Welfare offer bet365 bonus code australia_letou company_bet betsson

free online bettingMon, 31 Dec 2018 16:51:31 -0800

Dear Kiril, I assume you mean these lovely experiments by Shared Knowledge:

They are lovely, and look like they are now in use.  I like specific
examples like these; was there any description of the project afterwards
covering its welcome, the steps towards its inclusion, notes for future
research groups tackling similar projects in the future?

Kiril writes:
> The problem is that a general community consensus can not be easily
> even when the novelty is an obvious improvement and the changes usually
> rejected as good-faith attempts.

A dedicated Draft-Wiki, like [test] but for text and media, with much
simpler standards for structure, sourcing, and metadata [perhaps combined
w/ incubator?]  would be a simple and welcome solution.  It would help not
only small media projects but also massive uploads from existing archives
and GLAMs take their first steps without overly complicating things.  I
think this is one of the most valuable simple additions we could make.

There is also a more general solution already available: to create a new
tool that participants in a new initiative use (which only later gets
integrated fully into the standard workflow on various projects).  But that
takes a bit of technical preparation each time.

Amir writes:
>   There are two relatively recently developed components in MediaWiki that
>   are important for developers: Content Model and Multi-Content Revisions.
>   They are not discussed very much among the less technical editors
>   they are pretty internal, and I'm really not an expert on what they do
>   myself, but as far as I understand them, they can serve as steps to
>   implementing Jane's suggestion.

Yes!  and thanks for bringing up T2167 -- that and adding a simple
mechanism for federating such data (so that every owner of a lowly
small-scale mediawiki instance can add to or revise metadata namespaces)
feel more like a basic expansion of wiki-nature --- with associated
expansion of the kinds and magnitude of knowledge included in our projects
-- than like just another set of features.

Warmly + medialogically, SJ

On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 2:18 PM Kiril Simeonovski <
kiril.simeonov...@gmail.com> wrote:

> P.S. I can give you a very nice example of this happening in practice from
> my personal experience. Few years ago, we produced high-quality videos
> documenting physics and chemistry experiments that had to be added to
> related articles. The project was welcomed by some chapters, mostly
> despised by the Wikimedia Foundation, while the communities appeared to be
> not ready for the introduction of such videos with only some users on
> Wikimedia Commons showing some interest and sharing their thoughts.
> The main problem seems to be the lack of coordination between various
> stakeholders inside the movement on technology-related questions that are
> strategically important for the future of Wikipedia.
> Best,
> Kiril
> On Mon 31. Dec 2018 at 19:59, Kiril Simeonovski <
> kiril.simeonov...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi Paulo,
> >
> > I agree that more or less we know what activities are intended for new
> and
> > what for experienced users. The challenging part is to make a sensible
> > decision on whether to reach out to new users using the visual editor and
> > the translation tool or to continue with the old-fashioned code editor.
> > There are multiple pros and cons of either decision but it is reasonable
> to
> > believe that these tools were developed for some specific purpose. This
> > will gain even more weight once the mobile editing gets improved.
> >
> > Other examples soliciting important decisions are whether and how to
> allow
> > new users to use videos across articles or how to shape an article's
> > structure that differs from the standard one. In many cases, people that
> we
> > reach out to are smart in pinpointing Wikipedia's weaknesses and are
> eager
> > to propose innovative solutions that primarily aim at making the articles
> > reader-friendlier. The problem is that a general community consensus can
> > not be easily bypassed even when the novelty is an obvious improvement
> and
> > the changes usually get rejected as good-faith attempts.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
free online bettinghttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to