Movatterモバイル変換

[0]ホーム
URL:

Keyboard Shortcuts

Thread View

  • j: Next unread message
  • k: Previous unread message
  • j a: Jump to all threads
  • j l: Jump to MailingList overview
List overview
Download

Wikimedia-lNovember 2008

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  • 121 participants
  • 93 discussions
Start a nNew thread
Hoi,I have asked and received permission to forward to you all this mostexcellent bit of news.The linguist list, is a most excellent resource for people interested in thefield of linguistics. As I mentioned some time ago they have had a fundingdrive and in that funding drive they asked for a certain amount of money ina given amount of days and they would then have a project on Wikipedia tolearn what needs doing to get better coverage for the field of linguistics.What you will read in this mail that the total community of linguists areasked to cooperate. I am really thrilled as it will also get us morelinguists interested in what we do. My hope is that a fraction will beinterested in the languages that they care for and help it become morerelevant. As a member of the "language prevention committee", I love to getmore knowledgeable people involved in our smaller projects. If it means thatwe get more requests for more projects we will really feel embarrassed withall the new projects we will have to approve because of the quality of theIncubator content and the quality of the linguistic arguments why we shouldapprove yet another language :)NB Is this not a really clever way of raising money; give us this much inthis time frame and we will then do this as a bonus...Thanks, GerardM---------- Forwarded message ----------From: LINGUIST Network <linguist(a)linguistlist.org>Date: Jun 18, 2007 6:53 PMSubject: 18.1831, All: Call for Participation: Wikipedia VolunteersTo: LINGUIST(a)listserv.linguistlist.orgLINGUIST List: Vol-18-1831. Mon Jun 18 2007. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.Subject: 18.1831, All: Call for Participation: Wikipedia VolunteersModerators: Anthony Aristar, Eastern Michigan U <aristar(a)linguistlist.org> Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry(a)linguistlist.org>Reviews: Laura Welcher, Rosetta Project <reviews(a)linguistlist.org>Homepage:http://linguistlist.org/The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University,and donations from subscribers and publishers.Editor for this issue: Ann Sawyer <sawyer(a)linguistlist.org>================================================================To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form athttp://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html===========================Directory==============================1)Date: 18-Jun-2007From: Hannah Morales < hannah(a)linguistlist.org >Subject: Wikipedia Volunteers-------------------------Message 1 ----------------------------------Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:49:35From: Hannah Morales < hannah(a)linguistlist.org >Subject: Wikipedia VolunteersDear subscribers,As you may recall, one of our Fund Drive 2007 campaigns was called the"Wikipedia Update Vote." We asked our viewers to consider earmarking theirdonations to organize an update project on linguistics entries in theEnglish-language Wikipedia. You can find more background information on thisat:http://linguistlist.org/donation/fund-drive2007/wikipedia/index.cfm.The speed with which we met our goal, thanks to the interest and generosityofour readers, was a sure sign that the linguistics community was enthusiasticabout the idea. Now that summer is upon us, and some of you may have a bitmoreleisure time, we are hoping that you will be able to help us get started ontheWikipedia project. The LINGUIST List's role in this project is a purelyorganizational one. We will:*Help, with your input, to identify major gaps in the Wikipedia materials orpages that need improvement;*Compile a list of linguistics pages that Wikipedia editors have identifiedas"in need of attention from an expert on the subject" or " does not cite anyreferences or sources," etc;*Send out periodical calls for volunteer contributors on specific topics orarticles;*Provide simple instructions on how to upload your entries into Wikipedia;*Keep track of our project Wikipedians;*Keep track of revisions and new entries;*Work with Wikimedia Foundation to publicize the linguistics community'sefforts.We hope you are as enthusiastic about this effort as we are. Just to help usallget started looking at Wikipedia more critically, and to easily identify anareaneeding improvement, we suggest that you take a look