Mailing List Archive

I'd love to do it one day per month.

But I'd prefer turning off new articles creation (for users and anonyms) too.

Ciao,
Frieda

2005/12/6, Brian <brian0918@gmail.com>:
> Jimbo recently confessed his fantasy on #wikimedia: to set aside January
> 15th as Wikipedia Day. This would at least involve turning off all new
> account creation and anonymous editing, and just spending the day "cleaning
> up" in all senses of the phrase. Others suggested setting aside an entire
> month for this, or doing it one day out of every month.
>
> So, can we make some form of this fantasy come true?
>
>
> brian0918
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
___________________________________________
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Frieda
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Yay, fantasies!
> But I'd prefer turning off new articles creation (for users and
> anonyms) too.

We can turn off editing forever! Then we'd have no scaling issues! :)

Cheers,
Domas
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Poltergeist!
Exit from my dreams!

:-D



2005/12/6, Domas Mituzas <midom.lists@gmail.com>:
> Yay, fantasies!
> > But I'd prefer turning off new articles creation (for users and
> > anonyms) too.
>
> We can turn off editing forever! Then we'd have no scaling issues! :)
>
> Cheers,
> Domas
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>


--
___________________________________________
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Frieda
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

And while we're at it, turn of Articles for Deletion every day
*except* that day every month.

On 12/6/05, Frieda Brioschi <ubifrieda@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd love to do it one day per month.
>
> But I'd prefer turning off new articles creation (for users and anonyms) too.
>
> Ciao,
> Frieda
>
> 2005/12/6, Brian <brian0918@gmail.com>:
> > Jimbo recently confessed his fantasy on #wikimedia: to set aside January
> > 15th as Wikipedia Day. This would at least involve turning off all new
> > account creation and anonymous editing, and just spending the day "cleaning
> > up" in all senses of the phrase. Others suggested setting aside an entire
> > month for this, or doing it one day out of every month.
> >
> > So, can we make some form of this fantasy come true?
> >
> >
> > brian0918
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
> --
> ___________________________________________
> http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Frieda
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

--- Frieda Brioschi <ubifrieda@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd love to do it one day per month.
>
> But I'd prefer turning off new articles creation (for users and anonyms) too.

A monthly clean-up holiday (at least for the English Wikipedia)… I think that is an absolutely
wonderful idea! We could kick it off with a whole week in, heck, the whole month of January. After
that it could be the 15th of each month.

At the very least it will give us a chance to catch a breath; keeping up with all the vandalistic
and dodgy edits to articles on en.wikipedia’s recent changes was like trying to take a sip from a
fire hose. I thus stopped even looking at RC some time ago.

I hope some good will come from this whole embarrassing episode. Our entire history thus far has
emphasized quantity over quality. It is high time that some balance is put into that equation. We
could also use these clean-up holidays to reflect on how better to keep a good balance. Team
editing works pretty well, but team patrol is very hard to do so far. We need better tools to
enable that.

-- mav

> 2005/12/6, Brian <brian0918@gmail.com>:
> > Jimbo recently confessed his fantasy on #wikimedia: to set aside January
> > 15th as Wikipedia Day. This would at least involve turning off all new
> > account creation and anonymous editing, and just spending the day "cleaning
> > up" in all senses of the phrase. Others suggested setting aside an entire
> > month for this, or doing it one day out of every month.
> >
> > So, can we make some form of this fantasy come true?




__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Daniel Mayer wrote:

>A monthly clean-up holiday (at least for the English Wikipedia)… I think that is an absolutely
>wonderful idea! We could kick it off with a whole week in, heck, the whole month of January. After
>that it could be the 15th of each month.
>
>At the very least it will give us a chance to catch a breath; keeping up with all the vandalistic
>and dodgy edits to articles on en.wikipedia’s recent changes was like trying to take a sip from a
>fire hose. I thus stopped even looking at RC some time ago.
>
>I hope some good will come from this whole embarrassing episode.
>
Let's not blow the incident out of proportion. Similar incidents will
happen in the future because "Shit happens." This is not a perfect
world. We need to act in response without overacting.

