Hi all,
A reminder that Sue Gardner, the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, will
be having office hours today (September 30) at 23:00 UTC
(16:00 PT, 19:00 ET, 01:00 Friday CEST) on IRC in #wikimedia-office.
If you do not have an IRC client, there are two ways you can come chat
using a web browser: First, using the Wikizine chat gateway at
<http://chatwikizine.memebot.com/cgi-bin/cgiirc/irc.cgi>. Type a
nickname, select irc.freenode.net from the top menu and
#wikimedia-office from the following menu, then login to join.
Or, you can access Freenode by going tohttp://webchat.freenode.net/,
typing in the nickname of your choice and choosing wikimedia-office as
the channel. You may be prompted to click through a security warning,
which you can click to accept.
Please feel free to forward (and translate) this email to any other
relevant email lists you happen to be on.
--
Deniz Gültekin
Community Associate
Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge
http://donate.wikimedia.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJ46UXZUvL0
(LT: Fayssal F.)
Yours sincerely,
Anirudh Singh Bhati
B.Com, LL.B. (Hons.), Gujarat National Law University,
Gandhinagar, India.
Handphone: +919328712208
Skype: anirudhsbh
If this email were legal advice, it would be followed by a bill.
Hi,
As you may have read recently on this list a few days ago, the
Wikimedia Foundation released an experimental Article feedback tool,
currently enabled on a small subset of Public Policy articles (more
details are included in the blog post <
http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2010/09/22/article-feedback-pilot-goes-live/
>). The main reason why I'm coming to you today is because we're
trying to build a small team of users and developers to assess the
feature itself to see what we should do with it, if we should improve
it (and if so, how) or simply abandon it.
I realize you may want to focus on "bigger" features such as Pending
Changes right now, but it's really important for us that some of you
join the work group <
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Public_Policy_Pilot/Workgroup
> so we make sure it meets your needs.
If you don't want to join the work group, but still want to provide
feedback, please read the Q&A page <
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Public_Policy_Pilot/FAQs
> and leave comments on the work group's talk page.
Many thanks in advance for your help!
On behalf of the Features engineering team,
--
Guillaume Paumier
[[m:User:guillom]]
http://www.gpaumier.org
Hi everyone,
As many of you know, the results of the poll to keep Pending Changes
on through a short development cycle were approved for interim usage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Straw_poll_on_interi…
Ongoing use of Pending Changes is contingent upon consensus after the
deployment of an interim release of Pending Changes in November 2010,
which is currently under development. The roadmap for this deployment
is described here:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Pending_Changes_enwiki_trial/Roadmap
An update on the date: we'd previously scheduled this for November 9.
However, because that week is the same week as the start of the
fundraiser (and accompanying futzing with the site) we'd like to move
the date one week later, to November 16.
Aaron Schulz is advising us as the author of the vast majority of the
code, having mostly implemented the "reject" button. Chad Horohoe and
Priyanka Dhanda are working on some of the short term development
items, and Brandon Harris is advising us on how we can make this
feature mesh with our long term usability strategy.
We're currently tracking the list of items we intend to complete in
Bugzilla. You can see the latest list here:
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=25293
Many of the items in the list are things we're looking for feedback on:
Bug 25295 - "Improve reviewer experience when multiple simultaneous
users review Pending Changes"
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25295
Bug 25296 - "History style cleanup - investigate possible fixes and
detail the fixes"
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25296
Bug 25298 - "Figure out what (if any) new Pending Changes links there
should be in the side bar"
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25298
Bug 25299 - "Make pending revision status clearer when viewing page"
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25299
Bug 25300 - "Better names for special pages in Pending Changes configuration"
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25300
Bug 25301 - "Firm up the list of minor UI improvements for the
November 2010 Pending Changes release"
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25301
Please provide your input in Bugzilla if you're comfortable with that;
otherwise, please remark on the feedback page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Feedback
Thanks!
Rob
Hi all,
Sue Gardner, the Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, will
be having office hours this Thursday (September 30) at 23:00 UTC
(16:00 PT, 19:00 ET, 01:00 Friday CEST) on IRC in #wikimedia-office.
If you do not have an IRC client, there are two ways you can come chat
using a web browser: First, using the Wikizine chat gateway at
<http://chatwikizine.memebot.com/cgi-bin/cgiirc/irc.cgi>. Type a
nickname, select irc.freenode.net from the top menu and
#wikimedia-office from the following menu, then login to join.
Or, you can access Freenode by going to http://webchat.freenode.net/,
typing in the nickname of your choice and choosing wikimedia-office as
the channel. You may be prompted to click through a security warning,
which you can click to accept.
Please feel free to forward (and translate!) this email to any other
relevant email lists you happen to be on.