at the List ofLinguistspage at:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_linguists. MMany people are not listed there; others need to have more facts andinformationadded. If you would like to participate in this exciting update effort,pleaserespond by sending an email to LINGUIST Editor Hannah Morales athannah(a)linguistlist.org, suggesting what your role might be or whichlinguisticsentries you feel should be updated or added. Some linguists who saw ourcampaignon the Internet have already written us with specific suggestions, which wewillshare with you soon.This update project will take major time and effort on all our parts. Theendresult will be a much richer internet resource of information on the breadthanddepth of the field of linguistics. Our efforts should also stimulateprospectivestudents to consider studying linguistics and to educate a wider public onwhatwe do. Please consider participating.Sincerely,Hannah MoralesEditor, Wikipedia Update ProjectLinguistic Field(s): Not Applicable-----------------------------------------------------------LINGUIST List: Vol-18-1831
3 2
0 0
Hoi,There is a request for a Wikipedia in Ancient Greek. This request has so farbeen denied. A lot of words have been used about it. Many people maintaintheir positions and do not for whatever reason consider the arguments ofothers.In my opinion their are a few roadblocks. - Ancient Greek is an ancient language - the policy does not allow for it - Text in ancient Greek written today about contemporary subjects require the reconstruction of Ancient Greek. - it requires the use of existing words for concepts that did not exist at the time when the language was alive - neologisms will be needed to describe things that did not exist at the time when the language was alive - modern texts will not represent the language as it used to be - Constructed and by inference reconstructed languages are effectively not permittedWe can change the policy if there are sufficient arguments, when we agree ona need.When a text is written in reconstructed ancient Greek, and when it isclearly stated that it is NOT the ancient Greek of bygone days, it can beobvious that it is a great tool to learn skills to read and write ancientGreek but that it is in itself not Ancient Greek. Ancient Greek as alanguage is ancient. I have had a word with people who are involved in theworking group that deals with the ISO-639, I have had a word with someonefrom SIL and it is clear that a proposal for a code for "Ancient Greekreconstructed" will be considered for the ISO-639-3. For the ISO-639-6 acode is likely to be given because a clear use for this code can be given.We can apply for a code and as it has a use bigger then Wikipedia alone itclearly has merit.With modern texts clearly labelled as distinct from the original language,it will be obvious that innovations a writers needs for his writing arelegitimate.This leaves the fact that constructed and reconstructed languages are notpermitted because of the notion that mother tongue users are required. In myopinion, this has always been only a gesture to those people who are deadset against any and all constructed languages. In the policies there issomething vague "*it must have a reasonable degree of recognition asdetermined by discussion (this requirement is being discussed by the languagesubcommittee <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_subcommittee>)."* Itis vague because even though the policy talks about a discussion, it iskilled off immediately by stating "The proposal has a sufficient number ofliving native speakers to form a viable community and audience." In myopinion, this discussion for criteria for the acceptance of constructed orreconstructed languages has not happened. Proposals for objective criteriahave been ignored.In essence, to be clear about it: - We can get a code for reconstructed languages. - We need to change the policy to allow for reconstructed and constructed languagesWe need to do both in order to move forward.The proposal for objective criteria for constructed and reconstructedlanguages is in a nutshell: - The language must have an ISO-639-3 code - We need full WMF localisation from the start - The language must be sufficiently expressive for writing a modern encyclopaedia - The Incubator project must have sufficiently large articles that demonstrate both the language and its ability to write about a wide range of topics - A sufficiently large group of editors must be part of the Incubator projectThanks, GerardM
9 17
0 0
[Foundation-l] Hungarian Wikinews licence
by Bence Damokos 21 Jul '09

