User talk:Guillaume (WMF)
Add topicUser language | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||
Users by language |
Archives:
File metadata
[edit]Hello. Any idea why Incubator:File:Wiki.png does not process correctly the machine-readable metadata? We added it via some hidden table at the end of the time, but it still appears at files without machine readable license. Thanks for your help. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio 17:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- MarcoAurelio: I don't know, sorry :/ I've seen this for several wikis with Wiki.png; unfortunately, I can't really investigate at the moment. Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
merci
[edit]J'ai failli te remercier exclusivement par le biais du gadget pour le boulot que tu as fait pour les values conversations et je me suis dit que tu me détesterais pour les 100 000 notifications. Donc je le fais juste ici :). Enorme boulot, merci pour tout. Delphine (WMF) (talk) 10:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- Merci Delphine :) Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 02:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
signpost appreciated
[edit]Hi, I got lost in figuring out WMF pov conc political party membership in functions (sysop, ..) at language wikis. As I saw, you kind of edit transcripts at WMF values - a system, I do not understand. Is there a section, in which the topic: membership in political parties (specially those who are considered by some to be extreme) vs participation/functions was discussed/raised ? --Amanog (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
FYI
[edit]썬더스터드 was replacing the page with the contents of kowiki, so it is more of vandalism and not a spam. — regards, Revi 19:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
T'as vu ça ?
[edit]https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Values&type=revision&diff=16179495&oldid=16172158
Je viens de me rendre compte de ça. Je ne sais pas quel était le statut de la page "valeurs" en l'état, en gros, si chacun pouvait rajouter ce qu'il voulait, mais ce tout petit edit change carrément la donne (pas forcément en mal, mais bon, ça change quand même pas mal). Qu'en penses-tu ? notafish }<';> 20:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
- Coucou. J'ai annulé pour le moment. Quiconque peut en effet modifier la page, mais cette modif me semble aussi devoir faire l'objet d'une discussion. Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Page perdue
[edit]Salut Guillaume. Je crois comprendre que tu es l'une des personnes responsables d'organiser le contenu des pages sur le planning stratégique qui s'inaugure en 2017 et j'ai besoin de ton aide pour retrouver une page sur ça que je ne trouve plus. C'est une page sur laquelle il y avait un tableau avec trois définitions de mouvements sociaux, deux qui venaient si je ne me trompe pas d'organisations sociales américaines et une de théorie sociologique. Peux-tu m'indiquer le lien, s'il te plaît? (J'espère que ça ne te gêne pas que je te tutoie.) Cimer! --Joalpe (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- Bonjour / bonsoir Joalpe. Pas de problème sur le tutoiement :) Je pense que la page que tu cherches est Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Process/Briefing, et en particulier le paragraphe What is a movement?
- Je suis désolé que tu aies eu du mal à trouver la page. Elle devrait être plus accessible dès que je finis de préparer les pages Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Participate et Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Cycle 1. Le briefing sera également disponible en français dans quelques jours.
- N'hésite pas si tu as d'autres questions ! Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- Salut, Guillaume (WMF), c'est exactement cette page que je cherchais. J'y ferai un petit commentaire. Amitiés, --Joalpe (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- Finalement, j'ai écrit un peu plus que ce que j'aurais dû. :) --Joalpe (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
- Salut, Guillaume (WMF), c'est exactement cette page que je cherchais. J'y ferai un petit commentaire. Amitiés, --Joalpe (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Wikimedia 2030 et langues
[edit]Bonjour Guillaume,
Dis, suite à notre discussion sur Wikimedia 2030, j'ai cogité de mon coté à ce que je souhaiterai pour Wikimedia en 2030, notamment coté langues majeurs et mineures. J'ai noté deux points :
- les traductions type google, de l'anglais vers des langues x, font d'énormes progrès ces dernières années (cf deep learning). Nous [le web] devrions avoir des systèmes très solides vers 2020 pour les langues majeures, et 2025 pour les langues suivantes.
- les systèmes de Text-To-Speech (TTS) font également d'énormes progrès du fait des ces mêmes technologies. Dans un moment calme, prends s'il te plait quelques minutes pour jouer avec le Tacotron (2017). C'est un système TTS qui prend pour input un corpus écris ET son parallèle audios, par exemple 10k phrases en francais et les 10k audios équivalants. C'est ici le genre de corpus parallèles Text<=>Audio que LinguaLibre.fr et la communauté Wikimedia peut produire à la chaine et via des coûts humains raisonnables. Pour 10k phrases, 4 sessions de 3 heures, ou 2 jours intenses par langue sont suffisant. Le système se débrouille pour générer un TTS plutot impressionnant de qualité (cf Tacotron).
