Hi. Back in April, Birgitte discussed some of her frustrations about the lack of implementation of software features at Wikisource. Since then, it looks like things have improved a great deal. Back then, Birgitte listed 5 important requests:
A. Labled Section Transclution (at least en and he) http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5881 http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Labeled_Section_Transclusion (stable)
B. DjVu support for ProofreadPage (general) http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7957
C. DynamicPageList (at least en and de) http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8563 http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:DynamicPageList (stable)
D. WikiTeX (general for sheet music) http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1792
E. Also Stable Versions, but that should be a priority outside of Wikisource. If Stable Version never happens, we might want revive Protect Section as substitute. http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs
Of these five features, (B) has been debugged and fully implemented on all Wikisource wikis thanks to the fantastic efforts of ThomasV. (E) has indeed become a priority outside Wikisource, and is slated to become the next major software change for Mediawiki on **all** projects (see the Extension Page, its talk, and the Mediawiki Roadmap: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_roadmap
In my opinion, once (E) is implemented, and especially in conjunction with Proofread Page (already active), the valid concerns about the reliability of texts in our wiki environment may be put to rest, and Protect Section will no longer be necessary.
That leaves us with just three left. Two of them, namely (A) Labeled Section Transclusion and (D) WikiTeX for sheet music, both of which seem to be very basic, flexible tools that should be enabled for all Wikisource languages.
ThomasV, might you be able to use your SVN access to help with some of these?
As for (C), DynamicPageList, can someone remind me when this was requested for Wikisource and why? (I'm not saying it's not useful, I just don't remember.)
Dovi
--------------------------------- Get your own web address. Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
The english Wikipedia continues it's downward spiral. There is no accountability for administrators, I was even blocked last month without even being told I was doing anything wrong beforehand. We really need to make certain the en.WP institutes a yearly re-confirmation process like we use at en.WS. Their current policies cannot be allowed to continue. . .
Now although the facts above are all true I have no wish see this sort of conversation here. Neither do I like the current conversation on their list.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-June/074922.html
I personally am refusing to take part in that discussion on that list, just as I would work to put the brakes on a conversation similar to my example. But others may feel differently so I feel you should be alerted to it.
BirgitteSB
____________________________________________________________________________________ Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=...
On second thought I am over-reacting a bit. When jossi said he would discussing it on the mailing list, I was shocked that he meant the en.WP mailing list. But his actual post there is more about linking to such documents from wikipedia as anything else. Which is something they should discuss. I had read the post before but for some reason it struck me as much more inappropriate intially than it does on a second reading.
BirgitteSB
--- Birgitte SB birgitte_sb@yahoo.com wrote:
The english Wikipedia continues it's downward spiral. There is no accountability for administrators, I was even blocked last month without even being told I was doing anything wrong beforehand. We really need to make certain the en.WP institutes a yearly re-confirmation process like we use at en.WS. Their current policies cannot be allowed to continue. . .
Now although the facts above are all true I have no wish see this sort of conversation here. Neither do I like the current conversation on their list.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-June/074922.html
I personally am refusing to take part in that discussion on that list, just as I would work to put the brakes on a conversation similar to my example. But others may feel differently so I feel you should be alerted to it.
BirgitteSB
____________________________________________________________________________________
Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=...
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/
Birgitte SB wrote:
The english Wikipedia continues it's downward spiral. There is no accountability for administrators, I was even blocked last month without even being told I was doing anything wrong beforehand. We really need to make certain the en.WP institutes a yearly re-confirmation process like we use at en.WS. Their current policies cannot be allowed to continue. . .
I don't think that yearly re-confirmation will solve en.WP's problems. It might get rid of people who have had long absences, but they are not the ones causing the problems. A rogue admin can do a lot of damage long before the time for his annual review comes up. Wikisource is still small enough that you can see what admins are doing, and you can more easily deal with a rogue. That doesn't scale very well in a larger project where there are entire sub-communities of rogues.
