Mailing List Archive

Dear everyone,
As a reminder, we also discussed suffrage requirements on this list last year:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-April/042105.html

As a response to concerns over the proposed requirement that there be
50 edits between April and June before the election, this period was
lengthened to January to June, and now here we are.

best,
Phoebe,

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Philippe
Beaudette<pbeaudette@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Allow me, please, to reinforce this, wearing my "election committee
> member" hat.
>
> This years' rules were mostly carryovers from last years' rules.  When
> we started, we looked around, realized that no significant opposition
> to last years' rules had been expressed, checked the talk pages to be
> sure, and modified the rules to cover anything we thought needed to be
> changed (for instance, this year we were able to use edits from across
> wikis, using SUL - which was one of the points of opposition that was
> raised last year, but there was not a technically feasible method to
> do it at the time).
>
> I'm sure that if there is significant response to the edit count
> requirement, next year's committee will happily (he said confidently,
> with no intent to volunteer for next year's committee) review it then.
>
> Philippe
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 31, 2009, at 12:31 PM, Kwan Ting Chan wrote:
>
>>
>> And from experience, I can tell you the reality of establishing the
>> rules work by starting from last year, and updating or modifying
>> based on feedbacks. And that mean, given no strong community
>> consensus to change our present form of requiring some form of edit
>> requirement, having that requirement.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



--
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
<at> gmail.com *

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Philippe
Beaudette<pbeaudette@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> On Jul 31, 2009, at 1:13 PM, Brian wrote:
>
>> There
>> is further no top down effort to ask the community if they have any
>> good
>> ideas, and then ask the community what they think about the best of
>> those
>> ideas. That, in my view, is a broken system.
>
>
> Really?  Been to the strategic planning wiki lately?  There's a whole
> big section there asking for proposals from the community. :-)

Right. I sympathize with both Brian and Philippe here.

There are those who want the Foundation to take a more active role in
facilitating discussion, even from those who are apathetic or shy
about discussing policy; they also want the Foundation to make
decisions based on thorough community input. They feel that the
Foundation is acting on the limited input given, and fooling itself
that this is a functional way to survey a broad and underrepresented
community.

There are also those who feel the Foundation is open and encouraging
public discourse, but there aren't many community members contributing
to the discussion. They want the community to take a more active role
in discussions and to start new ones where they don't exist, and to be
bold with ideas about change; they also want the Foundation to make
bold decisions where none has been proposed, and to make steady
progress. They feel the community is not very communal, and needs
guidance when a complex topic arises to overcome a tendency towards
flame wars - or should be left out of discussions requiring expertise
altogether.


I am somewhere in-between.

On critical complex topics, the Foundation could benefit from more
discussion and better planning. Why have we made it so hard to start
new Projects? When did we acquire 8 million dollars in annual upkeep?
Where are metrics of site popularity, public citation, and reuse (for
all projects, not just Wikipedia) in measures of the Foundation's
success?
These topics are not generally on the table; occasionally we get PR
instead of detailed answers; and regularly people say things such as
"I don't post to foundation-l [.because it's not a friendly enough
environment / it is full of hot air]". If you ever find yourself
saying that about a canonical place for discussion of community-wide
issues, you've run into a deep problem that you should address
publicly and immediately.

On critical planning topics, the community has the ball in its own
court -- a healthy foundation, hundreds of thousands of active
supporters, worldwide acclaim, and the authority to chart its own
course. And so far, many of its good planners are looking elsewhere
and saying "I think you have the ball."
Perhaps local factions and detailed policy-making have won out over
larger-scope planning; perhaps even the most active community members
don't realize the position they are in to contribute to long-term
discussions -- such as how to define membership, suffrage, community
engagement. But if you find yourself spending more time writing
eloquent challenges to authority than proposing better solutions, you
should stop and consider whether you can just fix what needs fixing.

Sj

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 4:45 PM, phoebe ayers<phoebe.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear everyone,
> As a reminder, we also discussed suffrage requirements on this list last year:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-April/042105.html
>
> As a response to concerns over the proposed requirement that there be
> 50 edits between April and June before the election, this period was
> lengthened to January to June, and now here we are.

It might help to have a list of tricky subjects worthy of steady
discussion and improvement. We don't have much of a general
philosophy of suffrage (we already have a number of somewhat arbitrary
exceptions, and certainly early wiki contributors would have hated the
idea of edit count being used as any measure of dedication), and it's
important enough to be worth more than the occasional email thread.


