Witajcie!
Natrafiłem dziś przez przypadek na artykuł tyczący się między innymi
regulacji prawnych w Polsce (konkretnie ograniczeń prędkości jazdy):
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ograniczenia_pr%C4%99dko%C5%9Bci_wg_kraju
Dla niezorientowanych w skrócie: w lutym 2009 Sejm zaproponował
podniesienie od maja 2010 dozwolonej prędkości na autostradach do 140
km/h, a na drogach szybkiego ruchu do 120 km/h. Zmiany te jednak
cofnął Trybunał Konstytucyjny w październiku 2009 (rok temu).
Po szybkim wycofaniu zmian sprawdziłem jak się ma to na innych
Wikipediach i słowem wolę nie wiedzieć ilu turystów z zagranicy
musiało się tłumaczyć, że w Wiki był błąd (i ile "gazetek"
motoryzacyjnych to podchwyciło). W skrócie:
tylko na włoskiej i czeskiej było po staremu, czyli dobrze;
wg fińskiej i holenderskiej wolno jeździć szybciej (poprawiłem);
wg 2 artów na en.wiki, 3 artów fr.wiki, po 1 na de.wiki; ru.wiki i
sv.wiki - zmiany weszły w życie jak planowano w maju 2010
(ale figurowały dwie prędkości) (też już poprawiłem).
Stąd wniosek i moja prośba - jeżeli poprawiacie duże merytoryczne
zmiany w jakimś artykule tyczącym się Polski, sprawdźcie co
powypisywali w podlinkowanych interwikami artykułach.
PS: Przy okazji okryłem coś co może być rozwiązaniem do dyskusji, które
niedawno się tu toczyły nt. "konwertera jednostek":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Convert
który zamienia między innymi km/h na mph.
--
Pozdrowienia,
Wiher
Może kogoś to zainteresuje:
----
Jeszcze tylko do 20 października (włącznie) trwa rekrutacja do
projektu "Cyfrowe Archiwa Tradycji Lokalnej", organizowanego przez
Ośrodek KARTA, niezależną organizację pozarządową od lat zajmującą się
dokumentowaniem i upowszechnianiem najnowszej historii Polski i Europy
Środkowo-Wschodniej.
Nasz projekt polega na budowaniu przez bibliotekarzy i lokalnych
aktywistów historycznych tzw. "Cyfrowego Archiwum Tradycji Lokalnej" -
archiwum społecznego, zbierającego, digitalizującego i
udostępniającego online świadectwa indywidualne (pamiętniki,
wspomnienia, listy itd.), zdjęcia oraz inne dokumenty historii
lokalnej. Na każdym etapie projektu uczestnicy mogą liczyć na
merytoryczne wsparcie ze strony Ośrodka KARTA.
Osią projektu jest biblioteka - miejsce, w którym digitalizowane,
udostępniane i promowane będą materiały archiwalne dotyczące historii
lokalnej. W naszym projekcie bibliotekarz pełni rolę inicjatora i
koordynatora działań, przekazuje też wiedzę o metodach digitalizacji
zdobytą na szkoleniach.
Podczas szkoleń dla bibliotekarzy będziemy mówić także o Wikipedii,
zachęcając ich do nawiązywania współpracy z Wikipedystami, których
chcemy już teraz zaprosić do zainteresowania się naszym projektem. W
bibliotece biorącej udział w naszym projekcie znajdziecie nie tylko
sprzęt umożliwiający skanowanie dokumentów i fotografii, ale także
pomoc w zakresie digitalizacji, opisu dokumentów archiwalnych i
podstaw prawa autorskiego.
Prosimy też o zachęcenie pracowników waszych lokalnych bibliotek do
udziału w naszej inicjatywie. Lista bibliotek znajduje się na stronie
http://archiwa.org
Więcej informacji: pod numerem telefonu 22 844 10 55 lub 663 028 361
oraz mailowo: a.kudelka(a)karta.org.pl.
Marcin Wilkowski
----
--
Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerekhttp://www.ganicz.pl/poli/http://www.ptchem.lodz.pl/en/TomaszGanicz.html
Z listy fundacji
przykuta
> Hi everyone,
>
> I wanted to take a moment to bring you up to date on the planning of
> the 2010-2011 fundraiser, and ask once again for your participation in
> the process. Our updated meta pages (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010
> ) will give you an overview as well. There's a lot of information
> here, because we've made huge progress: I hope you'll take the time to
> read it and join in the planning for the fundraiser.