Ec
Ray Saintonge schreef:
Birgitte SB wrote:
The english Wikipedia continues it's downward spiral. There is no accountability for administrators, I was even blocked last month without even being told I was doing anything wrong beforehand. We really need to make certain the en.WP institutes a yearly re-confirmation process like we use at en.WS. Their current policies cannot be allowed to continue. . .
I don't think that yearly re-confirmation will solve en.WP's problems. It might get rid of people who have had long absences, but they are not the ones causing the problems. A rogue admin can do a lot of damage long before the time for his annual review comes up. Wikisource is still small enough that you can see what admins are doing, and you can more easily deal with a rogue. That doesn't scale very well in a larger project where there are entire sub-communities of rogues.
Ec
A yearly re-confirmation exists on the dutch Wikipedia. There are now 82 sysops.
The are divided in to 4 groups. In the first round users can object against a sysop. The idea is that users evaluate the actions of those sysops and discuss problems. In really that does not really happen. A couple of difficult users object against a sysop and that is it, without any interest to discuss it rational.
Sysops who get objections go to a second round. The others are re-confirmed for one year. In the second round the sysops who have received objections need to be re-elected. The need to get 75% support, what the same is a for becoming a sysop.
I can not remember that ever someone has lost the re-election, if some have it is very rarely. The classic situation is that a very low number of users, mostly the ones who always get in to trouble and annoy people, frequently object against several sysops. And then everybody needs to re-elected them, mostly with very high % of support.
It does happen frequently that sysops who come up for re-confirmation use that opportunity to give up there self there sysop status.
On NL lose inactive sysops also there status after some time without any further procedure.
The concept of reconfirmation I find good but it gives a lot of administrative work to organize those reconfirmation procedures. And the procedure is also often abused be objecting against people by a few that results in a second round so that the community needs to vote again.
--- Walter Vermeir walter@wikipedia.be wrote:
Ray Saintonge schreef:
Birgitte SB wrote:
The english Wikipedia continues it's downward
spiral.
There is no accountability for administrators, I
was
even blocked last month without even being told I
was
doing anything wrong beforehand. We really need
to
make certain the en.WP institutes a yearly re-confirmation process like we use at en.WS.
Their
current policies cannot be allowed to continue. .
.
I don't think that yearly re-confirmation will
solve en.WP's problems.
It might get rid of people who have had long
absences, but they are not
the ones causing the problems. A rogue admin can
do a lot of damage
long before the time for his annual review comes
up. Wikisource is
still small enough that you can see what admins
are doing, and you can
more easily deal with a rogue. That doesn't scale
very well in a larger
project where there are entire sub-communities of
rogues.
Ec
A yearly re-confirmation exists on the dutch Wikipedia. There are now 82 sysops.
The are divided in to 4 groups. In the first round users can object against a sysop. The idea is that users evaluate the actions of those sysops and discuss problems. In really that does not really happen. A couple of difficult users object against a sysop and that is it, without any interest to discuss it rational.
Sysops who get objections go to a second round. The others are re-confirmed for one year. In the second round the sysops who have received objections need to be re-elected. The need to get 75% support, what the same is a for becoming a sysop.
I can not remember that ever someone has lost the re-election, if some have it is very rarely. The classic situation is that a very low number of users, mostly the ones who always get in to trouble and annoy people, frequently object against several sysops. And then everybody needs to re-elected them, mostly with very high % of support.
It does happen frequently that sysops who come up for re-confirmation use that opportunity to give up there self there sysop status.
On NL lose inactive sysops also there status after some time without any further procedure.
The concept of reconfirmation I find good but it gives a lot of administrative work to organize those reconfirmation procedures. And the procedure is also often abused be objecting against people by a few that results in a second round so that the community needs to vote again.
