Il 17/10/22 13:56, Andy Mabbett ha scritto:
> Forwarding for interest:
Thank you, this is excellent!
> They take data via Mapio Cymru rather than from OSM directly because
> we apply some additional rules and bring in names from Wikidata where
> appropriate. This also means that as we improve Welsh name
> identification they'll get the benefit of that.
Does this mean that the name on Wikidata takes precedence over any name
on OSM and that there's no additional data source beyond OSM and
Wikidata? In other words are they contributing any changes directly to
OSM and Wikidata?
Federico
CLDR 26 released: "Many new language names in English, mostly for use by
Microsoft or translatewiki.net" (etc. etc.)
http://cldr.unicode.org/index/downloads/cldr-26
Federico Leva (Nemo), 05/06/2014 17:53:
>>
>> Instructions are kept up to date at
>> <https://translatewiki.net/wiki/CLDR#Contribute_to_an_existing_locale>.
>
> And now we're at 30 new translators, 18 of whom made 5812 "edits"!
> They're all amusing. :)
And the total reached some 11k translations. In one round Wikimedia went
from 0 to about 10 % of total active translators and perhaps 7 % of
translations. :)
Totals
submitters: 239
new submitted items: 312,418
new data: 135,045
changed data: 20,528
>
> We're notably missing, among our languages' "top 10": activity for
> Spanish, German, Russian; any translator for French, Portuguese,
> Chinese; and in top 20, Turkish, Swedish, Arabic, Czech, Indonesian,
> Ukrainian, Persian.
If you speak any of these languages or know someone who does: volunteers
for the next round of CLDR are very welcome, please see instructions at
<https://translatewiki.net/wiki/CLDR#Contribute_to_an_existing_locale>
There are already patches for updates to 26:
* https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/161912/
* https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62346#c16
so this work has a quick and big impact on our wikis.
Nemo
CLDR 26 released: "Many new language names in English, mostly for use by
Microsoft or translatewiki.net" (etc. etc.)
http://cldr.unicode.org/index/downloads/cldr-26
Federico Leva (Nemo), 05/06/2014 17:53:
>>
>> Instructions are kept up to date at
>> <https://translatewiki.net/wiki/CLDR#Contribute_to_an_existing_locale>.
>
> And now we're at 30 new translators, 18 of whom made 5812 "edits"!
> They're all amusing. :)
And the total reached some 11k translations. In one round Wikimedia went
from 0 to about 10 % of total active translators and perhaps 7 % of
translations. :)
Totals
submitters: 239
new submitted items: 312,418
new data: 135,045
changed data: 20,528
>
> We're notably missing, among our languages' "top 10": activity for
> Spanish, German, Russian; any translator for French, Portuguese,
> Chinese; and in top 20, Turkish, Swedish, Arabic, Czech, Indonesian,
> Ukrainian, Persian.
If you speak any of these languages or know someone who does: volunteers
for the next round of CLDR are very welcome, please see instructions at
<https://translatewiki.net/wiki/CLDR#Contribute_to_an_existing_locale>
There are already patches for updates to 26:
* https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/161912/
* https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=62346#c16
so this work has a quick and big impact on our wikis.
Nemo
Steven Walling, 23/05/2013 19:48:
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
> <nemowiki(a)gmail.com <mailto:nemowiki@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> 2) removed any UI path to the advanced search and to the search for
> free/CC images, so that now you can find them only on the advanced
> search, by knowing its URL: http://www.flickr.com/search/__advanced/
> <http://www.flickr.com/search/advanced/> ;
>
>
> That's not true. Advanced search is still available just below the
> search box, every time you make a search. Cf.
> http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=dogs
True. It wasn't there when I wrote my message (I found out reading some
questions on flickr groups), it seems they also fixed some other bugs.
I'm glad that wasn't a design decision.
>
> They're probably doing this because they assume that you probably only
> need advanced search if you didn't find what you wanted on regular
> search. Seems like a pretty safe assumption from a UX perspetive.
> Obviously that doesn't account for the use case of Commons people
> hunting for photos, but that's hardly the majority of their users.
The flickr user I mentioned above was surely not a Wikimedia Commons
user. :)
Nemo
Fluffy Cat, 04/05/20 06:00:
> Besides being inconvenient regarding visuals, alot of these
> unidentified strings replace actual information in the Wiki, due to which
> that info becomes inaccessible. I have faced this problem in every Wikitaxi
> page that I have used.
This is normal: WikiTaxi attempts to parse the wikitext locally, which
requires either a fully functional replica of each MediaWiki
installation (with all the code, templates, configuration etc.) or some
magic alternative parser. In the general case it will fail to show all
the content.
As of a year or two ago I believe XOWA was still managing to keep up
with this herculean task, but I've not tested.
<http://xowa.org/>
If you want a more robust offline viewer and you don't care about
updating the wiki's dump every two weeks, use Kiwix.
https://kiwix.org/
Federico
Thomas Dalton, 03/04/2013 16:03:
> On Apr 3, 2013 12:27 PM, "Federico Leva (Nemo)" <nemowiki(a)gmail.com
> <mailto:nemowiki@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > May be, or may be not. (Members of internalwiki change constantly, so
> e.g. there's no way I could know who has had access to what I wrote
> there 5 years ago. I don't remember being consulted about every new user
> created there after I got myself removed.)