>
> There's no doubt about it: the appeal from Jimmy Wales is a strong
> message. We've tested it head-to-head against other banners, and the
> results [1] are unequivocal - especially when you also compare its
> performance last year and the year before.
>
> But nobody wants to just put Jimmy up on the sites and leave him up
> for two months!
>
> So we're issuing a challenge: Find the banner that will beat Jimmy.
>
> Data informed conclusions
> Here's the trick:
> We have to make our decisions based on the facts, not our instinct.
> Please read the summaries below for really important details from our
> focus group and survey of past donors.
>
> Focus Group
> Wikimedia conducted a focus group of past donors in the New York City
> area in September 2010. It's important to note that this was a single
> focus group, and in a single city. We'll need to do more to make sure
> that results correlate universally. But we came out of it with a few
> important take-away points. It's important to realize that these
> points reflect ONLY donors - they should not be read as a wider
> feeling about mission or strategic direction - they're messaging
> points to help us refine and deliver the best messages possible.
>
> ** The most powerful image is of Wikipedia as a global community of
> people who freely share their knowledge and self-police the product.
> For everyone who participated, the idea of a global community of
> people sharing knowledge that is accessible to anyone who wants it
> free of charge is incredibly powerful. Respondents in this group were
> highly unlikely to be editors themselves; most consider themselves
> users. They love the idea of the community and want to support it, but
> they are reluctant to put themselves out there by being more than a
> user and a donor.
>
> ** Keeping the projects ad-free is a powerful motivator.
> Respondents were unanimous that keeping Wiki[m\p]edia ad free should
> be a priority, even if it meant that Wiki[m\p]edia would be
> approaching them for money more often. Accepting paid ads could
> corrupt the values and discourage the free flow of information.
>
> ** Independence is critically important.
> These respondents consume a lot of media, and they place a high
> premium on the free flow of information. They have little patience
> for “sponsored” news or information that excludes other perspectives.
> The Wikimedia model of openness and community engagement facilitates
> that.
>
> ** It’s a cause because it’s a tool.
> This may sound a bit like a chicken/egg argument, but it’s actually an
> important nuance. These folks use Wikimedia every day for things from
> simple curiosities to serious research. So it’s a tool that lets them
> get what they need. But it has grown to 17 million articles in 270
> languages. Because it has that kind of depth and it reaches so many
> people around the world, it’s worth protecting what the community so
> successfully built. And that makes it a cause too.
>
> ** Growing isn’t always a good thing, when positioning for donors.
> Like many tech savvy folks, our respondents are a suspicious lot. The
> idea of Wikimedia growing brings up concerns about what Wikimedia
> would become, and fears about the path of companies like Facebook.
> It’s not just a privacy concern; it’s a concern about what would
> happen to the democratic model of Wikimedia inside a growth strategy.
> Supporting the organic growth of the community doesn’t raise the same
> concerns.
>
> ** Supporters strongly reject any agenda being attached to Wikimedia,
> even when that agenda would extend the current offerings.
> An agenda implies ownership, and respondents feel pretty strongly that
> the community owns Wikipedia. They think of Wikipedia as an organic
> thing, not like a typical nonprofit, and any attempt to steer it would
> disrupt that. Community support is one of the key values, and not
> everyone in the community would support new initiatives.
>
> ** There is room to fundraise more aggressively.
> Across the board, respondents were surprised that they didn’t have the
> opportunity to give to Wikimedia more often. Obviously, there is a
> balance and a PBS-style solicitation schedule wouldn’t make sense both
> for Wikimedia’s personality and for this audience, but there is much
> more space available than we are taking.
>
> ** Wikimedia donors are highly suspicious of marketing gimmicks.
> Simple, direct messages are likely to work best. Jimmy’s message
> worked not so much because he was the founder, but because it was a
> simple plea for support delivered authentically.
>
> As we know, that’s something that also needs quantitative testing to
> prove. Sometimes donor response in a focus group and donor activity
> don’t line up exactly. But, some things already line up with early
> tests. The more gimmicky the banner, the less likely it is to drive
> donations even if it increases clicks.
