pictures and name of participants) so we could track
of all this ?
Thanks in advance.
ant
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
Mathias Schindler wrote:
> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/archives/000674.html
>
> "Until I read the Microsoft-case page, I was ready to declare Wikipedia
> a clear success. Now I'm not so sure. Yes, that page will improve over
> time; but new pages will be added. If the present state of Wikipedia is
> any indication, most of them will be very good; but a few will lead
> high-school report writers astray."
HAH.
The Microsoft anti-trust case article was majorly rewritten at some
point by [[User:Brian Kendig]]. At the time I was watching him a little,
and I noticed his re-writing of this article. It stuck out to me as
being majorly POV and possibly factually inaccurate.
Now, I wasn't (and still am not) an expert in this field, so I didn't
know what facts to dispute, but at least I could cry "POV!". I tagged
the article as having its neutrality disputed and attempted to begin a
discussion on the talk page.
The NPOV dispute tag was simply removed, and I was told "You can't
simply mark an article as disputed; you have to point out what exactly
you are disputing." I said I was disputing the entire article, but I was
ignored.
Timwi
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/archives/000674.html
"Until I read the Microsoft-case page, I was ready to declare Wikipedia
a clear success. Now I'm not so sure. Yes, that page will improve over
time; but new pages will be added. If the present state of Wikipedia is
any indication, most of them will be very good; but a few will lead
high-school report writers astray."