-- Contact: walter AT wikizine DOT org Wikizine.org - news for and about the Wikimedia community English - Deutsch - Español - Indonesia
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
That is a good procedure to keep in mind as en.WS grows. Right now there are so few sysops that the procedure is quite informal with single-round quaterly reconfirmations. I don't believe an active sysop has ever had a single complaint. So it pretty much is only used to weed out inactive sysops so far.
BirgitteSB
____________________________________________________________________________________ It's here! Your new message! Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
That is a good procedure to keep in mind as en.WS grows. Right now there are so few sysops that the procedure is quite informal with single-round quaterly reconfirmations. I don't believe an active sysop has ever had a single complaint. So it pretty much is only used to weed out inactive sysops so far.
BirgitteSB
Correction we don't do quaterly votes, but "regular" votes :)
Birgitte SB
____________________________________________________________________________________
It's here! Your new message! Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
___________________________________________________________________________________ You snooze, you lose. Get messages ASAP with AutoCheck in the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_html.html
On 6/15/07, Dovi Jacobs dovijacobs@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi. Back in April, Birgitte discussed some of her frustrations about the lack of implementation of software features at Wikisource. Since then, it looks like things have improved a great deal. Back then, Birgitte listed 5 important requests:
A. Labled Section Transclution (at least en and he) http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5881 http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Labeled_Section_Transclusion (stable)
B. DjVu support for ProofreadPage (general) http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7957
C. DynamicPageList (at least en and de) http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8563 http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:DynamicPageList (stable)
D. WikiTeX (general for sheet music) http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1792
E. Also Stable Versions, but that should be a priority outside of Wikisource. If Stable Version never happens, we might want revive Protect Section as substitute. http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs
Of these five features, (B) has been debugged and fully implemented on all Wikisource wikis thanks to the fantastic efforts of ThomasV. (E) has indeed become a priority outside Wikisource, and is slated to become the next major software change for Mediawiki on **all** projects (see the Extension Page, its talk, and the Mediawiki Roadmap: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki_roadmap
In my opinion, once (E) is implemented, and especially in conjunction with Proofread Page (already active), the valid concerns about the reliability of texts in our wiki environment may be put to rest, and Protect Section will no longer be necessary.
That leaves us with just three left. Two of them, namely (A) Labeled Section Transclusion and (D) WikiTeX for sheet music, both of which seem to be very basic, flexible tools that should be enabled for all Wikisource languages.
ThomasV, might you be able to use your SVN access to help with some of these?
As for (C), DynamicPageList, can someone remind me when this was requested for Wikisource and why? (I'm not saying it's not useful, I just don't remember.)
Dovi
For a couple of these (namely Labeled Section Transclusion and WikiTex), I
think our best bet would be to keep kindly reminding a developer that these features are requested by a Wikimedia community--especially LST, as a potentially large project is waiting in limbo (and hopefully hasn't died during the wait) for this to be implemented before it goes any further.
I can't exactly remember why DPL was requested, but I think it was to be able to add more power to our categorization scheme, since en:ws has been trying to make as much use of categories as it can. I believe it was to help us be able to find authors who were "17th century English horror writers" by finding the which authors were in the "17th century writers," "English writers," and "horror writers" categories. A functionality like that would really make finding authors and works who fit specific criteria very helpful.
Zhaladshar
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 08:22:37 -0500, Ryan Dabler wrote:
[orig thread removed]
For a couple of these (namely Labeled Section Transclusion and WikiTex), I
think our best bet would be to keep kindly reminding a developer that these features are requested by a Wikimedia community--especially LST, as a potentially large project is waiting in limbo (and hopefully hasn't died during the wait) for this to be implemented before it goes any further.
As far as I know, the only thing needed for LST is for someone like Brion or Tim to do a final code review and give the OK. As they tend to be busy, they may need to be reminded from time to time. If anyone does and finds anything that needs fixed, you can post at
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension_talk:Labeled_Section_Transclusion
-Steve
wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org