Tell us more about CRUD data interfaces.
Mack
Sent from my HTC
----- Reply message -----
From: wikimedia-genealogy-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To: <wikimedia-genealogy(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Wikimedia-genealogy Digest, Vol 5, Issue 5
Date: Fri, Sep 8, 2017 8:00 AM
Send Wikimedia-genealogy mailing list submissions to
wikimedia-genealogy(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-genealogy
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
wikimedia-genealogy-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
wikimedia-genealogy-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-genealogy digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Is the delivery of software fundamental to this project?
(Amgine)
2. Re: Is the delivery of software fundamental to this project?
(Sam Wilson)
3. tiny URL (Sam Wilson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 17:30:43 -0700
From: Amgine <amgine(a)wikimedians.ca>
To: wikimedia-genealogy(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-genealogy] Is the delivery of software
fundamental to this project?
Message-ID: <8219628e-99cb-f046-5250-c4289f381c91(a)wikimedians.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Thanks for the response Sam! Again I am replying to a digest, and
apologize...
> Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 15:37:20 +0800
> From: Sam Wilson
>
> I certainly agree with you about the NIH syndrome within the Wikimedia
> world. (I think it's getting better though, and I think a lot of it is
> part of the general PHP/web-dev community too, and not specific to
> MediaWiki.) I really don't think we need yet another software solution
> for genealogy! However... :-)
> I think I basically take as my starting point "base MediaWiki". As in:
> there's a great flexibility in a website that is basically just freeform
> text boxes into which you can put whatever. At its heart, a wiki is free
> and open and really easy to just jump into and start putting content up.
> That's why we love 'em! And I think it's a good platform for genealogy:
> we can write whatever we need to, and collaborate with others, and it's
> not constrained by any software-imposed structure.
Genealogy data is not free-form. It is extremely structured, rather like
Wiktionary's data. To represent that data in wiki syntax will require
extensive templating and modules, resulting in the kind of
professional-only-contributors you find at Wiktionary - and the
unpleasant work-arounds required as pages bump up against the
limitations of Mediawiki (e.g. [[wikt:en:water]].) I've been working
with that project for a dozen+ years, and it is now so beginner-hostile
I do not feel qualified to make more than the most-minor edits, and most
of those assisted by js gadgets.
I would hate to see a genealogy project go down that path.
Since most genealogy practice works with CRUD data interfaces, and this
has been extremely successful in helping people of all ages and
technical experience begin their personal genealogies on their desktops,
I think we should focus on that for the actual genealogy work. We can
leverage Wikisource and commons for documents/sources; for example
transcription of government census, voter rolls. Other elements might
also better be 'outsourced', like geolocation names in temporal context.
But just in case you are missing the free-form text box, WebTrees allows
hand-editing of GED textual representation, either of a whole entry or
any single object. Each edit pop-up and record includes a link to edit
as Raw GED. (I do not believe WebTrees actually store entries in GED
format, so your edits will round-trip into database representations much
as Parsoid does for MW syntax.)
Amgine
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2017 08:46:43 +0800
From: Sam Wilson <sam(a)samwilson.id.au>
To: wikimedia-genealogy(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-genealogy] Is the delivery of software
fundamental to this project?
Message-ID:
<1504831603.958760.1099016000.0B14F984(a)webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hm, yes, I really do see the multiple sides to this! :-) It's very
interesting. Thank you for going into it all.
I'm not sure I agree that genealogical research is *uniquely*
structured. It's no more sturctured than, say, writing histories of
companies, or political parties, or railways... I mean that there are
always requirements for strucutred data in any research, but that we
don't bother with bespoke tools for most of them. I think primarily
because the ultimate desired output is readable, linear prose, with
images, figures etc. — I think this is my usual goal with genealogy too.
Perhaps that's where I'm understanding things wrong.
Wikipedia might be a pain to edit (although, I think it's getting
easier) but it *is* easy to read. I think it's worth keeping the
audiences in mind when talking about different approaches to a genealogy
project.
We could look at setting up a demo Webtrees site too, if we want. :-)
The other thing, of WeRelate's approach of forcing Gedcom structures
into MediaWiki, I still feel is a bit clunky... I'm very open to being
convinced though! I have the beginnings of some code here that was about
syncing trees off werelate into a modern WeRelate extension; it could be
resurrected.