I don't take issue with that element of the requirements, but I do
think we are excluding smaller projects, where each contribution takes
more time and it is rare to have any qualified voters who aren't
running bots. (why should bot-runners get special recognition? Is it
truly such a valuable task to add batches of stubs?)

A future request : It would be handy if the election tool redirected
ineligible voters to a place where they can share their priorities and
thoughts, at least to the tune of a short paragraph. 'Ineligible to
vote' makes people sad, and should not mean 'unqualified to contribute
to the future of the projects'.

SJ

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/7/31 Samuel Klein <meta.sj@gmail.com>:
> On critical complex topics, the Foundation could benefit from more
> discussion and better planning.  Why have we made it so hard to start
> new Projects?

I would suggest that we use the strategy call for proposals to
re-surface some of the most important project ideas that people would
like to bring attention to.

http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Call_for_Proposals

IMO there's simply a lack of community support for a lot of ideas,
either because people feel they are bad ideas, out of scope for our
mission, already covered within the scope of existing projects, or
hard to make work with the existing software. That said, I think there
are definitely many ideas that are worth exploring further.

My personal favorites:
* a shared repository for structured data, the equivalent to Wikimedia
Commons for data (some coherent synthesis of ideas from FreeBase,
OmegaWiki, and Semantic MediaWiki);
* a wiki for the global community of makers to share designs and
prototypes for both functional and entertaining objects, which is
becoming increasingly important as fabbing facilities become
commonplace;
* a wiki for annotated source code examples, similar to LiteratePrograms.org;
* a wiki for standardization;
* a dedicated public outreach / evangelism wiki.

What are yours?
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/8/1 Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org>:
> * a wiki for the global community of makers to share designs and
> prototypes for both functional and entertaining objects, which is
> becoming increasingly important as fabbing facilities become
> commonplace;

Commons could do this tomorrow if the blender file type was allowed.


--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/7/31 geni <geniice@gmail.com>:
> 2009/8/1 Erik Moeller <erik@wikimedia.org>:
>> * a wiki for the global community of makers to share designs and
>> prototypes for both functional and entertaining objects, which is
>> becoming increasingly important as fabbing facilities become
>> commonplace;
>
> Commons could do this tomorrow if the blender file type was allowed.

Not sure it would be the right space for developing the policies and
collaboration spaces around it, but yeah, we need additional filetype
support. I think COLLADA is supposed to be the interchange standard
for 3D applications, and is supported by Blender; there were some
security issues last time we looked at it (as is often the case).
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 9:09 PM, Erik Moeller<erik@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> 2009/7/31 Samuel Klein <meta.sj@gmail.com>:
>> On critical complex topics, the Foundation could benefit from more
>> discussion and better planning.  Why have we made it so hard to start
>> new Projects?
>
> I would suggest that we use the strategy call for proposals to
> re-surface some of the most important project ideas that people would
> like to bring attention to.
>
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Call_for_Proposals

Yes.

> IMO there's simply a lack of community support for a lot of ideas,
> either because people feel they are bad ideas, out of scope for our
> mission, already covered within the scope of existing projects, or
> hard to make work with the existing software. That said, I think there

I was thinking particularly of Wikikids and Wikifamily (Rodovid),
which are useful for significant audiences, implementable in an
elegant way, about creating and sharing collections of free knowledge,
and have existing multilingual communities. I don't know if they
still need support of any kind, but their proposals for Wikimedia
hosting remain.

> are definitely many ideas that are worth exploring further.
>
> My personal favorites:
> * a shared repository for structured data, the equivalent to Wikimedia
> Commons for data (some coherent synthesis of ideas from FreeBase,
> OmegaWiki, and Semantic MediaWiki);
> * a wiki for the global community of makers to share designs and
> prototypes for both functional and entertaining objects, which is
> becoming increasingly important as fabbing facilities become
> commonplace;
> * a wiki for annotated source code examples, similar to LiteratePrograms.org;
+1

> * a wiki for standardization;
> * a dedicated public outreach / evangelism wiki.

What would this look like?