>
> Reaction to banners like “572 have donated in New York today” also
> raised concerns about privacy – not a good reaction in an already
> suspicious audience. Appeals to “keep us growing” or that highlight a
> contributor’s work raise earlier concerns about an agenda.
>
> Donor Survey Highlights
> Wikimedia produced a random sample of 20,000 individuals from the much
> larger number of individuals, from many countries, contributing less
> than $1000 between November 1 2009 and June 30 2010. These individuals
> were invited to participate in a 29 item (but around 70 question)
> survey. 3760 agreed to participate, and the survey was conducted in
> August 2010. The participants probably differ from those who declined
> in ways that are associated with survey answers. Hence the respondents
> do not represent an entirely representative sample of the < $1000
> donors.
>
> The survey participants are committed to Wiki[p/m]edia, visiting it
> frequently. They say that they are very likely to donate again, and
> they support all the survey-mentioned reasons for donation. They were
> not aware of Wikipedia chapters. A majority of respondents did not
> appear greatly concerned about possible threats to Wikipedia’s identity.
> About 1/3 of these individuals have edited, though not frequently.
> Those who express more support for Wikimedia as a cause appear more
> prone to edit. Those who have not contributed in this way say mostly
> that they haven’t thought about it--suggesting that they haven’t
> really considered the possibility—or that they don’t have time.
> Europeans and the highly educated especially stress lack of time.
>
> Some subgroup differences were found within the sample. The likelihood
> of writing or editing does vary a bit by subgroup, for example.
> Overall, however, responses did not vary greatly by subgroup, whether
> “demographic” (nationality, education, sex) or behavioral (e.g.,
> degree of on-line activity).
>
> * The full details of the survey can be found at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FR_Donor_survey_report.pdf
> * A short overview can be found at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Donor_survey_report_excerpts.pdf
> .
>
> Chapters
> Chapters will receive the specifics of how we will work with them
> through their fundraising contacts which were designated on the
> fundraising survey, in order to keep the information communicated here
> to the essentials.
>
> Testing
> We have been testing for ten weeks now, and are really pleased with
> the progress that the tech team has made with new tools to support the
> fundraiser. Geotargetting appears to work now, and we are currently
> testing a 1 step versus 2 step donation process. We will have solid
> test results this week, we believe. In all, we believe that we are -
> technically and message-wise - in a really good position. We're
> working out kinks, definitely, but we're working them out before the
> fundraiser starts, so that we can maximize the dollar-earning
> potential of every day that we have banners up.
>
> We need you
> From the very beginning, Zack charged me with presenting the most
> collaborative fundraiser yet. I'm thrilled at the level of
> involvement from the community, in everything from banner creation to
> testing structure, to design, to actually sitting on our test
> fundraisers with us in virtual conferences and being a full
> participating member of the team. We're reporting out frequently, and
> trying very hard to engage with members of the community. We have
> dedicated staff who are outreaching to our various language wikis in
> an attempt to get ever more broad participation. I strongly encourage
> you to join in the discussions at the meta pages about the
> fundraiser: /http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/FR2010. Your involvement
> is not just appreciated - it's crucial.
>
> Thanks for sticking through this email - join us in discussion and
> help us beat the Jimmy appeal!
>
> Thanks,
> Philippe
>
>
> [1] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2010/Banner_testing#Test_six_
> :_September_23rd.2C_2010
> ____________________
> Philippe Beaudette
> Head of Reader Relations
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> philippe(a)wikimedia.org
>
> Imagine a world in which every human being can freely share in
> the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
>
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
1. Otwórz hasło:
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perryton_%28Teksas%29
2. Edytuj
3. Zobacz listę 20 tysięcy szablonów flag wyświetloną pod polem edycji
Chyba zaczynamy przesadzać z tymi zagnieżdżonymi szablonami...
Pozdrawiam
Zureks
Tytuł strony nawiązuje do enwikizmu. Żeby nie było tak, że "a u was biją Murzynów", przedstawiłem taką oto wizję pl wiki:
http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polwikizm
przy okazji utworzyłem szablon do oznaczania haseł polonocentycznych. Jest tego trochę, a ze względu, ze nie ma tam pochwał, gloryfikacji, a tylko pisanie z polskiej perspektywy - wydają się być ok. No, nie do końca ok, szczególnie gdy się kliknie w interwiki.
przykuta