Connectant ces deux points, je vois en 2020-2025 la machine de traduction traduisant les 8 millions d'articles de la Wikipedia anglaise vers des langues mineures (swahili, basque, etc)... puis un série de TTS open source permettant un accès audio à ces contenus.
Ceci est ma vision pour Wikimedia 2030. Permettant une rennaissance des langues régionales (Wikipedia basque en 2025 : 8 million d'entrées ?) puisque subitement à hauteur de l'anglais en terme de contenus et d'accessibilité.
Si les systèmes de traductions ne suivent pas pour les langues mineurs, par manque de corpus parallèles (ce qui restera surement le cas pour les langues rares telles que l'Atikamekw), fournir un accès audio aux articles reste un objectif noble et cost-efficient en soit grace à LinguaLibre et aux TTS tels que le Tacotron. Un TTS pourrait être créée via 1 semaine de travail par langue. Il y a donc une vision et des projets à monter dans ce sens.
Pourrais-tu me guider au travers de Wikimedia 2030, cette problématique ayant différents niveaux : l'objectif large d'inculsion / soutiens des cultures non-majeures, l'objectif large d'accessibilité (TTS), le besoin de financements et projets ponctuels... qu'il convient de filtrer pour les mentionner au projet Wikimedia 2030. Aussi, où devrai-je soumettre cette vision au sein de la communauté stratégie / Wikimedia 2030 ? Sur quelle page proposer cette analyse et informer sur les possibilités qu'ouvrent aujourd'hui LinguaLibre, les TTS via deep learning ?
Merci d'avance ! Yug (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
- Seems that reviewing .../Drafts/G3 and commenting on it before September 15th may be the way to go ! :D --Yug (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Strategy
[edit]Maybe you should think about re-opening the strategy discussion. It is not the result of community discussions as now can clearly be seen. There is no consensus about the direction the Wikimedia projects should take. There are two roads open for you. You can say: I don't mind, let's carry on. Or you can say: Obviously we could not reach our goal to find a clear consensual direction. So we have to go back to stage 1. The choice is yours.--Mautpreller (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Internet penetration graphic
[edit]Regarding [1] do you believe preserving the original state of that document is more important than correcting the error? If so, please tell me why. James Salsman (talk) 03:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
@Guillaume (WMF): would you please answer the question? Are you comfortable with the assertions about Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Egypt that you are making? Cc: @Katherine (WMF): Why do you think preservation of historical inaccuracy is superior to the wiki philosophy of immediacy in correction? James Salsman (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- The "Wiki philosophy of immediacy in correction" makes sense for perennial documents like encyclopedia articles. In this particular case, the document you're focusing on is a snapshot in time that was used for discussion and decision-making. Regardless of whether the data was 100 percent accurate or not, it's the data we used for discussions, and we can't go back in time to change the past. You are welcome to add a note on the page's talk page expressing your concern for posterity. Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for helping to create the Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Recommendations
[edit]Wikimedia 2030 | ||
Thank you very much for everything you did to help create the Wikimedia 2030 Movement Strategy Recommendations! I am especially grateful for the enormous amount of work you did in the Revenue Streams working group and as a writer and all the care and commitment you brought to the process. --Nicole Ebber (WMDE) (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC) |
Re: Discussions about fundraising
[edit]Thank you for your post, which could probably be an essay on its own. I'll note that you didn't leave just "moral arguments" aside, but also any discussion of our values. Do the ends always justify the means? Can you realize your values with methods diametrically opposite to them? (Reach truth through lies, democracy through centralized power, transparency though obscurity.) I'm afraid that's an unsolved problem in philosophy and political science. Cheers, Nemo 09:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
MrMetadata and file metadata cleanup drive
[edit]Hello! Is MrMetadata still maintained? I asked you about it here (link), but I'm not sure if you still watch that page so I thought I'd try send a message here too. If it's not maintained, it may be helpful to add a notice about that to the website because there are still pages that link to it. If it is maintained, you should take a look at the issues I raised at Talk:File metadata cleanup drive. Scyrme (talk) 02:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Scyrme: thanks for your message. MrMetadata hasn't been maintained in years. I just added a {{historical}} template to the File metadata cleanup drive page, but I can't add a warning to the tool itself, because getting access to the tool after all these years is complicated and not something I can investigate at the moment. Guillaume (WMF) (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Thanks! Scyrme (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C
[edit]- You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language
Dear Wikimedian,
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
On behalf of the UCoC project team,