21 Jul '09
Dear All,Sorry for bringing up a possibly old and closed issue, but couldsomeone explain to me that why was the GFDL with a possible migration toCC-BY-SA 3.0 or later[1[ chosen as the site license for the Hungarian (andI guess some others as well, created at the same time) Wikinews?Wasn't the CC-BY used by the older Wikinewses a deliberate decision to giveWikinews an extra opennes and connectivity with other news outlets (Ipersonally see a bigger chance for some newsproducer agreeing to licensetheir work under either CC-BY or less likely CC-BY-SA than GFDL or even GFDLwith a possible migration)?Is the current license compatible with Wikipedia (I am thinking that theadded migration clause makes the project incompatible with GFDL sites thatare not also double licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0 or later)?Thanks,Bence Damokos[1]http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_clause_for_new_wikis
4 9
0 0
[Foundation-l] Survey wrap-up
by Erik Moeller 22 Jan '09

22 Jan '09
We're wrapping up the survey in most languages today. According tostatistics which I have not validated, we have received more than115,000 questionnaires. I'm very pleased by this high response rate,which bodes well for future surveys.We expect first results to be published within the next eight weeks.We've learned a lot through this process, and I am very grateful forall the help and feedback, and of course for everyone who took thetime to go through the survey and forgave its imperfections. We'll tryto take all feedback into account as we begin interpreting theresults.The following languages will continue running for a week or twobecause they had a late launch or a low response rate:Chinese (Simplified /Traditional)JapaneseAfrikaansBahasa IndonesiaGreekEsperantoThanks again for all help,Erik-- Erik MöllerDeputy Director, Wikimedia FoundationSupport Free Knowledge:http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
2 3
0 0
[Foundation-l] Language codes to rename
by Brion Vibber 17 Jan '09

17 Jan '09
For quick background, it's pretty painful to rename a database in oursystem, and we currently have a lot of bits in our configuration thatmake automatic relationships between the database name and the domainname, so this has delayed renaming of some language subdomains for a while.It's not impossible to have them be different, just fairly awkward. :)I'd like to get these done soon, but before we get started, I want tomake sure the queue is complete and ready to go. I've currently got fourlanguage code renames that I see being requested...== Aromanian ==roa-rup.wikipedia.org ->rup.wikipedia.orgroa-rup.wiktionary.org ->rup.wiktionary.orghttps://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15988ISO-639-2 code 'rup' was added in September 2005, and can supersede thegeneric 'roa' code with 'rup' subtag.This seems pretty uncontroversial. Existing domains and interwikis wouldbe redirected.== Low German ==nds.wikipedia.org ->nds-de.wikipedia.orgnds.wikibooks.org ->nds-de.wikibooks.orgnds.wikiquote.org ->nds-de.wikiquote.orgnds.wiktionary.org ->nds-de.wiktionary.orghttps://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8540Reasoning: Disambiguation of country variants to create a portal site(nds-nl.wikipedia.org exists as well).The original request is almost 2 years old and didn't seem to have anyclear consensus; is this still desired?Creating a portal site could cause difficulties with URL compatibility,and I don't really recommend making this change without clear consensusfrom the community there.Note thatnds.wikipedia.org includes a link on the front page tonds-nl.wikipedia.org.== Moldovan ==mo.wikipedia.org ->mo-cyrl.wikipedia.orgmo.wiktionary.org ->mo-cyrl.wiktionary.orgThe official Moldovan language is the same as Romanian, using Latinscript and same orthography as onro.wikipedia.org. Latin script wasofficially adopted in 1989, replacing Soviet-era Cyrillic script; use ofCyrillic script is still "official" in an unrecognized,lightly-populated breakaway region but if people there use it, theydon't seem to edit Wikipedia...The 'mo' language code has been officially deprecated from ISO 639-1/2as of November 3, 2008; "Moldovan" in general use is just Romanian, andis covered byro.wikipedia.org.mo.wikipedia.org has not actually been edited since December 2006.mo.wiktionary.org seems to have.... 4 definition pages, which onlycontain translations (no definitions!) Being inactive, these projectscould be closed in addition to / instead of the rename.Use of tag 'mo-cyrl' would follow existing IANA-registered languagesubtags such as 'bs-Cyrl' and 'bs-Latn' for Cyrillic and Latin scriptvariants.Most likely, for compatibility we would redirect the existing 'mo' URLsto the new 'mo-cyrl' ones, but they would now be visibly marked by thesubtag as being "yes we know, it's Cyrillic here". If we're going tolock the site as well, adding a sitenotice pointing to the Romanian wikiis probably wise.== Belorusian "old orthography" ==be-x-old.wikipedia.org ->be-tarask.wikipedia.orghttps://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9823Some time ago we swapped around the Belorusian Wikipedia, moving theprevious version which was primarily using a non-official orthography,from 'be' to 'be-x-old', and re-establishingbe.wikipedia.org using theofficial state orthography.There was later a request to rename 'be-x-old' (using a non-standardcode) to 'be-tarask', a IANA-registered subtag which is rather moredescriptive. IMHO this change should not be terribly controversial -- ifwe're not closing it, we may as well give it its official RFC4646-registered code.Old domain and interwikis would be redirected.-- brion vibber (brion @wikimedia.org)
17 46
0 0
> For those who haven't seen it yet:>http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatisticsVery neat! Looking at tab 2 (Number of contributions): In 2007 from day 14 and onwards the number of gifts per day more thandoubled.Is it known why that happened? Just curious.Erik Zachte
14 16
0 0
[Foundation-l] GFDL 1.3 Release
by Erik Moeller 12 Dec '08