—sam
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017, at 08:30 AM, Amgine wrote:
> Thanks for the response Sam! Again I am replying to a digest, and
> apologize...
> > Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 15:37:20 +0800
> > From: Sam Wilson
> >
> > I certainly agree with you about the NIH syndrome within the Wikimedia
> > world. (I think it's getting better though, and I think a lot of it is
> > part of the general PHP/web-dev community too, and not specific to
> > MediaWiki.) I really don't think we need yet another software solution
> > for genealogy! However... :-)
> > I think I basically take as my starting point "base MediaWiki". As in:
> > there's a great flexibility in a website that is basically just freeform
> > text boxes into which you can put whatever. At its heart, a wiki is free
> > and open and really easy to just jump into and start putting content up.
> > That's why we love 'em! And I think it's a good platform for genealogy:
> > we can write whatever we need to, and collaborate with others, and it's
> > not constrained by any software-imposed structure.
>
> Genealogy data is not free-form. It is extremely structured, rather like
> Wiktionary's data. To represent that data in wiki syntax will require
> extensive templating and modules, resulting in the kind of
> professional-only-contributors you find at Wiktionary - and the
> unpleasant work-arounds required as pages bump up against the
> limitations of Mediawiki (e.g. [[wikt:en:water]].) I've been working
> with that project for a dozen+ years, and it is now so beginner-hostile
> I do not feel qualified to make more than the most-minor edits, and most
> of those assisted by js gadgets.
>
> I would hate to see a genealogy project go down that path.
>
> Since most genealogy practice works with CRUD data interfaces, and this
> has been extremely successful in helping people of all ages and
> technical experience begin their personal genealogies on their desktops,
> I think we should focus on that for the actual genealogy work. We can
> leverage Wikisource and commons for documents/sources; for example
> transcription of government census, voter rolls. Other elements might
> also better be 'outsourced', like geolocation names in temporal context.
>
> But just in case you are missing the free-form text box, WebTrees allows
> hand-editing of GED textual representation, either of a whole entry or
> any single object. Each edit pop-up and record includes a link to edit
> as Raw GED. (I do not believe WebTrees actually store entries in GED
> format, so your edits will round-trip into database representations much
> as Parsoid does for MW syntax.)
>
> Amgine
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-genealogy mailing list
> Wikimedia-genealogy(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-genealogy
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2017 15:23:19 +0800
From: Sam Wilson <sam(a)samwilson.id.au>
To: Wikimedia Genealogy <wikimedia-genealogy(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: [Wikimedia-genealogy] tiny URL
Message-ID:
<1504855399.1836036.1099264352.238D7AF9(a)webmail.messagingengine.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I made a tiny URL for the Meta-Wiki page:
http://tinyurl.com/wikigenealogy — just recording the fact here in case
anyone else needs such a thing. (I know tiny URLs are bad, but I wanted
a thing to put on a piece of paper! :-) )
One day we'll be able to use https://w.wiki but I dunno when...
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-genealogy mailing list
Wikimedia-genealogy(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-genealogy
------------------------------
End of Wikimedia-genealogy Digest, Vol 5, Issue 5
*************************************************
On 2017-09-08 05:00, wikimedia-genealogy-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2017 08:46:43 +0800
> From: Sam Wilson <sam(a)samwilson.id.au>
> To: wikimedia-genealogy(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-genealogy] Is the delivery of software
> fundamental to this project?
>
> Hm, yes, I really do see the multiple sides to this! :-) It's very
> interesting. Thank you for going into it all.
>
> I'm not sure I agree that genealogical research is *uniquely*
> structured. It's no more sturctured than, say, writing histories of
> companies, or political parties, or railways... I mean that there are
> always requirements for strucutred data in any research, but that we
> don't bother with bespoke tools for most of them. I think primarily
> because the ultimate desired output is readable, linear prose, with
> images, figures etc. — I think this is my usual goal with genealogy too.
> Perhaps that's where I'm understanding things wrong.
>
> Wikipedia might be a pain to edit (although, I think it's getting
> easier) but it *is* easy to read. I think it's worth keeping the
> audiences in mind when talking about different approaches to a genealogy
> project.