Also...
*A wiki for book metadata, with an entry for every published work,
statistics about its use and siblings, and discussion about its
usefulness as a citation (a collaboration with OpenLibrary, merging
WikiCite ideas)

Sj

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Samuel Klein<meta.sj@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also...
> *A wiki for book metadata, with an entry for every published work,
> statistics about its use and siblings, and discussion about its
> usefulness as a citation (a collaboration with OpenLibrary, merging
> WikiCite ideas)

Why not just do this in the Wikisource project?

99% percent of "every published work" are free/libre. Only the last
70 years worth of texts are restricted by copyright, so it doesnt make
sense to build a different project for those works.

i.e. Wikisource could still have a page about a source even if the
text is not present.

But before that is feasible, we need a bigger Wikisource community,
otherwise it will end up as a mess.

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 3:32 AM, John Vandenberg<jayvdb@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Samuel Klein<meta.sj@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Also...
>> *A wiki for book metadata, with an entry for every published work,
>> statistics about its use and siblings, and discussion about its
>> usefulness as a citation (a collaboration with OpenLibrary, merging
>> WikiCite ideas)
>
> Why not just do this in the Wikisource project?
>
> 99% percent of "every published work" are free/libre.  Only the last
> 70 years worth of texts are restricted by copyright, so it doesnt make
> sense to build a different project for those works.
<snip>

Not so. More printed works have been published in the last 70 years
than the whole of human history preceding them.

-Robert Rohde

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

2009/8/1 John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com>:
> On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Samuel Klein<meta.sj@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Also...
>> *A wiki for book metadata, with an entry for every published work,
>> statistics about its use and siblings, and discussion about its
>> usefulness as a citation (a collaboration with OpenLibrary, merging
>> WikiCite ideas)
>
> Why not just do this in the Wikisource project?
>
> 99% percent of "every published work" are free/libre.  Only the last
> 70 years worth of texts are restricted by copyright, so it doesnt make
> sense to build a different project for those works.

I think your estimate's a little off, sadly :-)

Firstly, copyright lasts more than the statutory seventy years, as a
general rule - remember, authors don't conveniently die the moment
they publish. If we discount the universal one-date cutoff in the US
eighty years ago - itself a fast-receding anomaly - extant copyrights
probably last about a hundred years from publication, on average.

But more critically, whilst a hundred years is a drop in the bucket of
the time we've been writing texts, it's a very high proportion of the
time we've been publishing them at this rate. Worldwide, book
publication rates now are pushing two orders of magnitude higher than
they were a century ago, and that was itself probably up an order of
magnitude on the previous century. Before 1400, the rate of creation
of texts that have survived probably wouldn't equal a year's output
now.

I don't have the numbers to hand to be confident of this - and
hopefully Open Library, as it grows, will help us draw a firmer
conclusion - but I'd guess that at least half of the identifiable
works ever conventionally published as monographs remain in copyright
today. 70% wouldn't surprise me, and it's still a growing fraction.

--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

> I was thinking particularly of ... Wikifamily (Rodovid),

If you're thinking of _this_ Rodovid http://en.rodovid.org/ (frontend
is http://rodovid.org/) I would strongly vote for that.

It's really is
> useful for significant audiences,
and
> implementable in an
> elegant way

In fact it's implemented already though development is going on (as
never ending process).

I would say that there is great synergy (between Rodovid and
Wikipedia) opportunity as there is a lot of genealogy information to
be described for Wikipedia.

As of
> ... if they
> still need support of any kind, but their proposals for Wikimedia
> hosting remain.

I don't know (and never new) the team that is not in need of help.