>Our entire history thus far has
>emphasized quantity over quality. It is high time that some balance is put into that equation. We
>could also use these clean-up holidays to reflect on how better to keep a good balance. Team
>editing works pretty well, but team patrol is very hard to do so far. We need better tools to
>enable that.
>
Personally I like to reflect on things as they arise, and not wait for a
high holiday to do it. Do we need to hire a good muezzin to announce the
holiday?

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

here's my idea to help the fantasy, but also keep up in general.

I found this one program interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CryptoDerk/CDVF
the problem is that multiple editors may be looking at the same page,
making it ineficient.

I also came along another interesting program:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v156/vilerage/Screenshot-3.png
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v156/vilerage/Screenshot-2.png
granted they're only images of a project in the works, but it also has
the flaw of not being realtime, so my idea is to combine both of them.

In short, there is a backend server that everybody connects to with a
program quite similar to CDVF. When an edit is made, it shows up in
everybody's window, such as with CDVF.

The only difference is, when somebody checks it out, and changes it,
that edit disappears off of _everybody's_ page. The other thing it would
do is load all unchecked edits into somebody's CDVF client when they login.

This way, we can keep all edits from going unchecked. obviously, there
would be some edits made to the way the program works (besides the
network backend) such as the ability to login and help is done on a
per-user request basis to keep trolls from being able to go in and mark
all spam off as legit. Also, to keep things in check, anybody
blacklisting a user (without a prior ban) would have to also get a vote
of x amount of people before it becomes a global blacklisted user on all
clients.

Unfortunately, I'm not a programmer or have any time to learn, but I am
willing to share more of my ideas and hash things out. I'm always in
#wikipedia if you wish to chat.


On a more general note, it would be really cool to get more paid people
onboard, such as Tim Starling, and some editors that'll complete stubs.
maybe even some sort of bounty system for the articles that could use
being done but nobody wants to do?

Food for thought,
Kyle
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Kyle Lutze wrote:

> On a more general note, it would be really cool to get more paid
> people onboard, such as Tim Starling, and some editors that'll
> complete stubs. maybe even some sort of bounty system for the articles
> that could use being done but nobody wants to do?

Paid developers, sure. Someone needs to make sure that the money is
being allocated where it's needed (buying hardware versus developing
software, and if the latter, what software and who), but there isn't any
sort of huge problem with it.

Paying editors is another matter. In principle I would support it, but
we have to be *very* careful that it doesn't cause all sorts of
collateral problems, from people gaming any sort of bounty system to get
paid for crap work, to distortions in the community that might cause
greater harm than the paid writers help. It's not impossible to do
right, but I think it may be hard enough to not be worth it.

-Mark

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 12/12/05, Delirium <delirium@hackish.org> wrote:
> Kyle Lutze wrote:
>
> > On a more general note, it would be really cool to get more paid
> > people onboard, such as Tim Starling, and some editors that'll
> > complete stubs. maybe even some sort of bounty system for the articles
> > that could use being done but nobody wants to do?
>
> Paying editors is another matter. In principle I would support it, but
> we have to be *very* careful that it doesn't cause all sorts of
> collateral problems, from people gaming any sort of bounty system to get
> paid for crap work, to distortions in the community that might cause
> greater harm than the paid writers help. It's not impossible to do
> right, but I think it may be hard enough to not be worth it.

I've got an idea: when you come up with an idea that would
fundamentally change the nature of Wikipedia, why don't you just get a
group of people together to start a fork?

