Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-12-13/News and notes
Discuss this story
Does Commons have a WP:NLT policy? Sounds like somebody didn't read the licensing fine print. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Go ask the Italian chapter how useful a NLT policy is when you're in court. --Elitre (talk) 09:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Nupedia
"The idea to have expert-reviewed versions of Wikipedia articles..." Wow, Nupedia has returned from the dead to visit Wikipedia. Or am I the only one to see the similarity? -- llywrch (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- You are not. Note what Magnus called his script? "Sifter." (Those of you who don't get the reference, Google it. :-) --Eloquence*
- Wow, it took me a while, too. Seems Larry Sanger proposed a Sifter project in 2002. There was even a Nupedia project mailing list on it. (I scammed my way onto Nupedia, and don't remember any of this, to be frank. Apparently I haven't been around here long enough!) -- Zanimum (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well Zanimum, I've been around for a little longer than you, but I never heard of "Sifter" either. Although I always knew that Wikipedia was originally intended to be the farm league for Nupedia, which instead became an even bigger success & put Nupedia out of business. (Anyone else still active on Wikipedia who actually remembers? The mailing list archive has been a dead link for a long time & the Nupedia.com website no longer exists.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- Wow, it took me a while, too. Seems Larry Sanger proposed a Sifter project in 2002. There was even a Nupedia project mailing list on it. (I scammed my way onto Nupedia, and don't remember any of this, to be frank. Apparently I haven't been around here long enough!) -- Zanimum (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- EOL
I'm surprised and troubled to see that WMF chose to forge a cooperation with EOL when WMF can look within their projects and contact Wikispecies for help. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- It seems to me that Wikispecies is already helping, and that the cooperation with EOL is mainly for EOL's benefit, not ours. I'm not sure why this troubles you. Powers T 21:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- No, we were never asked to help in any proof-reading or similar. This announcement came out of the blue. We often feel that WMF has forgotten us (by chance or not) OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Nothing's stopping you from proofreading. Why would you not already be working on Wikipedia articles? Powers T 21:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Because we got some editors and admins that actually don't know what is Wikipedia? They will be the best candidate to pitch in because they already understood and accepted the wiki model. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- What I'm saying is that this doesn't seem like a case in which the Wikimedia Foundation went to the EOL and said "We need to improve our coverage of life forms but we need more expertise, can you help?", but rather the EOL coming to Wikimedia saying "We think your articles are great, can we use them in our project and contribute improvements back to Wikipedia?" Powers T 11:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- Because we got some editors and admins that actually don't know what is Wikipedia? They will be the best candidate to pitch in because they already understood and accepted the wiki model. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- Nothing's stopping you from proofreading. Why would you not already be working on Wikipedia articles? Powers T 21:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- No, we were never asked to help in any proof-reading or similar. This announcement came out of the blue. We often feel that WMF has forgotten us (by chance or not) OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)