Roberth

Wikimania transwiki

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm not quite sure what's going on here (could you point me to a related discussion, if any?), but I'll wait and see for now. Just one note: There's a lot of pages on the outside that link to the Wikimania proceedings on Wikibooks, including the Wikimania website itself. That one we can change, but we cannot change, e.g., mentions in blogs. If this stuff is moved, we should definitely make sure that there are pointers in Wikibooks to the right place. Perhaps all of the old pages in Wikibooks could redirect to an explanation page on Wikibooks, or to wherever this is supposed to be moved (not sure if interwiki redirects are enabled over there). Breaking links = bad.--Eloquence 20:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for trying to fix Wikimania 2005:Programme... Sj 23:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Gedcom to Rodovid

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello,

As I understand you are ready add to subj your gedcom but with some additional conditions or without private info that contains your gedcom? Please, describe it more precisely. For example, I can tune gedcom import script and user will can select fields that can be imported and deselect other. Can you look at project and give some comments?

sorry for my poor english, sincerely, --Baya 12:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Privacy concerns at Rodovid.org

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Robert,

(for subj you wrote)

My #1 concern about adding content here is that I need to respect the privacy of living individuals that are currently in my own genealogical database. I can filter that out and perform extractions for people who are dead or have been born more than 110 years ago (the usual cut-off time to assume death of somebody without documentation of that event). I would recommend that you make this a policy here as well, at least for publication of the information, or to include some explicit checkbox that would show permission has been granted. This should by default through GEDCOM importation be set to not grant this permission.

I hope this makes sense. My wife, particularly, does not want information about her published in a public forum anywhere on the internet. She got mad at me when I put up a picture of myself on a web page and it included her hand on my shoulder. I respect that and it does affect what I do on-line.

You have as nice project here, and I do plan on adding some content in the near future. --Robert Horning 19:25, 23 February 2006 (EET)

Thank you very match for your harmfull words :) To deal: This privacy problem can be resolved by two ways:

Private information can be accessed only by owner/contributor (with current database schema I can change only type of one field and couple sqls for this). But this case kill wiki idea - information must be open and free. So, imho, second way is more preferable.
Do not submit unwanted/private data to open project. For this variant I redesign a Gedcom import script. Now user can select age of people or time from death. Or must check necessary box to submit to Rodovid data about "young" people. --Baya 22:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Polish Wikibooks milestone

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for adding information about Polish Wikibooks reaching another milestone. By the way, how did you spot it? --Derbeth 11:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Re: Wikilabs and a new proposal with Wikikernel

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sounds good Robert. I'm not fussed about the name either (I kinda prefer Wikikernel to tell you the truth). Just perplexed that it still hasn't been implemented. You've got my support, but whether I have time to help provide a united front is another question. I'll see how I go. Cheers, Christiaan 23:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Got your message

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think that this idea is long overdue. I've added my voice of support to the proposals page as well as started a dicussion on how this project would fit in the proposal process. It is a bit incomplete but a good start, I think. Also as a sidenote, I have recently unsubscribed myself from the foundation mailing list because I am no longer able to follow the discussions there. Let me know how it is being received there.Robert Harrison 02:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Proposals for new projects clean up

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

If you haven't noticed I have started tagging various proposals as inactive and/or redundant in hopes of possibly cleaning up the page. I was wondering what your opinion was on how long I should wait before committing to the ol' cut and paste? Also, in hopes of making the page more appealing to the eye, I have started on an alternate method of proposing new projects. It is still in the brainstorm phase, I would thankful for any input you may have on the matter. I have also posted this suggestion on the talk page of the MetaProject to Overhaul Meta. Might be worth watching if you're interested. Robert Harrison 03:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wikiversity Proposal Tasks and Schedule

Hi Roberth, Sorry I was late cc'ing this to you. If you already deleted it feel free to delete it again I did not see it in the page history so I have assumed I screwed up and did not post it here. I intended to hit all members of the committee and now I have verified I have done so.

I have asked Cormaggio specifically when the Wikiversity proposal is going to be submitted to the Board for authorization to proceed with permanent dedicated URLs and wiki space. I get nothing back but vague generalities. Mr. Wales has indicated on the public Foundation mailing list in response to queries that to the best of his knowledge Wikiversity (within some appropriate initial scope) has overwhelming support from every single Board Member. The only holdup on its approval and activation is the complete lack of any information from the Wikiversity community/proponents in response to the Board's fairly minor inquiries. In view of this information do you have a feel for what specific tasks need to be completed and when they be finished? Is this a manpower issue or coordination issue between the appointed members of the activation committee? Is it a matter of final technical editing of wording such that a majority of the five acting committee members agree it is ready to go? I, and possibly others, would appreciate some specific information if it is available on how we can proceed immediately as there has been no visible action for months in the public space. Thanks. user:lazyquasar

Controversy on the closure of the Moldovan Wikipedia

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I do not want to get you involved in any way in this Moldovan Wikipedia conflict, which tires almost everyone around here. As you seem to know the way things work around the Wikimedia Foundation and the Board of Trustees, I would like to ask you two questions.

As far as I am aware, the position of a lot of Wikipedians (Romanian and Moldovan mostly) that Moldovan Wikipedia ought to be closed arose a problem that wasn't seriously touched before: closing an existing project. Even currently there is no extensive policy on this point.