12 Dec '08
All -As has been pointed out, the Free Software Foundation has now releasedversion 1.3 of the GNU Free Documentation License, which is thestandard text license used by all Wikimedia Foundation projects withthe exception of Wikinews. The updated license text can be found here:http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html[If you are still seeing version 1.2 on that URL, you may need toclear your browser cache.]We are very grateful to the Free Software Foundation for working with usto develop this re-licensing language.The only change is the addition of section 11, "Relicensing". Thissection permits "massive multi-author collaboration websites" (i.e.wikis and wiki-like websites) to relicense GFDL content to theCC-BY-SA, under two key constraints:* Newly added externally originating GFDL content cannot be relicensedafter November 1, 2008. (In other words, we should stop importing GFDLcontent from non-Wikimedia sources, unless they plan to switch aswell. I believe Wikia is planning to switch, but will confirm that shortly.Please feel free to begin reaching out to other relevant GFDL sources.)* The relicensing clause will expire on August 1, 2009.Relicensing can only be done by the operator of such a website, not byany other party. So the Wikimedia Foundation can choose to re-licenseWikipedia, Wikibooks, etc., but no other party can. We will be able todo so because most GFDL-licensed content implicitly or explicitlypermits re-use under "any later version" of the GFDL.== Why wasn't this license available for review earlier? ==The restriction on externally originating FDL content is intended toprevent bulk-import and bulk-relicensing of FDL content from externalsources. This is intended to protect the autonomy of site operators inmaking a re-licensing decision, and to prevent FDL-licensed softwaredocumentation from being re-licensed without the permission of theauthors. This was a key condition for the Free Software Foundation toagree to this change. While an earlier draft was published, thespecifics of the migration process have been negotiated privately inorder to not allow for such systematic bulk-relicensing by interestedthird parties.== What's next? ==* Later this month, we will post a re-licensing proposal for allWikimedia wikis which are currently licensed under the GFDL. It willbe collaboratively developed on meta.wiki and I will announce it here.This re-licensing proposal will include a simplified dual-licensingproposition, under which content will continue to be indefinitelyavailable under GFDL, except for articles which include CC-BY-SA-onlyadditions from external sources. (The terms of service, under thisproposal, will be modified to require dual-licensing permissionfor any new changes.)It will be the obligation of re-users to validate whether an articleincludes CC-BY-SA-only changes -- dual licensing should notbe a burden on editors. This is also not intended to be bidirectional,i.e., merging in GFDL-only text will not be possible.We _will_ propose to continue to permit GFDL 1.2-only media uploadsfor the forseeable future, to address concerns regarding strong andweak copyleft, until such concerns are fully resolved to the satisfactionof community members. However, GFDL 1.2-or-later media areexpected to be migrated to CC-BY-SA under this proposal.It is expected that we will launch a community-wide referendum on thisproposal, where a majority will constitute sufficient support forre-licensing.* As a heads up, communities should be more careful with importingexternal FDL content, unless they know for sure that it willbe migrated to CC-BY-SA in the near future. This will not affectWikimedia-internal copying transactions, as either all or noGFDL-licensed Wikimedia wikis will be switched to CC-BY-SA.If some GFDL 1.2 content that cannot be migrated later is importedby accident, that should not present any great difficulty -- we willsimply remove it as we would remove any other problematiccopyrighted content.More information will follow later this month as we develop there-licensing proposal. Let me know if you have any immediatequestions.Thanks,Erik-- Erik MöllerDeputy Director, Wikimedia FoundationSupport Free Knowledge:http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
14 50
0 0