>
> We could look at setting up a demo Webtrees site too, if we want. :-)
>
> The other thing, of WeRelate's approach of forcing Gedcom structures
> into MediaWiki, I still feel is a bit clunky... I'm very open to being
> convinced though! I have the beginnings of some code here that was about
> syncing trees off werelate into a modern WeRelate extension; it could be
> resurrected.
>
> —sam
If I understand your argument correctly, you are proposing biography
articles, with or without genealogy data (possibly implicit in
templates.) That would certainly be more readable, both at the wikitax
and as an article.
That is not at all what I had envisioned this project would be about.
In that use case, wiki would certainly be possible. I suspect the
'clunky' model of WeRelate - however implemented (see Familypedia) - is
pretty much inevitable.
Amgine
I made a tiny URL for the Meta-Wiki page:
http://tinyurl.com/wikigenealogy — just recording the fact here in case
anyone else needs such a thing. (I know tiny URLs are bad, but I wanted
a thing to put on a piece of paper! :-) )
One day we'll be able to use https://w.wiki but I dunno when...
Thanks for the response Sam! Again I am replying to a digest, and
apologize...
> Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 15:37:20 +0800
> From: Sam Wilson
>
> I certainly agree with you about the NIH syndrome within the Wikimedia
> world. (I think it's getting better though, and I think a lot of it is
> part of the general PHP/web-dev community too, and not specific to
> MediaWiki.) I really don't think we need yet another software solution
> for genealogy! However... :-)
> I think I basically take as my starting point "base MediaWiki". As in:
> there's a great flexibility in a website that is basically just freeform
> text boxes into which you can put whatever. At its heart, a wiki is free
> and open and really easy to just jump into and start putting content up.
> That's why we love 'em! And I think it's a good platform for genealogy:
> we can write whatever we need to, and collaborate with others, and it's
> not constrained by any software-imposed structure.
Genealogy data is not free-form. It is extremely structured, rather like
Wiktionary's data. To represent that data in wiki syntax will require
extensive templating and modules, resulting in the kind of
professional-only-contributors you find at Wiktionary - and the
unpleasant work-arounds required as pages bump up against the
limitations of Mediawiki (e.g. [[wikt:en:water]].) I've been working
with that project for a dozen+ years, and it is now so beginner-hostile
I do not feel qualified to make more than the most-minor edits, and most
of those assisted by js gadgets.
I would hate to see a genealogy project go down that path.
Since most genealogy practice works with CRUD data interfaces, and this
has been extremely successful in helping people of all ages and
technical experience begin their personal genealogies on their desktops,
I think we should focus on that for the actual genealogy work. We can
leverage Wikisource and commons for documents/sources; for example
transcription of government census, voter rolls. Other elements might
also better be 'outsourced', like geolocation names in temporal context.
But just in case you are missing the free-form text box, WebTrees allows
hand-editing of GED textual representation, either of a whole entry or
any single object. Each edit pop-up and record includes a link to edit
as Raw GED. (I do not believe WebTrees actually store entries in GED
format, so your edits will round-trip into database representations much
as Parsoid does for MW syntax.)
Amgine
I certainly agree with you about the NIH syndrome within the Wikimedia
world. (I think it's getting better though, and I think a lot of it is
part of the general PHP/web-dev community too, and not specific to
MediaWiki.) I really don't think we need yet another software solution
for genealogy! However... :-)
I think I basically take as my starting point "base MediaWiki". As in:
there's a great flexibility in a website that is basically just freeform
text boxes into which you can put whatever. At its heart, a wiki is free
and open and really easy to just jump into and start putting content up.
That's why we love 'em! And I think it's a good platform for genealogy:
we can write whatever we need to, and collaborate with others, and it's
not constrained by any software-imposed structure.
Certainly, I see the attraction with software like Webtrees that
provides lots of structure, but I guess it feels a bit different to the
open wiki way of things. I think WeRelate tries to walk the line between
fully-wiki and fully-structured, and does it pretty well. I've attempted
a couple of times to work on its code and bring it up to date, but
decided it would take more time than I've got, and there isn't a
community of developers working on it.
Anyway, that's all stuff we need to talk about more I'm sure! In the
meantime I've set up a demo wiki:https://tools.wmflabs.org/genealogy/wiki/Main_Page
that we can install various things on if we want to talk about them in
more concrete terms.
— Sam.
