Erik Moeller schrieb:
> A ticket system would offer quite a few advantages over a simple mailing
> list: 1) no duplicate effort, 2) no need for spamming your inbox, just do
> everything through a single web interface, 3) easily expand the team of
> "agents", with different categories and associated user rights.
> Essentially a Bugzilla for emails.
We've been talking about a ticket system in the German press team, and most
people support it's use, though it would be less open. But it would be less
chaotic, too. ATM some questions get answered twice, others might be overlooked
between all the spam and viruses (especially a virus filter would be a big (!)
improvement for the people answering the info(a)wikipedia.de mails).
> This system here looks interesting:
> http://otrs.org/
> http://otrs.org/screenshot/
Another system which has been mentioned is
http://www.bestpractical.com/rt/
A newsletter software would also be quite useful, especially for sending out
press releases. We could use mailman, but a specialized software would do the
job much better. PHPlist seems to be popular:
http://tincan.co.uk/phplist
Kurt
>
>
>Apologies if I missed a post, but why is the internal search down?
>_______________________________________________
>Wikitech-l mailing list
>Wikitech-l(a)wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
If search is enabled during peak hours, wikipedia is down :)
We wait for the dedicated search server.
shaihulud
Normally I would weigh in for making wikipedia.is a REDIRECT only and
against your suggestion to move the show from is.wikipedia.org to
wikipedia.is. After all, there is merit in the current, somewhat
uniform XYZ.wikipedia.org setup, which e.g. allows switching language
Wikipedias by editing the address line.
However, seeing your unique reasons (if it really is as "bad" as you
say) maybe the best option would be to make wikipedia.is and
is.wikipedia.org mirrors? If you really want to "keep it in the
country", you'd maybe have to host the mother lode in Iceland anyway.
Or would that be too traffic intensive and problematic as far as edit
conflicts?
-- Jens
On 6 Sep 2004, at 16:05, wikitech-l-request(a)wikimedia.org wrote:
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 14:17:12 +0200
> From: ?var Arnfj?r? Bjarmason <avarab(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: [Wikitech-l] A domain for is.wikipedia.org, wikipedia.is
>
> Our reasons for wanting a domain are threefold, first none-.is domains
> are generally shunned in Iceland for aesthetic reasons, .com, .net and
> .org domains are generally associated with something
> none-professional, no corporation or respected institute would use
> them. Second is the charge for foreign downloads in Iceland is about
> $3 per 100MB, this of course is measured by IP addresses and not by
> TLD's however the general misconception among the general population
> is the opposite, for this reason many do not visit none-.is sites when
> they approach their download limit which ranges from 100MB to 4GB for
> common ASDL connections (going from 100MB to 4GB cost about $50).
> Third the Icelandic wikipedia does not show up in many Icelandic
> searches, most notably not by leit.is (a search engine used by
> technophobes) and by "$query site:is" on google, though it should be
> noted that passing the hl=is option to google will turn up
> is.wikipedia.org. This only happens when using the Icelandic google
> interface which many do not use (mainly because it's outdated, doesn't
> list news, froggle and others).
----- Forwarded message "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales(a)wikia.com> ----
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2004 09:08:21 -0700
From: "Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales" <jwales(a)wikia.com>
Subject: Re: toplist for most common wikipedia "not found" queries
To: vtulimak(a)hytti.uku.fi
Can you send this to wikitech-l mailing list, it is a good idea.
vtulimak(a)hytti.uku.fi wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> How about a top-1000 list for most commonly searched queries that did not
> return any search results? A special table for this to database. Top 1000
> because some of most common typos would end up quite high in that chart. This
> way people could provide the information that is most needed by wikipedia
users.
>
> cheers,
> Ville Tulimäki
>
----- end of forwarded message -----
I am working on uploading the GEMET data into Wiktionary. The GEMET data
does specify who phrased the defention to a term (they are typically
institutions). From a GNU-FDL point of view we need to attribute where
this infomation came from.
There are three ways of doing this:
*Upload them with a "GEMET" user so that the source is them and not me
and have the source in there as text.
*Upload them with a user depending of the institution that defined the term
*Upload them with my own user, and have the source GEMET and the
institution in text.
Personally I think the second one is the most correct. The consequence
is however that many users will be created. Any other ideas ??
Thanks,
GerardM
David-
> More, it was submitted to Slashdot by the vandal in question.
> "In this experiment, I painted graffiti on the walls of the local school.
> It's not vandalism, though, as I'm blogging about it. It was just to test
> the response times of the janitorial staff. I suggest you all try what I
> did to prove it for yourself."
While I'm not too happy with what he did, I do hope that it breathes some
fresh life into the peer review discussion. The two core weaknesses of
Wikimedia are people acting like assholes and people who don't know what
they're talking about. If we systematically review and flag particular
revisions of articles, we can create a space within which they do not
exist.
The validation system which is currently in CVS is only a rating system
and doesn't really help in sorting out individual facts. I'm afraid that
as a sole measure, it would contribute to the problem rather than solve
it, as people grow eager to push articles through quality control and
choose high ratings. These articles then attain a false notion of being
authoritative. Similarly, controversial articles might never gain such
status because some people don't like their content.
There's an interesting project going on here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fact_and_Reference_Check
Like the participants in this project, I've been thinking a bit about ways
to mark-up individual facts in articles. Essentially, I want to take a
text like
The inscription is approximately 15 metres high by 25 metres wide, and
100 metres up a cliff from an ancient road connecting the capitals of
Babylonia and Media (Babylon and Ecbatana).
and mark up parts of it, like so:
??The inscription is approximately 15 metres high by 25 metres wide??
"??..??" means that this part of the article needs a source. Using CSS,
all passages marked with "??" could be highlighted or not, depending on
personal preferences.
or like this:
^+The inscription is approximately 15 metres high by 25 metres wide
[[Source:Behistun, p.84]]
The part starting with "^+" would be referenced by the [[Source:]]. There
could be different markup for different quality citations, e.g. ^- for a
general encyclopedia or Google citation and ^= for a secondary source
citation.
The [[Source:]] namespace could be a magic template-type namespace that
would load the bibliographical data from a page and insert it into a
footnote, so we don't have to keep inserting the same information.
Using a method like this, we have real semantic information about
individual facts and can easily make statements like
* 80% of the facts in this article have sources
* 40% of the sources we cite are of high quality
* Source X is used in Y articles
Of course these claims themselves could be faked. But together with
stable-revision flagging and a consensus-based peer review process
associated with every page, we could try to do for quality what we've done
for quantity. If you wanted to, you could view only articles that have
been reviewed and that are deemed 100% accurate.
Regards,
Erik
People have different ideas about what is minor, or they just never mark
edits as minor. Why not just make it automatic, so you can be sure?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Minor_edit calls minor edits
"spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text". These
could be automatically detected and marked as minor edits, along with a
summary (basically, a one-line diff), eg. "oldespeling -> newspelling" or
"title text -> '''title text'''".
Rules for marking minor edits could go something like this:
1) All edits by anonymous users are major (same rule as now)
2) A change of 5 words or less, not next to each other or in the same
sentence, is minor.
3) Any number of formatting changes (italics, tables, header levels etc) is
minor.
4) Everything else is major.
Hello
I made a proposal for how we could handle this tricky
issue on
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Developer_payment.
I invite you to read it and to comment if you wish :-)
My belief is that it is a decent compromise between
all the wishes expressed (well, at least I hope).
I remind you that this is a trial, not a permanent
decision.
The plain idea is
* that the opportunity is taken to clean up and
organise better a couple of pages (such as
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Development_tasks)
* to avoid bureaucracy.
**If an editor or the foundation wishes for a task to
be done, just ask
**If a developer is ready to take care of a matter,
just mentions it on development task. If he would be
interested by getting in contract, please mentions it
on [[development payment proposal]] (or any title you
think best)
*to always ensure that this task is welcome by the
entire community (please discuss it before on mailing
lists or meta)
*to ensure that this task makes consensus amongst the
developers (hence the involvment of the developer
committee - no task will be paid for, which will go
against the general direction set by the developers,
or is technically nonsensical)
*to ensure that this task is interesting the
foundation (hence, the decision to pay or not for a
task will be made by the board)
Refining the proposal is welcome. Otherwise,
basically, this is in your hands now. The basic
structure is there, use it or do not use it :-)
ant
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
I would like to set up a wiki with rather structured content.
A guiding structure with Toplinks/Sublinks seems to be missing from what I
could see so far.
What I would like to do, is to introduce/implement a navigation bar, which
contains all the Top- and Sublinks. And if possible the active link
(current site) should be highlighted.
This should thereby _not_ be part of the content area but on the side.
This may be rather a CMS approach than what a wiki system is designed for,
therefore I would like to hear from you experts if this is possible at all.
To give you an idea what I mean (though this side will definetly not be a
wiki in the future, just the technique)
http://www.cqa.de/weiterbildungsangebote/
Matthias
---------------------------------
www.matthiaspospiech.de