>
> But you knew the basis on which internal access is determined and that
> hasn't changed.
Not true. It changed.
> You knew when you posted stuff there that new people
> would continue to be added, but could reasonably expect that it would
> continue to be restricted to the same kind of people as it was
> restricted to at the time, even if the actual people themselves changed.
>
> If it was decided to open up internal more widely, as has been discussed
> from time to time, it would be necessary to either seek permission from
> people or, more simply, delete things (or move them to a closed wiki
> that is still restricted). That has generally been part of any
> discussions on the subject.
>
Not true. It was expanded and nobody asked my opinion. :)
Nemo
Peter Gervai, 21/02/2013 11:25:
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
>> Peter Gervai, 21/02/2013 11:04:
>>
>>> I can help supporting OTRS, and Wikimedia Hungary can officially
>>> support it as well. I do not intend to look for alternatives, partly
>>> because I'm quite happy with OTRS, partly because I haven't met
>>> anything better suiting this kind of job and partly because I'm not
>>> interested suporting something I do not know.
>>
>>
>> Interesting. Has hu.wiki ever considered to use a WM-HU hosted instance of
>> OTRS instead of the WMF one?
>
> Yes. It wasn't done because more often than not we got negative
> feedback from the foundation when we wanted to host some of our own
> services. Actually setting up a new one is quite simple, almost I'd
> say a matter of minutes, plus maybe a few hours with all the
> customisation (and thise we _severely_ miss by using the central
> administered one).
It's not surprising that you had negative feedback from the WMF, but it
would be interesting to know if and why the hu.wiki community and the
chapter discussed it and thought it was a good idea and under which
conditions. The technical part is rather easy, but the organisation of a
migration is not.
I'm sure that the WMIT board would never agree to host an OTRS service
for it.wiki even if the community begged it (which is highly unlikely to
happen anyway ;) ): it would like begging people to sue us for a few
more 20 M€ requests.
Nemo
Currently, translators (vetters) in some locales may experience
permission issues. That's going to be fixed soon, as the technical
committee has agreed to give us access to all locales again:
https://github.com/unicode-org/cldr/pull/1321
Thanks to jhsoby for spotting the issue! For the curious, there's some
more information here:
https://unicode-org.atlassian.net/browse/CLDR-14836https://unicode-org.atlassian.net/browse/CLDR-14832https://unicode-org.atlassian.net/browse/CLDR-14597
Something the technical committee recommends is to make some list of
"priority" language codes we really want to translate at the
"comprehensive" level rather than the more usual "modern" or even
"moderate" level. See:
http://cldr.unicode.org/index/survey-tool/coverage
In principle all languages are created equal at Wikimedia, so I'm not
particularly eager to tell people what they should focus on. In
practice, however, we have hundreds of language codes for which we'd
struggle to translate even the "minimal" level (usually required to
create a new language code in CLDR), which is about 200 items, and
"only" some 190 language codes at the moment have fully translated the
core-0-mostused group (95 % or more). We're currently using CLDR
language names translations for some 170 locales.
So, any suggestions are welcome. (But please let's discuss here and find
a consensus, instead of flooding the CLDR tracker with comments and
tickets going in all directions.)
Federico
Il 05/06/21 13:36, Federico Leva (Nemo) ha scritto:
> It's that time of the year again!
> https://st.unicode.org
>
> If you don't have an account or you don't remember how to use it, see:
> https://translatewiki.net/wiki/CLDR
>
> Federico
>
> -------- Messaggio Inoltrato --------
> Oggetto: CLDR SurveyTool message from admin
> Data: Fri, 4 Jun 2021 23:52:35 +0000 (UTC)
> Mittente: CLDR SurveyTool <cldr-tc-reply-wikimedia(a)corp.unicode.org>
>
> This message is being sent to you on behalf of admin" <admin@> (Survey
> Tool) - user #1 SurveyTool Message ---
> The Survey Tool is now open for General Submission for data to be
> included in CLDR version 40. Please start by visiting the information
> hub: https://sites.google.com/site/cldr/translation . Please ignore the
> footer in the previous message and go to : https://st.unicode.org
Dario Taraborelli, 12/10/2012 15:41:
> On Oct 12, 2012, at 2:11, "Federico Leva (Nemo)" <nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> we have some preliminary usage data coming from the FeedbackPage: http://toolserver.org/~dartar/fp/
>> Graphs are empty for me there, is it just me?
>
> We have a temporary hardware issue affecting the slave DB from which this data is pulled. Ops is on it and I hope to have it back soon.
Thank you for enabling it again. I had read about the blind tests in
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Article_feedback/Quality_assessment>
before but I see some major changes in the graphs, which are a bit hard
to understand.
1) In "Daily moderation actions (percentage)" there's a huge spike of
helpful/unhelpful after C (July), did those flags even exist before? Or
did helpfulness increase after wider usage according to the finding «the
average page receives higher quality feedback than pages picked for
their popularity/controversial topic»? (There's no change between 5 and
10 % though.)
2) "Unique daily articles with feedback moderated" shows a spike and
then a stabilization, but I don't know what the graphs actually is
about. For instance, can feedback be moderated per article ("feedback
semi/full protection" or so) or only per item, etc. Do you know if
moderation happens on the same articles and if stricter moderation
increases helpfulness of feedback also on non-moderated articles?
Nemo