I made a page at Meta [1] and its initial content is below the
message. For the introduction into the issue, see [2].
Here are a couple of points about this approach:
- The project has no explicit power, its task is to gather, categorize
and analyze problems, as well as to suggest possible solutions.
- All previous attempts to make a group which would deal with such
issues were not passed. I think that this group has potential to exist
exactly because it doesn't have any power, while it has a lot of tasks
to do.
- I understand that we need to have a number of persons highly
motivated to work on that: there are no prises, there is not explicit
authority.
Inputs from all Wikimedians at all phases of work are welcome.
And, at the end, please move discussion to wikimediameta list because
this list was introduced to cover community issues. For those who
don't know where to sign, go at the page [3].
[1] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Problems
[2] - http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-October/046768.html
[3] - https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediameta-l
* * *
This page is about "the rest" of the problems related to [[Wikimedia
community]], [[Wikimedia projects]], [[WMF]] and [[Chapters]]. When an
issue comes to this place, it should mean that there is no other place
at all over [[Wikimedia]] where it may be solved. This place is built
to ''try'' to solve such problems, while it doesn't have power ''per
se'' to implement it. The main product of this place is a suggestion
what should be done at various levels toward the problem solution.
'''The project is still in development and you shouldn't use it for
particular problems! However, all Wikimedians are welcome to
participate in the project creation process.'''
== How to use this project ==
* If you think, let's say, that some project should be closed, the
right place for such proposal is the page [[Proposals for closing
projects]]. The process there is well established and there is no need
for talking about that at some other place. If you want to change the
process because you think that something with that process is not
going well, the right place for discussing this issue is [[Wikimedia
Forum]]. And just if you tried both steps and you still think that
something is wrong there, you should come here and explain the
problem.
* If you have some other problem in which wider community should be
introduced, the right place for asking the community is the page
[[Requests for comments]]. However, if the problem was not solved
there, you should come here and explain it.
* This project is about '''all''' aspects of Wikimedia community,
Wikimedia projects, Wikimedia Foundation and Chapters issues. This
means that you may present here any kind of Wikimedia-related problem;
not just problems related to the projects. Of course, you should be
sure that you tried to solve your problem at other possible ways. If
you are unsure, you may ask here for advice.
* ...
== Meta tasks ==
''This is the list of the tasks which should be done to make and keep
the project functional.''
=== Initial tasks ===
* List as many as possible existing not solved, usually systematic
problems, make the initial analysis and categorize them. The main page
for the list is [[/List of problems]]
* Make supporting pages for adding problems.
* Announce that this project is functional.
=== Permanent tasks ===
* Handle problems, analyze them, categorize them, try to solve them.
* Talk with Wikimedian communities around projects, WMF and chapters
about issues relevant to them and educated interested Wikimedians how
to increase their participation.
* Write documentation.
* Help in creation of the new Wikimedia institutions.
* Analyze periodically developments of Wikimedian community, suggest
global actions and report it to the community.
== Publicity of work ==
This project is public. As it handles public or very general problems,
there is no need for private communication channels, except personal
communication. Wikimedians interested in helping others may talk
personally with those who need help with the goal to find the right
wording for expressing sensitive data here. Solutions at this place
are general, while sensitive data should be handled by particular WMF
and community bodies.
The working list for this project is
[http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediameta-l
wikimediameta-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org].
== Members ==
Anyone is able to participate in the process on this project. However,
as the project has to make some conclusions and suggestions to the
wider community, membership should be defined.
Up to the end of November 2008 membership to the project is open to
all Wikimedians which have account on Meta at least for the last 6
months with the existing user page prior to the moment of publishing
this document. After the end of November 2008, new members may be
accepted according to the group rules. Default majority needed for
group decision is 80%. If the group doesn't have consensus about
conclusions or there are significant different views, all of them
should be included into the final document. Without prior information
that member wouldn't be able to participate for some specific time,
after inactivity for more than three months member will be removed
from the list; after which they should pass the same process for
becoming a member.