On Sat, 2 Sep 2017, at 09:31 PM, Amgine wrote:
> Sorry about the digest response. Footnotes at bottom of msg.
>
>> Message: 1 Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 13:50:29 -0400 From: James Mason
>> <jrm(a)slashmail.org> To: "Discussion about the Wikimedia genealogy
>> project." <wikimedia-genealogy(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Several
>> different systems have been put forward as candidates to be "the"
>> Wikimedia genealogy project. Of those, several have been in
>> existence for a number of years and are in regular use. Yet I have
>> seen very little on the question of why any of those may or may not
>> have been chosen as a starting point.
>>
> ... In the WMF-sphere there is a strong opposition to NMH/NFH (Not
> Made Here/Not From Here) solutions, even standing the middle of a
> wheel graveyard. Witness Flow when there are literally hundreds of drop-
> in forum/communication systems which can be implemented modularly such
> as PHPBB. My personal choice of using WebTrees[1] was specifically to
> allow an unlimited number of contributors to work on a single GED, and
> allow an unlimited number of GEDs to be hosted/displayed. It is not a
> wiki. It has some wiki-like characteristics. It could become a wiki. I
> doubt it is currently ready to scale. On the other hand, it would
> work extremely well as an interim, and is able to import/export
> standard and non-standard GED.
>
>> Message: 2 Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 08:15:04 +0800 From: Sam Wilson
>> <sam(a)samwilson.id.au> To: wikimedia-genealogy(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-genealogy] Is the delivery of software
>> fundamental to this project? ... WeRelate ... Wikidata as a central
>> repository ... My personal approach these days is ...
>>
> To painfully refactor: WeRelate has content and community, and other
> good/bad things. Wikidata, if possible, requires creating a new
> genealogy data standard [mandatory reference to
> https://xkcd.com/927/]. Federation seems a good approach. I am less-
> keen on thinking about forking a community, although forking their
> content has some interesting possibilities. Wikidata has been pretty
> much useless or a disaster for sister projects other than interwiki
> links - and even that has semantic issues. (imo: this is due a lack of
> interest/resources in supporting non-wikipedia efforts, not that
> Wikidata cannot do a stellar job.) So, much against my philosophy, I
> can agree there is a need for software development: a decentralized
> federation for node searching/sharing/indexing, self-healing?
> Preferably with a platform agnostic api, so multiple GUI and engines
> can be built. But I would rather work with the very large pile of
> genealogy wheels than start something entirely new. Amgine [1] On
> Github: https://github.com/fisharebest/webtrees Official:
> https://www.webtrees.net/ Wiki: https://wiki.webtrees.net/
>> _________________________________________________
> Wikimedia-genealogy mailing list
> Wikimedia-genealogy(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-genealogy
Sorry about the digest response. Footnotes at bottom of msg.
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 13:50:29 -0400
> From: James Mason <jrm(a)slashmail.org>
> To: "Discussion about the Wikimedia genealogy project."
> <wikimedia-genealogy(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
>
> Several different systems have been put forward as candidates to be
> "the" Wikimedia genealogy project. Of those, several have been in
> existence for a number of years and are in regular use. Yet I have seen
> very little on the question of why any of those may or may not have been
> chosen as a starting point.
...
In the WMF-sphere there is a strong opposition to NMH/NFH (Not Made
Here/Not From Here) solutions, even standing the middle of a wheel
graveyard. Witness Flow when there are literally hundreds of drop-in
forum/communication systems which can be implemented modularly such as
PHPBB.
My personal choice of using WebTrees[1] was specifically to allow an
unlimited number of contributors to work on a single GED, and allow an
unlimited number of GEDs to be hosted/displayed. It is not a wiki. It
has some wiki-like characteristics. It could become a wiki. I doubt it
is currently ready to scale.
On the other hand, it would work extremely well as an interim, and is
able to import/export standard and non-standard GED.
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 08:15:04 +0800
> From: Sam Wilson <sam(a)samwilson.id.au>
> To: wikimedia-genealogy(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-genealogy] Is the delivery of software
> fundamental to this project?
>
> ...
> WeRelate
> ...
> Wikidata as a central
> repository
> ...
> My personal approach these days is ...
To painfully refactor: WeRelate has content and community, and other
good/bad things. Wikidata, if possible, requires creating a new
genealogy data standard [mandatory reference to https://xkcd.com/927/].