____________________
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
(Forwarding from my gmail address to avoid moderation, since I'm not
subscribed with the other one.)
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Guillaume Paumier
<gpaumier(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Link to the original article:
>
> http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2010/09/22/article-feedback-pilot-goes-live/
>
> As recently announced on the tech blog and in the Signpost, we're
> launching an experimental new tool today to capture article feedback
> from readers as part of the Public Policy Initiative. We're also
> inviting the user community to help determine its future by joining a
> workgroup tasked with evaluating it.
>
> The "Article Feedback Tool" allows any reader to quickly and easily
> assess the sourcing, completeness, neutrality, and readability of a
> Wikipedia article on a five-point scale. It will be one of several tools
> used by the Public Policy Initiative to assess the quality of articles.
> We also hope it will be a way to increase reader engagement by seeking
> feedback from them on how they view the article, and where it needs
> improvement.
>
> The tool is currently enabled on about 400 articles related to US public
> policy. You can see it in action at the bottom of articles such
> as /United States Constitution/, /Don't ask, don't tell/ or /Brown v.
> Board of Education/.
>
> Another goal of this pilot is to try and find a way to collaborate with
> the community to build tools and features. As main users of the
> software, Wikimedians are in a unique position to evaluate how a feature
> performs, and what its strengths and limitations are. The Article
> Feedback Tool is still very much in a prototype state; we're hoping the
> user community can help us determine whether resources should be
> allocated to improve it (and if so, how), or if it doesn't meet the
> users' needs and should be shelved or completely rethought.
>
> More information about the tool is available on our Questions & Answers
> page [1].
>
> If you want to try the tool to assess an article, pick a subject you're
> familiar with from the full list [2] and rate it! If you'd like to
> participate in the evaluation of the tool itself and what becomes of it,
> please join the workgroup [3]. If you're interested in article
> assessment in general, please also join the Public Policy Initiative's
> Assessment Team [4].
>
> Thank you,
>
> Guillaume Paumier,
> on behalf of the Features Engineering team
>
> [1]
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Public_Policy_Pilot/FAQs
> [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Article_Feedback_Pilot
> [3]
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Public_Policy_Pilot/Workgroup
> [4]
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States_Public_Pol…
>
> --
> Guillaume Paumier
> Product Manager, Multimedia Usability
> Wikimedia Foundation
> Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
--
Guillaume Paumier
[[m:User:guillom]]
http://www.gpaumier.org
I just heard about this from Keith Olbermann's show. Rush Limbaugh's
researchers apparently grabbed a story from Wikipedia about Judge
Roger Vinson and used it in one of his rants against health care. The
story, describing the judge as a keen hunter and taxidermist who hung
stuffed bear heads above his courthouse in order to put "the fear of
God" into defendants, turned out to be false.
Apparently the judge doesn't hunt that much and prefes horticulture.
“I’ve never killed a bear,” he told the New York Times on Wednesday,
“and I’m not Davy Crockett.” He is the president of the American
Camelia Society. The source cited in the Wikipedia article was dated
June 31, 2003. "Thirty days hath...June." The New York TImes also
reported that the editor who added the bogus story to Wikipedia at the
weekend recently removed it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/16/us/16judge.html
I prefer doing *a couple* of big edits, but not just one, to avoid edit
conflicts.
In any case, though, I do mostly anti-vandalism and gnome work, so this is
not my area of expertise.
-Waterfox
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 15:31:36 -0500
> From: MuZemike <muzemike(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Little edits or big edits in the mainspace?
> To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <4C93D028.1080704(a)gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> As the title indicates, when working on articles, do you prefer making a
> bunch of small edits or one or a couple of big edits?
>
> Personally, I started out making lots of small edits, but lately I've
> been the opposite of that.
>
> -MuZemike
On Sep 17, 2010, at 4:31 PM, MuZemike <muzemike(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> As the title indicates, when working on articles, do you prefer
> making a
> bunch of small edits or one or a couple of big edits?
When editing directly on the wiki, I like to save often, in case my
browser crashes or freezes (lighter, less JS please) or in case of
edit conflicts.
In case of articles where I am essentially the primary editor, I might
copy the text to my own local wiki on my computer and work locally.
That way I can edit offline, its faster, I can have however much or
little JS, can use the drafts extension, etc. Then, I can sync my
changes once in a while with the wikipedia page, in a bigger edit
Editing on a local wiki is newer for me. In the past, I have just
copied article text to a local text file and simply work on editing
the text file, then sync my edits. The text file approach still works
perfectly fine and could use git to have revision control on text files.
(would be neat to have more git-like functionality integrated w/
mediawiki and be able to do git push origin master of wiki articles)
@aude
>
> Personally, I started out making lots of small edits, but lately I've
> been the opposite of that.
>
> -MuZemike
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l