=== List of members ===
* [[User:Millosh|Millosh]]
[[Category:Collaboration]]
Hello,
in collaboration with the the Collaborative Creativity Group at
UNU-MERIT (www.merit.unu.edu), we want to invite you to take the first
multilingual survey of Wikipedia readers and contributors. For the
first time, this survey will provide an overview of the Wikipedia
community and how the content of Wikipedia is created, used, and
perceived. We therefore encourage everyone to participate in this
survey and to fill in an online questionnaire that will be made
accessible to you in the coming two weeks. We have prepared survey
versions in more than 20 languages. In order to keep the traffic
manageable we have chosen a staggered approach for the surveys.
The survey is currently running in Dutch, Vietnamese, and Tamil, and
we have received more than 2500 complete responses already. (We can
track the responses by language, so we can choose to examine any
subset we want.)
The following language versions will be launched in the coming days:
Russian, Arabic, Polish, Portuguese, Greek, Esperanto, Czech,
Japanese, Italian, Russian, Afrikaans, Indonesian, French, Thai,
Spanish, German, English, Chinese-simplified and Chinese-traditional.
The survey will be featured in the sitenotice of those languages.
We're currently using the local notices, but we may use the
CentralNotice system that is used for fundraising messages for the
coming languages, because it has some features which make it more
manageable for us.
I want to extend a BIG thank you to all the volunteers who have worked
on this survey, especially all the translators. We will compile
translation credits for the press release when the survey is
completed. Thanks also to the UNU-Merit team (Rishab Aiyer Ghosh,
Rüdiger Glott, Herman Pijpers, Jan Philipp Schmidt), and to Naoko
Komura, who has been project managing the survey since September.
And, thanks to all colleagues who have given feedback along the way.
We've tried to design questions that make sense. Please feel free to
send any and all feedback to <info(at)wikipediastudy(dot)org>.
Translations have been reviewed by multiple people, but if anything is
an obvious error, we will try to fix it. We will not be able to
address all feedback in this first run, but we will try to learn from
it for future surveys. This one won't be perfect, but it will tell us
lots of things we've never been able to talk about with any degree of
confidence.
Finally, a note on the coming analysis, and on privacy.
In terms of analysis, UNU-Merit will collect and analyze the data, and
publish analyses of the results, available under a Creative Commons
Attribution/Share-Alike License on a public website as well as in
established academic journals. Anonymized data will be published under
a CC-BY license for other researchers to study.
In terms of privacy, no personally identifiable information will be
released by UNU-Merit or the Wikimedia Foundation without permission
of the respondents. Personally identifiable data will also only be
retained for a year from closure of the survey, except for
participants who provide express permission to be included in a panel
for a follow-on survey.
I'm looking forward to seeing the first results, and I hope many of
you will take the survey. :-)
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Florence Devouard wrote:
>> A couple of weeks ago, I went to an event organized in Paris by the
>> French Government about "economics of culture".
>> During that event, I mentionned that the French chapter has several
>> ongoing discussions with various museums to set up content partnerships.
>>
>> Here are two examples of such potential partnerships:
>> * a small museum with very old and precious documents. The museum has
>> limited room for access and documents are fragile, so only a few
>> visitors are allowed to look at them. The museum wants to digitize these
>> docs, but has limited technical infrastructure.
>> Opportunity: we host their documents on wikisource and provide them
>> additional visibility through an article on Wikipedia, featuring their
>> best manuscripts.
>> * a large museum already has a digitization procedure for the documents,
>> as well as a hosting service. However, the digitized version contains
>> mistakes (errors generated in the process) and the museum simply does
>> not have the human power to provide the corrections of the numerous
>> documents digitized by their services. Our members can take care of this
>> task.
>>
> This is probably more about archives than about museums, but the
> problems for museums regarding three-dimensional objects is just as
> severe, as Raoul Weiller has been keen to point out at the last two
> Wikimanias. Lars makes a good point about distinguishing between
> preservation and access digitization, but I think that capital-intensive
> preservation strategies are well beyond our capabilities. Wikimedia
> works best when it can marshal large quantities of free labour to
> altruistic purposes; the kind of people whom we attract are properly
> annoyed with capitalist profiteering that depends on our free labour.
> It comes as no surprise that they intuitively support non-commercial
> clauses in free licenses.
>
Correct. But I was rather thinking of small museums, often displaying
very local artifacts or specialized artifacts. These museums are often
very much constrained in terms of preservation, and are not as organized
as major national museums in terms of "merchandization" of the documents
in their care. They also badly lack visibility and that could make the
difference for them. They may not care as much as the large museums
about "preserving their commercial abilities".
> Your two examples present startlingly different circumstances. In the
> first example it is up to the archives to provide the leadership, while
> acknowledging that providing the needed manpower exclusively through
> professional personnel is well beyond their limited budgets. At the
> same time they are repeatedly the beneficiaries of acquisitions which
> they can neither properly process or store. The recent story of the
> Royal Ontario Museum rediscovering a Tyranosaurus skeleton that had been
> misplaced for decades gives us pause to wonder. The type of artifacts
> that concern us are much smaller, and consequently easier to misplace.
> Museums need to engage in volunteer training programmes so that
> volunteers can better take on more specialized and more responsible
> tasks. If they believe that they will some day receive budgets adequate
> to the task, they have been breathing too many fumes from evaporating
> artifacts. They also need to make collections accessible to qualified
> volunteers for longer hours than the regular opening hours of the museums.
I also agree the leadership on this is on the side of the museum.
> The second example is more within our grasp. Proofreading is a tedious
> process, and we should never deceive ourselves into believing that the
> task can be handled by spell-checkers or other software based
> techniques. In addition, since Wikisource likes to host whole books or
> multi-volume reference works there is a tendency to upload this material
> from other sources without any thought of checking the material for
> accuracy. This means that material which clearly falls within the scope
> of Wikisource grows at a phenomenal rate when compared to its
> verification rate. Image files are only one part of the solution. They
> provide the basis for the verification, but not the verification itself.
>> Wikisources members know all that very well and much better than I. I
>> just summarize that very quickly for reference.
In short, we can mention our ability to do so, but we can not claim it
will be done.
>> In Europe, at least in some countries, we meet several problems
>> * many scholars have a rather bad image of Wikipedia (because written by
>> amateurs, anonymous members, plagued by vandals etc...)
>> * the other wikimedia projects have rather poor popularity and would
>> benefit from more "light"
>> * journalists are bored and need new information (otherwise, they focus
>> on all the bad stories)
>> * some projects are more difficult to advertise than others, because
>> they are full competitors with other commercial projects of very good
>> quality (eg, wiktionary, wikinews...)
>>
>>
> I don't see the problem as one of publicity at all. It's a matter of
> recruiting people who are satisfied doing humble tasks. Such people do
> not want to participate in complex decision making processes; they are
> completely confused if they need to deal with anything but the most
> elementary of wiki markup; when faced with any conflict they just go
> away. They are often older, and sensitive to disrespectful behaviour.
Then we go again to the question of finding the right contributors and
welcoming them well. This might be helped in focusing on specific media
venue. For example, I do not think there ever was an article in French
in the social press oriented "retired people". Whilst we have at least
once a year an article in each major press oriented teenagers.
>> Besides, my feeling is that contributors and in particular members from
>> chapters need a project on which they can team.
>>
> That's worth considering. In theory at least chapter leadership is in a
> better position to understand the priorities of national governments.
> Chapters that host Wikisource sites themselves can better adapt to laws
> that restrict the export of charitable donations.
Hmmm, touchy topic :-)
>> I would like to propose that next year be Wikisource year.
>>
> How can this be best co-ordinated with the Wikimania programme?