Federation seems a good approach.
I am less-keen on thinking about forking a community, although forking
their content has some interesting possibilities. Wikidata has been
pretty much useless or a disaster for sister projects other than
interwiki links - and even that has semantic issues. (imo: this is due a
lack of interest/resources in supporting non-wikipedia efforts, not that
Wikidata cannot do a stellar job.)
So, much against my philosophy, I can agree there is a need for software
development: a decentralized federation for node
searching/sharing/indexing, self-healing? Preferably with a platform
agnostic api, so multiple GUI and engines can be built.
But I would rather work with the very large pile of genealogy wheels
than start something entirely new.
Amgine
[1] On Github: https://github.com/fisharebest/webtrees Official:
https://www.webtrees.net/ Wiki: https://wiki.webtrees.net/
I read your conversations, and I see your points.
If we had something to work with, and uncover the faults, then us
'watchers' can be having a small share in helping you! Mack
Irving "MACK" Baxter "Time Indefinite
he has put
8971 Pardee Hollow Road in the hearts of
men..."
Wayland, NY 14572
Ecclesiastes 3:11
* Home Ph*. 585-*534-9852 Text-* G-Voice # --
*585**-204-0504*
On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 8:00 AM, <
wikimedia-genealogy-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Send Wikimedia-genealogy mailing list submissions to
> wikimedia-genealogy(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-genealogy
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wikimedia-genealogy-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikimedia-genealogy-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-genealogy digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Is the delivery of software fundamental to this project?
> (James Mason)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2017 11:57:52 -0400
> From: James Mason <jrm(a)slashmail.org>
> To: sam(a)samwilson.id.au
> Cc: "Discussion about the Wikimedia genealogy project."
> <wikimedia-genealogy(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-genealogy] Is the delivery of software
> fundamental to this project?
> Message-ID: <a3565c2b902568905123b9f06f9df49c(a)slashmail.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I'm concerned that we're trying to find a perfect media-wiki software
> solution - but there aren't enough people listening to know if we've
> arrived. In any case - the real truth is you never get to perfect. I
> think we find something that's good enough to start - hopefully a user
> community starts to gel around that - then we evolve over time to
> something better (but probably never perfect).
>
> I certainly have a personal preference for WeRelate - I think it gets a
> number of important things right - but the dated wiki base is becoming a
> problem. A key to understanding WeRelate is that DallanQ started with
> the idea of maintaining the semantics of an uploaded GEDCOM. With that
> in mind - I think most everything you find on the site starts to make
> sense.
>
> The WR software is freely available - have you considered starting from
> that base instead? Is there something that's fundamentally wrong - such
> that attempting to evolve a WR 2.0 on new wiki base software - isn't a
> reasonable way to go?
>
> -jrm
>
> On 2017-08-31 20:15, Sam Wilson wrote:
>
> > This is a really good point.
> >
> > I'm certainly not keen to develop yet another software system for
> genealogy (although, I've tinkered with doing so and am using such software
> as one of my main research systems at the moment... oops). But I think
> there's space for multiple options.
> >
> > As far as existing systems go, I would say that WeRelate is the best:
> it's a wiki, and so very flexible; it's big and has an active user base;
> it's properly licenced. The reason I don't currently use it personally is
> that its software is very out of date and so hard to work with (it's
> basically a fork of MediaWiki from ten years ago), and I feel like the
> software tries to do things (such as citation management) that I don't
> believe should be part of genealogy software.
> >
> > The other thing I feel might be possible is Wikidata as a central
> repository (and I know you say it can't because of notability, but I'm not
> so sure; there's more to be discussed here I think). The problem then is
> that there's nowhere for the 'other' genealogy data to go, apart from
> notable individuals who can go on Wikipedia.
> >
> > My personal approach these days is that everyone should host their own
> wikis, and pull what data they can from Wikidata and link where they can to
> Wikipedia.
> >
> > All up, I really do think that some software development, on some front,
> is required. (Hmm... but then, I'm a software engineer, so everything does
> rather look like a code-shaped nail to me!)
> >
> > --Sam.