07 Dec '08
Hello,Wikimedia Serbia is proud to announce the Regional Conference of Wikimedia Serbia 2008.The Regional Conference of Wikimedia Serbia will be held at 19th, 20th and 21st December in Belgrade, in the Belgrade Youth Home. Depending on the number and locations of participants, we are likely to be able to finance you travel (only from countries near Serbia) and/or accomodation expenses.If you are interested in visiting the conference, please answer to this message with exact information on when can you come and how long can you stay; as well as is there possibility to provide your own accomodations in Belgrade.If you would want to held a lecture, a workshop or similar during the conference, also report that to us so that we could include you in the program.Please forward this message to anyone you believe could come.Bye,Wikimedia Serbia
2 1
0 0

04 Dec '08
Hoi,Regularly I hear people say that Wikipedia is failing. When you then listen,there are all kinds of good reasons why Wikipedia is failing. Quality islow, issues with living persons, pov pushers a long litany of woes are allgrounds to predict the imminent demise of Wikipedia. While all these issuesmay be grounds for concern, it is hardly indicative of failure. To me theyare indicative of a wildly successful project coping with everything that isa consequence of success. I am of the opinion that most of our projectswould love to have the same problems, the same issues, the same success asthe few project that do well.For most of our projects a lack of content, a lack of community ensure thatthe project is irrelevant. No growth, no interest is more killing then allthe woes that our big projects suffer from. At Wikimania 2008 a presentationwas given by developers from UNICEF who had done proper usability studies.They found that 100% of their newbie testsubjects were not able to create anew article.This is serious. This explains why so many of our projects fail. We do notinvite collaboration because people do not know how to. They do not know howto EVEN when they are explicitly invited to create a new article as theywere in this research.At the Wikimedia Conference Nederland, Jan-Bart de Vreede indicated in hisspeech that Kennisnet is interested in implementing the UNICEF extensions.These extensions are now localisable in any language at Betawiki. AtExtensionTesting, all the extensions have been tested against stablereleases. Bugs were identified and some bugs were fixed. As a consequence itis likely that some more MediaWiki installations will benefit from research.It seems obvious to people who deal with small projects that usability isone of the big issue when it comes to the moribunt status of our smallprojects. The question I put to you, what are we going to do to first agreethat this is an issue and then to deal with this issue. Do we care that 80%of our projects are failing?Thanks, GerardM
33 88
0 0
Hey All--There has been a lot of good feedback on the first set of site notices and we've taken those ideas and, I think, done a pretty good job of implementing fixes across projects and languages. The tech team has done fabulous work. You can see a brief statistical summary of the Phase I notices here:http://blog.wikimedia.org/2008/11/25/wikimedias-fundraiser-which-banners-cl… Please feel free to comment in the blog. We're going to be doing some short term testing of some minor tweaks to the Phase I notices soon.Which brings us to Phase 2. We are trying to juggle two separate concepts in designing the site notices: 1) we want our viewers and visitors to see and understand that their donations are important to the mission of Wikimedia Foundation and 2) we want our visitors to be stimulated into giving without being too disruptive.As such, Phase 2 drafts can be found here:http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2008/design_drafts. We are attempting to re-define the space in a different manner to encourage those who have not yet donated. The Quotes site notice will have 6 different quotes (all translated, we hope) rotated in. We will continue the same wiki project specific coding and current collapse/expand features that we have now. These are just drafts.Please comment on the page or in the discussion section. I'm also happy to hear any suggestions that you might have. Post your designs or drafts as well.Phase 2 notices will go live the week of December 1st...pending the time needed by our volunteer translators and the tech team.Phase 3 (slate for mid December) will focus on an end-of-campaign push and might include video elements.On a side note, we updated our comparative statistical presentation:http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistics. These charts compare 2007 vs. 2008 including only gifts of less than or equal to $10,000.-Rand MontoyaHead of Community Giving-- Rand Montoya Head of Community GivingWikimedia Foundationwww.wikimedia.orgEmail: rand(a)wikimedia.orgPhone: 415.839.6885 x615Fax: 415.882.0495
20 35
0 0
Results per page:
[8]ページ先頭
©2009-2026 Movatter.jp