Making sure there are at least a couple of talks related to Wikisource
project. Perhaps funding the travel of a few proeminent members of this
project and proposing a panel on a topic related to wikisource.
Seeking funding from a museum ;-)
>> And since the planet is very large, if this is done in large part
>> through chapters, that it be an opportunity for some european chapters
>> to work together.
>>
> An EU super-chapter? :-\
Nope.
You did not get it :-)
First, I think chapters need some common goals, for team building. Even
if only 2 or 3 chapters are concerned, that would be good.
Besides, I think we might get funds from the European Community on this
type of topics, and any funding request must mandatorily be made through
a team of several companies/associations/universities from several
countries from the European Union.
As such, a request only coming from Wikimedia France would have zero
chance. A request from Wikimedia France + Netherlands + Italy, would.
> Appealing to nationalism could be more fruitful.
>> I am not necessarily thinking of anything very complicated. Examples of
>> efforts we could make together:
>>
>> * leaflets about wikisource updated and available in a large number of
>> languages;
>> * webbuttons to advertise the project on the web;
>> * each time someone gives a conference about Wikipedia, take the
>> opportunity to spend a couple of minutes of Wikisource as well;
>> distribute leaflets;
>> * summarize our best cases on Wikisource;
>> * develop stories about these best cases. Illustrate. Feature these
>> stories on chapter websites;
>> * develop initiatives on projects for cross project challenges (eg, best
>> article with content improved in at least 3 projects);
>> * chapters may write and distribute a couple of press releases about
>> wikisource;
>> * chapters may propose conferences about wikisource (and speakers
>> available to talk about it);
>> * develop arguments for museums etc...
>>
>> Measures of success are numerous, from improvements of Wikisource
>> (number of docs), number of mentions in the press, partnerships
>> established with museums etc...
>>
>> What do you think ?
>>
> Who is the target audience for all this? How much of this will appeal
> to seniors?
Do we have any idea of the profile of a wikisource contributor ? Is that
significantly older than Wikipedia ?
Ant
>
> Ec
Eh, thank you for the support GerardM.
Ant
---------
Hoi,
There is a growing movement where people restore images and recordings and
make them part of both featured articles, sounds and pictures. They restore
pictures and fyi this involves a lot of work. This project that is centred
around the "Not the Wikipedia News" people, is looking for material that
helps in making the effort not as USA centred. The best way forward is in
making the group of people involved bigger; this is done by reaching out to
other projects and sharing the expertise gained.
When museums make their material public, the public can become involved in
the restauration of the material. Key here is the license of the material
involved; the work is not done for free when this means that it cannot be
used / shared. Also the quality of the digitised material has to be really
good.
While I do expect that people will get involved, I do not see that an
integral job of such resources are to be expected. I think it great when the
cherries get picked.
Thanks,
GerardM
So YES, a great idea.
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Florence Devouard
<Anthere9-/E1597aS9LQAvxtiuMwx3w(a)public.gmane.org>wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > A couple of weeks ago, I went to an event organized in Paris by the
> > Fren ch Government about "economics of culture".
> > During that event, I mentionned that the French chapter has several
> > ongoing discussions with various museums to set up content
partnerships.
> >
> > Here are two examples of such potential partnerships:
> > * a small museum with very old and precious documents. The museum has
> > limited room for access and documents are fragile, so only a few
> > visitors are allowed to look at them. The museum wants to digitize
these
> > docs, but has limited technical infrastructure.
> > Opportunity: we host their documents on wikisource and provide them
> > additional visibility through an article on Wikipedia, featuring their
> > best manuscripts.
> > * a large museum already has a digitization procedure for the
documents,
> > as well as a hosting service. However, the digitized version contains
> > mistakes (errors generated in the process) and the museum simply does
> > not have the human power to provide the corrections of the numerous
> > documents digitized by their services. Our members can take care of
this
> > task.
> >
> > Wikisources members know all that very well and much better than I. I
> > just summarize that very quickly for reference.