> >
> > On Fri, 1 Sep 2017, at 01:50 AM, James Mason wrote:
> >
> >> Several different systems have been put forward as candidates to be
> "the" Wikimedia genealogy project. Of those, several have been in
> existence for a number of years and are in regular use. Yet I have seen
> very little on the question of why any of those may or may not have been
> chosen as a starting point.
> >>
> >> It now sounds like more effort is being invested in a project to
> develop another such system - but I wonder how it can succeed. Since there
> isn't clarity about why any of the existing projects were not selected -
> how can another hope to be "more" successful. I'm not trying to throw cold
> water on the good intentions of people who wish to design or implement such
> software - but neither would I want to see their efforts come to naught.
> >>
> >> I wonder if the better approach is to try to select a reasonable
> interim system? With the dual goals of beginning to accumulate a genealogy
> database AND serving as an example against which new software ideas can be
> compared? Or perhaps - taking the approach of creating something rather
> more like Wikidata - intended more as a centralized genealogy data
> repository usable by a variety of consumers (I know LDS was working on
> something like this - but I don't know where it stands at present). (FYI -
> I assume that Wikidata proper really can't be such a database - on the
> basis of notability requirements - however limited).
> >>
> >> Please forgive me if my remarks are hopelessly out of step with what
> others may be thinking... :) !
> >>
> >> -jrm
> >>
> >> James Mason; Nashua, NH, USA
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-genealogy mailing list
> >> Wikimedia-genealogy(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-genealogy
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-genealogy mailing list
> > Wikimedia-genealogy(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-genealogy
>
I would be happy for some input regarding the next genealogy newsletter.
we now have a good number of readers, and while some 4-5 users removed
their names from the list of subscribers, the rest will most probably be
happy to receive the next newsletter. And this is of course very positive,
through that newsletter, we have an information bridge to users who may
supprt ideas and suggestons, participate in votes, and help us take one
step further in the development of he genealogy project.
But! I dont want to send a new, nice newsletter, which they may read, and
then forget. I want this newsletter to actually make an impact, and a
difference for the project, and be much more optimized than the previous,
and more synchonized wth the fantastic possibilities we have, in order to
reach some goals!
So I ask for your help:
I believe the impact of that newsletter can be much better, if more than me
would be willing to give some time and energy, putting together something
with a clearer message, with stronger arguments, and with a better english
than mine.
So please, take some minutes and reflect on what possibly could be acchived
with the next newsletter, and how and with what content it should be
written?
maybe someone would care to make the entire letter? Othervise, please send
me some lines, or at least some advice and ideas for the content.
best regards, Dan Koehl
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kontor/Office: Ljusterö Information
Box 75, 184 03 Ljusterö
Telefon: 11.00-17.00: 08-542 424 01
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dan Koehl, Kårbodavägen 39, 184 97 Ljusterö, Sweden.
Mobil telefon 1 (Comviq): 0767 15 45 70
Mobil telefon 2 (Telia): 0739 17 17 89
Skype: DanKoehl ICQ: 40467 87
------------------------------------------------------------
I expect a demo wiki should have Semantic extensions too - as used on
Familypedia (whence you may copy the templates if the demo is on CC-BY-SA).
Robin F. Patterson, Plimmerton, Porirua City, New Zealand
http://familypedia.wikia.com/wiki/User:Robin_Patterson
----- Original Message -----
From: <wikimedia-genealogy-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
To: <wikimedia-genealogy(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2017 12:00 AM
Subject: Wikimedia-genealogy Digest, Vol 4, Issue 2
.....
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-genealogy digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Wikimedia-genealogy Digest, Vol 4, Issue 1 (Irving M. Baxter)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 08:26:29 -0400
> From: "Irving M. Baxter" <imackbaxter(a)gmail.com>
> To: "wikimedia-genealogy(a)lists.wikimedia.org"
> <wikimedia-genealogy(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-genealogy] Wikimedia-genealogy Digest, Vol 4,
> Issue 1
> Message-ID: <59a01776.2b22ed0a.1522c.2a46(a)mx.google.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I think YES, we should set up a demo wiki
>
> Mack Baxter-- Let me know how I can help.
>
> Sent from Mail for Windows 10
.....
> From: wikimedia-genealogy-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 8:00 AM
> To: wikimedia-genealogy(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Wikimedia-genealogy Digest, Vol 4, Issue 1
>
.....