On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Samuel Klein<meta.sj@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 9:09 PM, Erik Moeller<erik@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>> 2009/7/31 Samuel Klein <meta.sj@gmail.com>:
>>> On critical complex topics, the Foundation could benefit from more
>>> discussion and better planning.  Why have we made it so hard to start
>>> new Projects?
>>
>> I would suggest that we use the strategy call for proposals to
>> re-surface some of the most important project ideas that people would
>> like to bring attention to.
>>
>> http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Call_for_Proposals
>
> Yes.
>
>> IMO there's simply a lack of community support for a lot of ideas,
>> either because people feel they are bad ideas, out of scope for our
>> mission, already covered within the scope of existing projects, or
>> hard to make work with the existing software. That said, I think there
>
> I was thinking particularly of Wikikids and Wikifamily (Rodovid),
> which are useful for significant audiences, implementable in an
> elegant way, about creating and sharing collections of free knowledge,
> and have existing multilingual communities.  I don't know if they
> still need support of any kind, but their proposals for Wikimedia
> hosting remain.
>
>> are definitely many ideas that are worth exploring further.
>>
>> My personal favorites:
>> * a shared repository for structured data, the equivalent to Wikimedia
>> Commons for data (some coherent synthesis of ideas from FreeBase,
>> OmegaWiki, and Semantic MediaWiki);
>> * a wiki for the global community of makers to share designs and
>> prototypes for both functional and entertaining objects, which is
>> becoming increasingly important as fabbing facilities become
>> commonplace;
>> * a wiki for annotated source code examples, similar to LiteratePrograms.org;
> +1
>
>> * a wiki for standardization;
>> * a dedicated public outreach / evangelism wiki.
>
> What would this look like?
>
> Also...
> *A wiki for book metadata, with an entry for every published work,
> statistics about its use and siblings, and discussion about its
> usefulness as a citation (a collaboration with OpenLibrary, merging
> WikiCite ideas)
>
> Sj
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Andrew Gray wrote:
> 2009/8/1 John Vandenberg:
>
>> On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
>>
>>> Also...
>>> *A wiki for book metadata, with an entry for every published work,
>>> statistics about its use and siblings, and discussion about its
>>> usefulness as a citation (a collaboration with OpenLibrary, merging
>>> WikiCite ideas)
>>>
>> Why not just do this in the Wikisource project?
>>
>> 99% percent of "every published work" are free/libre. Only the last
>> 70 years worth of texts are restricted by copyright, so it doesnt make
>> sense to build a different project for those works.
>>
>
> I think your estimate's a little off, sadly :-)
>
> Firstly, copyright lasts more than the statutory seventy years, as a
> general rule - remember, authors don't conveniently die the moment
> they publish. If we discount the universal one-date cutoff in the US
> eighty years ago - itself a fast-receding anomaly - extant copyrights
> probably last about a hundred years from publication, on average.
>
> But more critically, whilst a hundred years is a drop in the bucket of
> the time we've been writing texts, it's a very high proportion of the
> time we've been publishing them at this rate. Worldwide, book
> publication rates now are pushing two orders of magnitude higher than
> they were a century ago, and that was itself probably up an order of
> magnitude on the previous century. Before 1400, the rate of creation
> of texts that have survived probably wouldn't equal a year's output
> now.
>
> I don't have the numbers to hand to be confident of this - and
> hopefully Open Library, as it grows, will help us draw a firmer
> conclusion - but I'd guess that at least half of the identifiable
> works ever conventionally published as monographs remain in copyright
> today. 70% wouldn't surprise me, and it's still a growing fraction.
>
>
Intuitively, I think your analysis is closer to reality, but, even so,
that older 30% is more than enough to keep us all busy for a very long
time. To appreciate the size of the task consider the 1911 Encyclopædia
Britannica. It is well in the public domain, and most articles there
have a small number of sources which themselves would be in the public
domain. Only a small portion of the 1911 EB project on Wikisource is
complete to acceptable standards; we have virtually nothing from EB's
sources; we also have virtually nothing from any other edition of the EB
even though everything up to the early 14th (pre 1946) is already in the
public domain. Dealing with this alone is a huge task.

Having all this bibliography on Wikisource is conceivable, though
properly not in the Wikisource of any one language; that would be
consistent with my own original vision of Wikisource from the very first
day. A good bibliographic survey of a work should reference all editions
and all translations of a work. For an author, multiply this by the
number of his works. Paradoxically, Wikisource, like Wikipedia and like
many another mature projects, has made a virtue of obsessive minute
accuracy and uniformity. While we all treasure accuracy, its pursuit
can be subject to diminishing returns. A bigger Wikisource community
could in theory overcome this, but the process of acculturation that
goes on in mature wiki projects makes this unlikely.

Sam's reference to "book metadata" is itself an underestimate of the
challenge. It doesn't even touch on journal articles, or other material
too short to warrant the publication of a monograph.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I could see this happening on Wikisource.

I mention it as another project because it would eventually involve
importing and organizing freely available metadata on roughly ten
million books, and defining a style guide for helping organizing
citations and comments about each as a source -- very different from
the current work going on at WS.

We need to publicly think about what each of the Projects will look
like when they fully cover their scope... or at a few major milestones
along the way. That view would also help define what long-term
notability standards will look like for projects that currently reject
free knowledge about certain topics.