> >
> > In Europe, at least in some countries, we meet several problems
> > * many scholars have a rather bad image of Wikipedia (because
written by
> > amateurs, anonymous members, plagued by vandals etc...)
> > * the other wikimedia projects have rather poor popularity and would
> > benefit from more "light"
> > * journalists are bored and need new information (otherwise, they focus
> > on all the bad stories)
> > * some projects are more difficult to advertise than others, because
> > they are full competitors with other commercial projects of very good
> > quality (eg, wiktionary, wikinews...)
> >
> >
> > Besides, my feeling is that contributors and in particular members from
> > chapters need a project on which they can team.
> >
> > I would like to propose that next year be Wikisource year.
> >
> > And since the planet is very large, if this is done in large part
> > through chapters, that it be an opportunity for some european chapters
> > to work together.
> >
> > I am not necessarily thinking of anything very complicated. Examples of
> > efforts we could make together:
> >
> > * leaflets about wikisource updated and available in a large number of
> > languages;
> > * webbuttons to advertise the project on the web;
> > * each time someone gives a conference about Wikipedia, take the
> > opportunity to spend a couple of minutes of Wikisource as well;
> > distribute leaflets;
> > * summarize our best cases on Wikisource;
> > * develop stories about these best cases. Illustrate. Feature these
> > stories on chapter websites;
> > * develop initiatives on projects for cross project challenges (eg,
best
> > article with content improved in at least 3 projects);
> > * chapters may write and distribute a couple of press releases about
> > wikisource;
> > * chapters may propose conferences about wikisource (and speakers
> > available to talk about it);
> > * develop arguments for museums etc...
> >
> > Measures of success are numerous, from improvements of Wikisource
> > (number of docs), number of mentions in the press, partnerships
> > established with museums etc...
> >
> > What do you think ?
> >
> > Ant
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > Wikipedia-l-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r(a)public.gmane.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
This entire email is very interesting Lars. Let me put that aside for
now as reference. If anyone on wikisource develop a strategic
explanation, an article on the topic, please let me know ! I am interested.
Thanks for this long explanation
Ant
Lars Aronsson wrote:
> On wikipedia-l Florence Devouard wrote:
>
>> During that event, I mentionned that the French chapter has
>> several ongoing discussions with various museums to set up
>> content partnerships.
>
> Wikisource is really a much larger project than Wikipedia.
> Consider any public library: The encyclopedia shelf or quick
> reference section (Wikipedia) is less than one percent of the
> whole library (Wikisource). After seven years of writing
> Wikipedia, we are now getting useful results in many languages.
> Wikisource might take 70 years.
>
> What we can expect during 2009 is some small step forward on this
> longer path. Taking a single step might sound easy, but it's hard
> enough to know which direction is forward.
>
> If you can achieve real, practical, pragmatic cooperations that
> actually result in more free content, even if it is not very much,
> that is probably the best step forward. But you must be prepared
> that infighting and prestige among public institutions can be
> tough, especially when it comes to competing for funding.
>
>> In Europe, at least in some countries, we meet several problems
>> * many scholars have a rather bad image of Wikipedia (because
>> written by amateurs, anonymous members, plagued by vandals
>> etc...)
>
> There is a clear risk that this bad image is enforced. Our
> message that "anybody can contribute" is hard to combine with the
> prestigeous thinking among the institutions where you seek
> cooperation.
>
> ----
>
> I'd like to recommend an article in the October 2008 issues of the
> open access journal "First Monday", "Mass book digitization: The
> deeper story of Google Books and the Open Content Alliance" by
> Kalev Leetaru,
> http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2101/2037
>
> This article is just one in a ton of literature on how to scan (or
> microfilm) books, that have appeared in the last 20 years. But it
> is interesting because it evaluates two large-scale projects of
> the last few years, and compares them to each other. Even though
> "digital libraries" is a new science, it is already full of
> established truths. Perhaps this is due to the high involvement
> of public institutions. One such truth is that image compression
> (with JPEG artifacts) must be avoided at all cost.
>
> Both Google Books and the Open Content Alliance (Internet Archive)
> break this rule, by using consumer-grade digital cameras and JPEG
> compression, and should thus be considered a waste of time,
> according to conventional wisdom (or "best current practices").
> Still, nobody can avoid being impressed with their results, and so
> the scientific world needs to revise its understanding of the
> current state of the art. The author of this article goes to
> great lengths (in the "Discussion" section) to explain that what
> these projects do is "access digitization", which is described as
> something completely different than traditional book scanning:
>
> "Before one can compare the two projects, it is important to
> first realize that both projects are really only access
> digitization projects, despite the common assertion of OCA
> captures as preservation digitization. Neither initiative uses
> an imaging pipeline or capture environment suitable for true
> preservation scanning. The OCA project outputs
> variable–resolution JPEG2000 files built from lossy
> camera–generated JPEG files. A consumer area array digital
> camera is used to produce images ..."
>
> Needless to say, neither Project Gutenberg nor Wikisource are
> mentioned in this article. Their goals are just too different
> (what? free content?), their achievements not impressive enough.
> They are not potential future employers of "digital library"
> scholars. If you help them or cooperate with them, you will only
> help mankind in an altruistic fashion (what fools!), you will not
> help your own professional or academic career.
>
> In the article, the Open Content Alliance already plays the role
> of the fools. They have only (!) digitized 100,000 books, while
> Google Books has millions. They do not provide the same search
> capability. And so it goes on. The next time the Internet Archive
> (OCA) applies for funding or tries to establish cooperations with
> more institutions, such arguments might be used against them.
>
> ----
>
> What Wikisource really needs to do, is to provide an explanation
> of what it does, and how this goes beyond Google Books' "access
> digitization". In Europe, this must be set in the perspective of
> ongoing French, German and EU initiatives (Gallica, Theseus,
> Quaero, Europeana, ...). When one of those projects applies for
> funding, it will need to show that it is successful in attracting
> cooperation partners and that it is a leader among similar
> projects. We should be prepared that they take any opportunity to
> define Wikisource as a loser, amateurish, clueless project. This
> is not because they are evil, only because they do what they can
> to get the funding they need.
>
> Why should museum X or library Y or archive Z cooperate with
> Wikisource, when it risks being associated with such descriptions
> of failure? The alternative for that institution might be to
> cooperate with the successful Google or Gallica. So why is
> Wikisource superior? This is what we need to explain.
>
>> * develop arguments for museums etc...
>
> Exactly.
>
>
>
Forward. I was on the wrong list.
Ant
-------
Hello,
A couple of weeks ago, I went to an event organized in Paris by the
French Government about "economics of culture".
During that event, I mentionned that the French chapter has several
ongoing discussions with various museums to set up content partnerships.
Here are two examples of such potential partnerships:
* a small museum with very old and precious documents. The museum has
limited room for access and documents are fragile, so only a few
visitors are allowed to look at them. The museum wants to digitize these
docs, but has limited technical infrastructure.
Opportunity: we host their documents on wikisource and provide them
additional visibility through an article on Wikipedia, featuring their
best manuscripts.
* a large museum already has a digitization procedure for the documents,
as well as a hosting service. However, the digitized version contains
mistakes (errors generated in the process) and the museum simply does
not have the human power to provide the corrections of the numerous
documents digitized by their services. Our members can take care of this
task.
Wikisources members know all that very well and much better than I. I
just summarize that very quickly for reference.
In Europe, at least in some countries, we meet several problems
* many scholars have a rather bad image of Wikipedia (because written by
amateurs, anonymous members, plagued by vandals etc...)
* the other wikimedia projects have rather poor popularity and would
benefit from more "light"
* journalists are bored and need new information (otherwise, they focus
on all the bad stories)
* some projects are more difficult to advertise than others, because
they are full competitors with other commercial projects of very good
quality (eg, wiktionary, wikinews...)