I honestly do wonder how long it will be before the first Great Pedia
Fork takes place. I've found the standard germ time for idea cycles to
overturn is about 7 years, which means that we've got another three
years to go...
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

The Cunctator wrote:

>On 12/12/05, Delirium <delirium@hackish.org> wrote:
>
>
>>Kyle Lutze wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On a more general note, it would be really cool to get more paid
>>>people onboard, such as Tim Starling, and some editors that'll
>>>complete stubs. maybe even some sort of bounty system for the articles
>>>that could use being done but nobody wants to do?
>>>
>>>
>>Paying editors is another matter. In principle I would support it, but
>>we have to be *very* careful that it doesn't cause all sorts of
>>collateral problems, from people gaming any sort of bounty system to get
>>paid for crap work, to distortions in the community that might cause
>>greater harm than the paid writers help. It's not impossible to do
>>right, but I think it may be hard enough to not be worth it.
>>
>>
>
>I've got an idea: when you come up with an idea that would
>fundamentally change the nature of Wikipedia, why don't you just get a
>group of people together to start a fork?
>
>I honestly do wonder how long it will be before the first Great Pedia
>Fork takes place. I've found the standard germ time for idea cycles to
>overturn is about 7 years, which means that we've got another three
>years to go...
>
Ugh... 3 more years until we've got a 'pedia that consists entirely of
AFD entries?? I can't wait!
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

The Cunctator wrote:

>
>I honestly do wonder how long it will be before the first Great Pedia
>Fork takes place. I've found the standard germ time for idea cycles to
>overturn is about 7 years, which means that we've got another three
>years to go...
>
>
For those who can read German:
http://www.wikiweise.de/

Not exactly a fork, but partly based on de.wikipedia articles, which are
then developed there.

Supposedly it puts quality in front of quantity. Has been around since
April, so 1900 articles in 8 month...

Magnus
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Delirium wrote:

>
> Paying editors is another matter. In principle I would support it,
> but we have to be *very* careful that it doesn't cause all sorts of
> collateral problems, from people gaming any sort of bounty system to
> get paid for crap work, to distortions in the community that might
> cause greater harm than the paid writers help. It's not impossible to
> do right, but I think it may be hard enough to not be worth it.

I think paid editors hired by Wikimedia is a Bad Idea (tm), and I guess
I'm not alone on this one.

*However*, a third party, someone not associated with Wikimedia, who
wants to spend some money on something good, but not just give to
charity (think Ubuntu Linux), could pay people to write/fix articles on
Wikipedia. That would be most welcome, IMHO.

Magnus
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

> I honestly do wonder how long it will be before the first Great Pedia
> Fork takes place. I've found the standard germ time for idea cycles to
> overturn is about 7 years, which means that we've got another three
> years to go...

I doubt we'll see a big *multilingual* fork anytime soon, though.

--
Ausir
Wikipedia, wolna encyklopedia
http://pl.wikipedia.org

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Delirium wrote:
> Kyle Lutze wrote:
>
>> On a more general note, it would be really cool to get more paid
>> people onboard, such as Tim Starling, and some editors that'll
>> complete stubs. maybe even some sort of bounty system for the articles
>> that could use being done but nobody wants to do?
>
>
> Paid developers, sure. Someone needs to make sure that the money is
> being allocated where it's needed (buying hardware versus developing
> software, and if the latter, what software and who), but there isn't any
> sort of huge problem with it.
>
> Paying editors is another matter. In principle I would support it, but
> we have to be *very* careful that it doesn't cause all sorts of
> collateral problems, from people gaming any sort of bounty system to get
> paid for crap work, to distortions in the community that might cause
> greater harm than the paid writers help. It's not impossible to do
> right, but I think it may be hard enough to not be worth it.
>
> -Mark
>

For the developers, I know there isn't a huge problem with it, but I was
just thinking, something to show that we really appreciate all of their
hard work :)

For the editors, yeah, I know. I thought about that before hand too.
I'll leave it alone since that subject is basically beating a dead horse.

But, what about the other idea?!

Kyle
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

The Cunctator wrote:
> On 12/12/05, Delirium <delirium@hackish.org> wrote:
>
[snip]ough to not be worth it.
>
>
> I've got an idea: when you come up with an idea that would
> fundamentally change the nature of Wikipedia, why don't you just get a
> group of people together to start a fork?
>
> I honestly do wonder how long it will be before the first Great Pedia
> Fork takes place. I've found the standard germ time for idea cycles to
> overturn is about 7 years, which means that we've got another three
> years to go...
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

NO FORK!
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l