John V writes:
> 99% percent of "every published work" are free/libre. Only the last
> 70 years worth of texts are restricted by copyright, so it doesnt make
> sense to build a different project for those works.

It's closer to only 10% that is free/libre -- the rate of publishing
has been growing geometrically for a number of decades, and it's the
last 85 years for some texts.

--SJ

On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 6:32 AM, John Vandenberg<jayvdb@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Samuel Klein<meta.sj@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Also...
>> *A wiki for book metadata, with an entry for every published work,
>> statistics about its use and siblings, and discussion about its
>> usefulness as a citation (a collaboration with OpenLibrary, merging
>> WikiCite ideas)
>
> Why not just do this in the Wikisource project?
>
> 99% percent of "every published work" are free/libre.  Only the last
> 70 years worth of texts are restricted by copyright, so it doesnt make
> sense to build a different project for those works.
>
> i.e. Wikisource could still have a page about a source even if the
> text is not present.
>
> But before that is feasible, we need a bigger Wikisource community,
> otherwise it will end up as a mess.
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 4:28 AM, Ray Saintonge<saintonge@telus.net> wrote:
> Andrew Gray wrote:
>> 2009/8/1 John Vandenberg:
>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
>>>
>>>> Also...
>>>> *A wiki for book metadata, with an entry for every published work,
>>>> statistics about its use and siblings, and discussion about its
>>>> usefulness as a citation (a collaboration with OpenLibrary, merging
>>>> WikiCite ideas)
>>>>
>>> Why not just do this in the Wikisource project?
>>>
>>> 99% percent of "every published work" are free/libre.  Only the last
>>> 70 years worth of texts are restricted by copyright, so it doesnt make
>>> sense to build a different project for those works.
>>>
>>
>> I think your estimate's a little off, sadly :-)

I should have added more qualifiers, such as "important" / "valuable"
/ "interesting" / "highly referenced".

"sadly" is an apt way of describing a large proportion of modern works.

:-)

The research industry has been using quantity metrics for quite a
while, forcing university staff to publish *lots* in order to keep
being funded. However governments around the world are now adopting
quality metrics. e.g. the Australian govt has decided to stop
"counting" journal articles published in journals that they have not
approved and rated.

>> <snip correction of John's copyright simplification/>
>> <snip correction of John's exaggerated estimate/>

:-)

> Intuitively, I think your analysis is closer to reality, but, even so,
> that older 30% is more than enough to keep us all busy for a very long
> time. <snip EB/>

In most topical areas, the 10%/30%/whatever that is "free" is far more
important than a large percentage of current publications, a lot of
which are republications, regurgitations, etc.

If we have the original PD texts...
- we can do free translations,
- we can be a resource of useful annotations of these works,
- we can analyse the raw data published by governments,
- etc.

We could also create modern or simple translations of older novels,
making them more appealing to younger generations.

With a stronger collection of public domain works, Wikibooks and
wikiversity can build "free" resources, making a dent in the large
quantity of "new" publications that are emitted each year.

> Sam's reference to "book metadata" is itself an underestimate of the
> challenge.  It doesn't even touch on journal articles, or other material
> too short to warrant the publication of a monograph.

Also, extensive bibliographies are an area that Wikisource is starting
to become a focus.

Currently the Wikisource "rule" is that we only permit a page in the
"Author" namespace if the person:
* is deceased,
* has at least one work that is "free", or
* is mentioned in at least one work that is "free"

This "rule" is intended to reduce our problem domain at the present
time, in order to prevent vanity authors on Wikisource dominating the
administrative resources.

In the longer term, I think that Wikisource needs a better "rule" for
Author pages so that it can host bibliographies of modern influential
authors. However this may take quite a lot of discussion because the
Wikisource community is quite opposed to any sort of "notability"
rule.

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Samuel Klein wrote (in two messages):

> >> *A wiki for book metadata, with an entry for every published
> >> work, statistics about its use and siblings, and discussion
> >> about its usefulness as a citation (a collaboration with
> >> OpenLibrary, merging WikiCite ideas)

> I could see this happening on Wikisource.

Why could you not see this happening within the existing
OpenLibrary? Is there anything wrong with that project? It sounds
to me as you would just copy (fork) all their book data, but for
what gain?

(Plus you would have to motivate why a copy of OpenLibrary should
go into the English Wikisource and not the German or French one.)


--
Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se)
Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l