Besides, my feeling is that contributors and in particular members from
chapters need a project on which they can team.
I would like to propose that next year be Wikisource year.
And since the planet is very large, if this is done in large part
through chapters, that it be an opportunity for some european chapters
to work together.
I am not necessarily thinking of anything very complicated. Examples of
efforts we could make together:
* leaflets about wikisource updated and available in a large number of
languages;
* webbuttons to advertise the project on the web;
* each time someone gives a conference about Wikipedia, take the
opportunity to spend a couple of minutes of Wikisource as well;
distribute leaflets;
* summarize our best cases on Wikisource;
* develop stories about these best cases. Illustrate. Feature these
stories on chapter websites;
* develop initiatives on projects for cross project challenges (eg, best
article with content improved in at least 3 projects);
* chapters may write and distribute a couple of press releases about
wikisource;
* chapters may propose conferences about wikisource (and speakers
available to talk about it);
* develop arguments for museums etc...
Measures of success are numerous, from improvements of Wikisource
(number of docs), number of mentions in the press, partnerships
established with museums etc...
What do you think ?
Ant
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Interwiki_map
Notice;
The interwiki map, the defines to what things like [[wikt:Foobar]]
point, is not updated for many months. I will make a BugZilla request
to update it now Sunday.
That does not mean it will be updated, I will be surprised if it
would, but you never know.
I would recommend to try to get the interwiki map additions on the
talk page cleaned out by then in case the it does get updated as a
responds to my bugzilla request to it.
Greetings,
Walter
--
Contact: walter AT wikizine DOT org
Wikizine.org - news for and about the Wikimedia community
I was having an issue with the "Meta in many languages" section of the
main page; it wouldn't display properly--probably because of the
depreciated <small> tag; I fixed it in
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:MetaHomePages&diff=pre…>.
However, it seems this language list is getting a bit bulky to be at the
top of the Main Page of meta anyway, and I think the page could probably
use a face-lift.
Any suggestions?
It seems Sj thought the mailing list was called "meta-l" and meant to
send it here. :-)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 2:37 AM
Subject: [Wikimania-l] Arabic Wikipedia day(s) -- barnraising joys and results
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
<foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>, Meta-Wiki
<meta-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>, "Wikimania general list (open
subscription)" <wikimania-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>, Wikimedia
Translators <translators-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
The Library of Alexandria (and Moushira and Abdel Rahman in
particular) helped organize and host an Arabic Wikipedia day
yesterday... if I read correctly, people contributed roughly 685 new
articles in a day, and 4200 this month (increasing the project size by
almost 1% in a day! and 6% this month). I looked at a selection from
today, and nothing seemed scripted, /many/ contributors added new
articles, including a number of anons. And it's good to see that the
obligations imposed by the heavier volume is being taken seriously:
http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%A7%D9%86http://www.bibalex.org/english/media/NewsDetails.aspx?NewsID=2278
I think Khaled Hosny and EGLUG in Cairo helped put on their own
Wikipedia day(s?) earlier in August. There was certainly discussion
of Arabic-language editing drives at Wikimania in Alexandria, but it's
pretty awesome to see it taking place -- barnraisings are a good
spectator sport (and motivation to practice a new language :-).
Congrats to everyone involved, browsing the results made my night.
SJ
(who heard about the event but forgot during the day, and was reminded
by the sitenotice when browsing ar:wp for something quite
different...)
--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023
---
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
this address will probably get lost.
Hello,
There is a !vote to change the logo of meta-wiki. You're invited to
express your opinion there:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Babel/Wiki_logo
Cheers,
--
Guillaume Paumier
[[m:User:guillom]]
« Quand on veut plaire dans le monde, il faut se résoudre à se laisser
apprendre beaucoup de choses qu'on sait par des gens qui les ignorent.
» Nicolas de Chamfort.