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Demo wiki? (Dan Koehl)
> 2. Re: Demo wiki? (James Mason)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 21:00:17 +0200
> From: Dan Koehl <dan.koehl(a)gmail.com>
> To: Sam Wilson <sam(a)samwilson.id.au>, "Discussion about the Wikimedia
> genealogy project." <wikimedia-genealogy(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-genealogy] Demo wiki?
> Message-ID:
> <CACKb8DY417WQDNUQ8NbESQMJ725EE9jTpSP6TLq3uf45dm3d8A(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I think YES, we should set up a demo wiki
>
> dan
>
> 2017-04-25 3:27 GMT+02:00 Sam Wilson <sam(a)samwilson.id.au>:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Should we set up a demonstration wiki?
>>
>> I'm thinking it might be good to have a wiki to experiment with different
>> things, such as software requirements. I have been tinkering on a
>> Genealogy
>> extension, — it's super-basic and doesn't do much. (That's by design,
>> really,
>> because I didn't want to build features such as citation management or
>> image
>> handling that are not specific to genealogy.
>>
>> It's probably not a place to put permanent information (although it could
>> be
>> that too), but we could install MediaWiki at
>> https://tools.wmflabs.org/genealogy/wiki and start experimenting with
>> things
>> there. Does that sound like a worthwhile thing?
>>
>> My current aim is to get the Genealogy extension to support Wikidata.
>> It'd
>> be
>> good to have a place to demonstrate and figure out how this could work.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Sam.
>>
.....
>>
.....
> Kontor/Office: Ljusterö Information
> Box 75, 184 03 Ljusterö
> Telefon: 11.00-17.00: 08-542 424 01
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Dan Koehl, Kårbodavägen 39, 184 97 Ljusterö, Sweden.
> Mobil telefon 1 (Comviq): 0767 15 45 70
> Mobil telefon 2 (Telia): 0739 17 17 89
> Skype: DanKoehl ICQ: 40467 87
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
I think YES, we should set up a demo wiki
Mack Baxter-- Let me know how I can help.
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: wikimedia-genealogy-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 8:00 AM
To: wikimedia-genealogy(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Wikimedia-genealogy Digest, Vol 4, Issue 1
Send Wikimedia-genealogy mailing list submissions to
wikimedia-genealogy(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-genealogy
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
wikimedia-genealogy-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
wikimedia-genealogy-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-genealogy digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Demo wiki? (Dan Koehl)
2. Re: Demo wiki? (James Mason)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 21:00:17 +0200
From: Dan Koehl <dan.koehl(a)gmail.com>
To: Sam Wilson <sam(a)samwilson.id.au>, "Discussion about the Wikimedia
genealogy project." <wikimedia-genealogy(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-genealogy] Demo wiki?
Message-ID:
<CACKb8DY417WQDNUQ8NbESQMJ725EE9jTpSP6TLq3uf45dm3d8A(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I think YES, we should set up a demo wiki
dan
2017-04-25 3:27 GMT+02:00 Sam Wilson <sam(a)samwilson.id.au>:
> Hi all,
>
> Should we set up a demonstration wiki?
>
> I'm thinking it might be good to have a wiki to experiment with different
> things, such as software requirements. I have been tinkering on a Genealogy
> extension, — it's super-basic and doesn't do much. (That's by design,
> really,
> because I didn't want to build features such as citation management or
> image
> handling that are not specific to genealogy.
>
> It's probably not a place to put permanent information (although it could
> be
> that too), but we could install MediaWiki at
> https://tools.wmflabs.org/genealogy/wiki and start experimenting with
> things
> there. Does that sound like a worthwhile thing?
>
> My current aim is to get the Genealogy extension to support Wikidata. It'd
> be
> good to have a place to demonstrate and figure out how this could work.
>
> Thanks,
> Sam.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-genealogy mailing list
> Wikimedia-genealogy(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-genealogy
>
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kontor/Office: Ljusterö Information
Box 75, 184 03 Ljusterö
Telefon: 11.00-17.00: 08-542 424 01
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dan Koehl, Kårbodavägen 39, 184 97 Ljusterö, Sweden.
Mobil telefon 1 (Comviq): 0767 15 45 70
Mobil telefon 2 (Telia): 0739 17 17 89
Skype: DanKoehl ICQ: 40467 87
------------------------------------------------------------