This discussion flamed all over Wikipedia and the Wikipedia-I mailing list till, after a vote [1], steward Anthere provided the community with a decision [2] that supported the closure of the Moldovan Wikipedia. This decision was backed up by stewards Angela and Jimbo. It was supposed that steward Brion implement the given decision in the briefest delays. For reasons unknown to me, this didn't happen.

As the decision wasn't implemented, here are the few technical questions that arise for me:

1. Was this decision made by those who have the authority to do this? That is, does this decision mean anything for Wikipedia?

2. Is this decision still valid? That is, is it still implementable (taking into consideration that the main reasons for closing down this project didn't change and the voting results of the potential contributors didn't change either, *and* considering that the current vote on Meta develops in the same way as the previous one)?

I am not for the closure of this project. However, the reticence of the decision makers to accept any compromise solution ([3], for example) that would modify the status quo - the existence of the Moldovan Wikipedia *and* on the mo.wikipedia.org domain -, leaves the closure as the only alternative to somehow dissipate the confusion that planes over the mo.wiki domain.

So, before making any more attempts on the mailing list, I would like to have a clear view on this given decision. --Landroni 14:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wikiversity revert...

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

To quote your revert: "reverting to previous version by Cormaggio - degrees can't be granted" ... may I ask if you know why degrees can't be granted? I thought the Wikiversity idea was still in planning, and there are no pre-set taboos, as of yet. --Yosofun 09:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

This is mainly a function of some major criticisms by academics involved with the Wikimedia Foundation, and something that the WMF board of trustees has mandated at least at the beginning. Having a degree granted implies that we have full and complete programs already established, and have people with PhDs available that are "teaching" these courses. Currently Wikiversity is no where near that stage of development, and the granting of degrees is something that will be a very long time off. I'm not trying to suggest that there will never be degrees granted by Wikiversity, but let's start with something we can get going right away and not try to fool people into thinking that degrees are something that is easy to obtain.

There are scams and other less than honorable people who do offer university degrees simply by paying a fee and signing a form. Wikiversity wants to stand out away from groups like this and instead wants to be taken seriously by those who are involved in standard academia. There are also some groups that use the terms of Bachelors, Masters, and Doctors degrees to denote a significant accomplishment even though the degrees themselves aren't really recognised as university degrees by themselves, or even by the participants. This is also something that the Wikiversity participants want to avoid.

To avoid all of this, degrees simply won't be granted at the beginning. Period. If you would like to help design a curriculum that could eventually lead to a degree granting program, that is certainly encouraged and an activity that is going to take place on Wikiversity. Just plan on it being as difficult if not more difficult than trying to establish a new degree program at a major university, including the bureaucracy needed to get it set up. And an eventual goal would be to have at least something akin to meeting accreditation standards of some sort or have academic standards high enough that accreditation organizations will openly request that Wikiversity join them rather than having Wikiversity beg to be accredited. How long do you think it would take to get to that point? --Roberth 18:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Though Wikiversity is still in its foundational throes, I'm not sure if the reasons you provided justify the initial straying away from being a degree-granting institute. First of all, you should not assume that Wikiversity is a scam, especially not one akin to those that proclaim, "Give me $1000, and I'd give you a B.S." The core of the scam in such notorious Internet presences is the extortion of money without the proper transmission of the knowledge that should come from such a transaction. In other words, the traditional purpose of a degree is something like a [Userbox]: it concisely summarizes the skill a person has attained from a period of study, and it helps the employer gauge the person's ability to contribute to their relational concern. The scams can't possibly offer that, but WM can.

That being said, from the sheer intellectual wealth of the WM Foundation, a dearth of knowledge is definitely not a problem -- nor, given the number of google hits, is the transmission of knowledge. As mentioned at Mania, one of WM's main goals in the upcoming year should be increasing the quality of articles -- essentially, notability. Translated to the needs of Wikiversity, this means that Wikiversity ought to offer a degree in its inception, both to assert its notability and to provide incentive for potential students to participate in depth: With the exception of a few polymaths, people tend to have "interests of the moment," and long-term interests, the latter of which is more easily attained by having a socially-acceptable goal to work for -- this, in the traditional parlance, is called a degree. Would you want to spend four years studying Ancient Sumarian obscurities otherwise? Yosofun 02:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

About Wikiversity

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello. Sorry to write in English, but I only know English and French :)

You have expressed interest in the Wikiversity project, so here is some news about the project. English and German language Wikiversities are now open. Wikiversity Beta is a global platform aiming at coordinating Wikiversity projects in several languages. This multilingual coordination intends to deal with Wikiversity's mission and general guidelines of the project's scope (for example, about original research). Wikiversity Beta is also a place where Wikiversity projects which don't have a subdomain yet can develop. If you intend to open or join a future Wikiversity project, you are encouraged to take part in discussions on Beta, since those discussions are going to concern all Wikiversity projects.

You will find more information in Wikiversity Beta FAQ. You can also take a look at the reports to get some news from Wikiversity projects in all languages. Feel free to ask your questions at Wikiversity:Babel, or ask me.

I hope you will enjoy the Wikiversity experience :)

guillom 15:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

File:Ast structure.png

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey Roberth, File:Ast structure.png needs your attention. --Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

File:Authors and richness.jpg

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Roberth, File:Authors and richness.jpg needs your attention. --Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply