Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Manila 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Getting WMPH moving further forward

[edit]

Okay, first, thank you to everyone who participated in the formation of the Wikimedia Philippines Articles of Incorporation. It passed the general membership and will soon be forwarded to the Chapters committee.

However, now we have other things to get forward, i.e.:

  • We need a Secretary and Treasurer. Who wants to nominate?
  • Discussion of the Bylaws

Well, now that we have the base of our new foundation started, let's get moving forward. We're setting a milestone by establishing the first Wikimedia chapter in Southeast Asia. --Sky Harbor 10:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose a new meeting in July. I prefer July 8 or July 22. --Exec8 04:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are these on Sundays again? --Sky Harbor 13:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As suggested by Jondel during our first meet-up, we can organize our meeting by utilizing Wikipedia:Meetup. -- Jojit fb 02:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please set us a wiki meetup --Exec8 05:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm available on 22---I won't be around on the 8th and the 15th. --- Tito Pao 04:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like meeting on a Sunday afternoon, and in a mall (easy access). --Exec8 05:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sundays should really be family days. Megamall is fine. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 08:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I guess I can free July 22 for this. I have a bit of a problem organizing our page on WP:Meetup though: I don't know whether to name the subpage "Manila" or "Philippines". --Sky Harbor 12:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Agenda for the 2nd Informal PhilWiki Meeting (to be known as Manila 2)

[edit]
  • Finalize Articles of Incorporation and By-laws
  • Election of Interim set of Officers
  • Preparation for the creation of the foundation

Once we set the foundation, I hope subgroups can be placed. These include:

  • Executive committee - composed of the founding chair, board of founding members, president (can be in concurrent capacity as chairman), three vice presidents (representing three geographical locations), board of directors (can be in concurrent capacity as founding members), and a secretary-general.
  • Finance committee - composed of treasurer, and auditor
  • Research and Development Committee - composed of administrators, article editors, researchers and writers.
  • Language Development Committee - composed of administrators and language editors
  • Rules, Ethics, and Legal (REAL) Committee - composed of a legal officer, government liason officer and ombuds/ethics officer
  • Public Relations and Membership Committee - composed of the existing executive committee, secretary-general and public relations officer.

Since logistic needs would be minimal, an office is not an immediate concern but for legal purposes, I hope an existing office would be used. Moreover, since we are setting up a wikimedia representative office, the group would only need minimal funding. --Exec8 14:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are not setting up a Wikimedia representative office; we are setting up a full-fledged chapter, which for all intents and purposes of the main WMF must be registered as a non-profit organization, preferably with a membership-oriented structure. With that said, we still need to raise the minimum one million pesos for capital. And since this is our second meeting, this can be dubbed "Manila 2" instead and we can make "Manila 1" out of the archived discussions here. --Sky Harbor 10:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • When: July 22 (4 members agreed so far), 2:00 pm

--Exec8 13:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with the agenda. There was a recent development in the family, though, so I'm not sure which day between July 15 and 22 will be free for me. Will keep you updated asap. --- Tito Pao 02:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it's on the 15th I won't be there. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 11:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The agenda's fine with me, and the 22nd is a better date than the 15th. --Sky Harbor 22:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my personal suggestions. Please tell me you are amenable.

  • Date: July 22, 2007
  • Time: 2:00 pm
  • Venue:
Assembly/EB: Atrium lobby (near BreadTalk, there might be a piano there), 2nd Floor, Main Building, SM Mall of Asia
Meeting proper: to be determined, within MoA
  • Agenda: Posted above

Since most of us met already, we must lay down the blueprint so that we can move forward. --Exec8 06:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MOA?... I'll be there in spirit. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 13:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry guys pero masyadong malayo sa amin and Mall of Asia--Lenticel (talk) 02:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a feeling that we should move the location. --Sky Harbor 11:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date: ok'd Venue: 3 oppose MoA, any suggestions? --Exec8 20:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • SM Megamall
  • Eastwood City

Why not SM Megamall again? That worked last time.--Lenticel (talk) 09:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any of those two will do. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 23:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Draft 2

[edit]
  • Date: July 22, 2007
  • Time: 2:00 pm
  • Agenda: Posted above
  • Venue: SM Megamall Building A.
Please provide a specific place. I'll just wait for your response --Exec8 02:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if I can make it on the 22nd...but if voting by proxy will be allowed, then please let me know. Thanks. --- Tito Pao 04:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Due to lack of interest by some of our wikipedians, I might drop plans to attend this meetup and devote time to some things else. --Exec8 09:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't jump on the "disinterest" bandwagon just yet. I'm still available on the 22nd, and I can convince some people to come if I (or if the community) can. We should be able to talk in some people from the Philippine Wikimedia projects, and I'm thinking about sending some invitations, since not all Filipino Wikipedians (or Wikimedians, encompassing Wiktionarians and Wikibooksies as well) are aware that a meetup is being planned in the first place. --Sky Harbor 14:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I would attend the meetup although I'm leaning towards attending. I'll just make up an excuse to go to Megamall.
Sori Exec8. Pinagkamalan kitang babae. Sa pagkakaalam ko ay mas mahilig kasi mag-organize ang mga babae kesa sa'tin. Kaya nga ako naligaw sa KFC in the first place eh.

P.S. wala bang mga babaeng Wikipedians tayong kasama? Panget naman kung puro lalake lang tayo--Lenticel (talk) 06:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha --Exec8 11:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with this date and place. --seav 03:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So far, same here. --Sky Harbor 09:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Teka ilan tayo? Parang konti yata ngayon kesa doon sa una--Lenticel (talk) 05:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone notify the others? --Sky Harbor 11:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We still haven’t chosen yet a specific place in Megamall to hold our meeting. Since no one has proposed a particular place and July 22 is fast approaching, the meeting place will be at Starbucks Ground Floor unless majority of the attendees will oppose it and designate a different location. - Jojit fb 00:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'll just wait for any developments. --Exec8 02:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hindi naman sa killjoy ako ha pero wag na muna kaya natin ituloy ito. The meeting is two days from now but nobody is signing up in the meetup page yet. My suggestion is to postpone the meetup until more participants are committed to the project. If other Pinoy Wikipedians cannot commit themselves into participating to a simple meeting, how can they manage to maintain Wikimedia Philippines?
Perhaps for the meantime, we could fine tune WMPH online and recruit new people from that other Wiki http://wikipiniana.org/ --Lenticel (talk) 04:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's postpone this for the meantime. We really need a better way of informing participants via push instead of pull. Let's try reviving the Yahoo Groups mailing list for Philippine Wikipedias. --seav 08:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I already changed the contents of this meet-up into planning stage. For the meantime, we can discuss urgent matters online. - Jojit fb 09:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I want to include in the agenda the issue of Wikipiniana. Oh well. I would suggest some time in August for a new meetup date. --Sky Harbor 16:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Draft 3

[edit]
Venue : Starbucks, Building A SM Megamall.
Time : 2:00 PM
Date : To be discussed
  • August 5, 2007
  • August 12, 2007
  • August 19, 2007 (Quezon's Birthday)
Agenda:
  • WikiMedia Foundation Philippines
    • Foundation setup requirements
    • Interim Set of Officers
    • Timetable
    • Support from existing foundations or CICT.
  • Development of Philippines-related articles
  • Copyright and Fair-Use Disputes
  • Tagalog Wikipedia development
  • Wikipiniana
  • DepEd Errata guide and Wikipedia

Again, we set the agenda, the venue is still the same now I ask everybody to vote for the date. Since the concept of 2nd meeting started late June, I prefer not to further delay it. We started to draw the blueprint, now we need to break the grounds and start working. Hint: My birthday is getting close... --Exec8 12:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if we set-up/use the existing Wikipedia Philippines YahooGroup and invite all Wikipedia contributors to give their suggestions, comments, etc., at least for the WMPH parts of the agenda. WMPH should encompass all Filipino Wikimedia projects. We could use their inputs when discussing the WMPH. Then the second part of the Meet-up would focus only on the English Wikipedia. --seav 13:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that WMPH member growth has stalled. We only have 15 members, of which the vast majority are from Metro Manila. I left messages on the various Philippine Wikimedia project village pumps, but no one else seems interested in joining (I'm unsure about someone from the Pangasinan Wikipedia; if anyone knows how to read Pangasinan, please tell me). I don't think I can go on the 19th (debate competition), but I think I can go on the 12th. --Sky Harbor 12:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Motivation for moving forward: Wikipilipinas (a.k.a. Wikipiniana) will debut at the 28th Manila International Book Fair on August 29-September 2, 2007. Also, Wikimedia Philippines cannot move forward without this meetup. --Sky Harbor 16:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really wish I could. But I'm miles and miles away right now. Dragonbite 23:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why not set the meeting during and in the bookfare and get to meet the people behind Wikipilipinas (yehey, they changed tha name) as well. --Nino Gonzales 16:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The book fair will be held at the World Trade Center Metro Manila Buendia cor. Macapagal Blvd., Pasay City near PICC. Do you want to meet during the fair? Exec8 21:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)--Exec8 21:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As long as it is a Sunday. PS Bring a bigger Wikipedia logo this time ;)--Lenticel (talk) 03:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
September 2 is a sunday. --Exec8 04:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for this stupid question, but whats the purpose of having interim officers? takot kasi ako nung makita kong may "treasurer", which means may singilang magaganap =D †Bloodpack† 03:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interim officers for Wikimedia Philippines, the Philippine chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation. Sali na! --Sky Harbor 11:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know if this answers the question (Sky Harbor, correct me if I got this wrong :) . . . we're not planning to set up a school club or a church group where joining is a free lunch. We're setting sights on a real, working non-profit organization. Naturally, there will be financial matters to be addressed, and someone has to manage the finances of the group. Personally, I won't mind paying for my dues; even members of clubs such as the different Rotary clubs, Kiwanis, Lions clubs and Knights of Columbus pay their monthly dues to keep up with their respective club operations. --- Tito Pao 00:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Possibly the only thing keeping Wikimedia Philippines from coming to fruition is finances. We are sorely short on capital. --Sky Harbor 14:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sept. 2 is a good date. My shift might change by next week, but since I have more than enough time to prepare, I can find a way to get there. --- Tito Pao 04:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
September 2 is good, but when will Wikipilipinas debut? --Sky Harbor 09:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be busy doing events with Read or Die Philippines, New Worlds Alliance and The Philippine Order of Narnians at the book fair that day, but i certainly look forward to meeting everyone.Alternativity 18:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will be very very busy this August. September 2 is a good day. Is World Trade a good place to meet? --Exec8 14:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We were offered by the Wikipilipinas people (and may I note by the Gus Vibal, founder of Filipiniana.net and Wikipilipinas) one of the World Trade Center conference rooms. I think this might be a good thing for us, as we might be able to get Filipiniana.net's backing for WMPH. Likewise, we can recognize each other as "equals". --Sky Harbor 06:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roll call

[edit]

Okay, the agreed schedule is now as follows:

  • Date: September 2, 2007 (Sunday)
  • Place: 28th Manila International Book Fair, World Trade Center, Pasay City
  • Time: Unknown, but I presume 2:00 pm
  • Agenda: Same as the one in Draft 3

Please fill in the proper spots as appropriate.

Present

[edit]

Absent

[edit]

Second Meetup roll call

[edit]

The roll call for the second meetup is now available! It can be found here. Sadly, I cannot go. --Sky Harbor 00:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? You cannot not go. Lol. --seav 06:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I will be competing in a debate competition. What can I do? --Sky Harbor 11:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What time does your debate end? Perhaps we could schedule the WMPH discussions when you are free. Btw, I started the following threads in the WikiPilipinas forum:

I won't be done until the evening, if I'm correct. --Sky Harbor 11:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE ON LOCATION: According to Wikiboy, this meetup has been confirmed per the details of this message left on the WikiPilipinas/Filipiniana.net forum:

Hi Nino and Philippine Wikipedians,
As confirmed by Mr. Vibal, WikiPilipinas will be sponsoring the Meet-up as soon the organizing committee confirmed the venue.
At present, function rooms at World Trade were already booked during the event so the committee is looking forward for Makati Skyline restaurant at the 2nd floor of World Trade Center as the second option. (will be posting once confirmed)
According to the organizer, you guys will be booked at lunch time and proceed with the meeting there. Just inform us if you guys wants to meet with us after your group's meeting.
Btw, do you have the head counts?, so we can forward the info to the organizer.
tnx,
Wikiboy

So far, only six are confirmed to attend the second meetup. However, given the circumstances, meetup times will be shifted upwards to possibly around 12-1 pm. If anyone can, please do announce the meetup to all other Wikimedia projects to see if anyone else is interested. --Sky Harbor 10:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naku baka nagsisimba kami sa time na yan. I might not be able to go there at that time.--Lenticel (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever can come, should come. If you can't make it on time, try to come there; it's likely that the meeting will last several hours. Also, can somebody collect mobile numbers through the "E-mail this user" link? I vote for Tito Pao! --seav 10:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What the...what did I miss here =P Oh, okay, I got it...so you want me to act as---how do I put it---the interim secretary of our group? ;-) --- Tito Pao 19:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that's how you want to put it, sure. I motion to elect you are interim secretary and Seav as treasurer (of course, I'm just kidding). If you need any WMPH-related stuff during the course of the meetup, feel free to contact me. --Sky Harbor 14:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are we gonna discuss everything there? I believe some wikipedians have reservations in participating due to a possible conflict of wikipilipinas with wikipedia... --Exec8 18:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re phone numbers per seav, I've re-enabled my "Email this user" link, so feel free to send me a message in case you don't know (yet) my e-mail addy. I'll also try to reply ASAP with my own number, just in case. If your email addy is in Google, I'll also try to set up a Google Doc so that the others can have access to that list. --- Tito Pao 23:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am bit concerned about attendance though: only six people are attending this meetup. If people will not attend because of their own personal qualms with WikiPilipinas (I have reservations myself, but I'm willing to set them aside), then something must be terribly wrong. --Sky Harbor 23:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be honest about this: I'm also thinking of that, too. And since it'll be their event that we are being invited to, I can expect that they've prepped up for the meeting (meaning, they've prepared answers to some questions as well). I'm not bothered by that anyway because, come to think of it, with or without WPinas, we're supposed to have a second meeting anyway, right? They weren't part of the original agend, but because of the recent developments we decided to include it as well. Just my thoughts.... --- Tito Pao 00:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what can we do? WikiPilipinas just came out of the blue, and we can't do anything about that. But it shouldn't derail the grand plans this community has for the betterment of not only Wikipedia but also Philippine education (ehem...more contributors to Wikibooks to compete with Philippine textbook publishers! :D). --Sky Harbor 01:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, well said. That's why I'm also preparing as well >;) --- Tito Pao 02:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would one of you guys want to prepare a presentation on Wikipedia projects? If you read Vibal's reply to the article I wrote, it would seem that there is still some misconceptions... btw, I have emailed my number. I'll probably be there from morning to buy books.--Nino Gonzales 05:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re phone numbers: I've received two numbers so far. Actually, I have three, because I already have Sky Harbor's number long ago. How about the others? I'll disseminate the list on Friday at the earliest, Saturday evening at the latest. Thanks. --- Tito Pao 18:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have some phone numbers here from those who attended the Manila 1 meet-up that was given by Exec8. I will e-mail it to you in a few minutes. --Jojit fb 10:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANNOUNCEMENT: The venue given to us is no longer the Skyline restaurant at the 2nd floor of the WTC but rather at the Marina restaurant further across the street (where the Wensha Spa is). See this. --seav 05:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that and changed the information in the Manila 2 meet-up page. BTW, who will be our contact there from WikiPilipinas? --Jojit fb 10:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

[edit]

I have some stupid questions, which have probably been answered at some point in the discussions here and during the first meet-up. I think I better ask them now than during the meet-up. Other people will probably be asking the same questions.

  • What is the mission/vision of WMPH?
  • Why do we need WMPH to reach this vision?
  • Why do we need a legal entity (WMPH with its by-laws, officers, SEC registration, etc) to achieve this vision?

(Let me also act as the devil’s advocate here) I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with this effort; it is just that creating and maintaining a foundation entails a lot of time and effort. I think it would be best to make sure we know where we are aiming for before we invest part of our lives in this. My assumption in planning to support WMPH is that it will follow the mission statement of Wikimedia Foundation:

In my opinion, taking into consideration our situation here in the Philippines, “empowering and engaging people to create educational content” means educating as many people as possible on why they should and how they could contribute content in Wikipedia. As you may know in a proposal I had (I think a year ago), I think the fastest way to do this is to work with educational institutions or individual teachers to use contribution to Wikipedia (not only reading Wikipedia) to educate their students, as has been done in other parts of the world. I guess the WMPH legal entity would help in formally approaching schools and if ever we get to the point of getting donations (you can use a nice letter and a smile (or good contacts) for approaching schools, but a legal entity is probably needed (I’m not a lawyer) for any financial transaction). Which brings me to the section below. Perhaps we could figure out a win-win collaboration with WikiPhilippines to help us achieve our mission and help them achieve their mission as well.--Nino Gonzales 05:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do we collaborate with Wpinas?

[edit]

Here’s how I see it. However passionate we are about Wikipedia, all of us are volunteers with full-time jobs (or schoolwork). Wpinas, however, will (most likely) monetize the eventual eyeballs on their site. This is their full time job. And being led by Gus Vibal, who is apparently connected with Vibal publishers, one of the largest textbook publishers in this country, Wpinas has existing connections with educational institutions, the most important thing you need to make something happen in this country. Perhaps we could work out a collaboration to help all of us come closer to our visions. If you really want to set up a foundation, I suggest we offer to make Vibal one of the board of directors (I know of two other industry leaders who are passionate about Wiki and education. One is Tech entrepreneur and the other has been leading educational institutions for quite some time). In my opinion, however, we could promote Wikipedia for education (if this is what we want to achieve) without a legal entity. An informal thing would take less work and would probably serve the same purpose. But that’s just me.--Nino Gonzales 05:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have actually been thinking along the same lines as well. Right now, I don't see any urgent need to put up a foundation especially since most of us have no experience doing so. I eventually think that there will be a foundation but not right now. I particularly want to explore possible collaboration options with Filipiniana.net. I think this should be one of the major topics of the meet-up. --seav 06:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, similar sentiment here. While a foundation would be great, I honestly think we need more people. i.e. we need to mentor/train more Filipino Wikipedians in the art of...well, building an encyclopedia. The sudden appearance of WPinas may be a blessing in disguise as the "pinoy pop-culture" and "chismis"-oriented ones will be attracted there while (I hope) the serious editors will stick around here. Honestly, I'm not sure WPinas will really want anything to do with us (except pirate us) as Wikipedians, as they do seem to be headed for the profit direction. Shrumster 06:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anymore; are you implying that WMPH as it stands is not viable? --Sky Harbor 07:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we did get to have the AoI approved so that counts for something. But I guess I don't think that just because there is actually an existing foundation that we can advance Wikimedia's vision in the Philippines at a level of activity better than we're doing now. Some of the more important things I think--like producing high-quality encyclopedic content (and textbooks, etc.)--can be done without any foundation. We need to prove first that Filipino Wikimedia volunteers (not just on the English Wikipedia) can collaborate on building Wikimedia projects online before we go publicizing and promoting offline. --seav 07:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it is viable. But I don't think it is a question of viability. If we are to start a foundation, it will probably be you, Sky Harbor, being the most passionate about this, who will do most of the work. But think, what will bring us closer to our goals faster: using your time with the bureaucracy of starting a foundation or using that same amount of time to write and edit Wikipedia? I'm currently involved with an NGO and, man, it requires a lot of work, and I don't even handle the foundation stuff. But that's just my opinion, and it's your time. --Nino Gonzales 04:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I'm just a kid. But still, I do agree that we can organize, just at a later date. I'd rather see everything get approved first and see how well people will embrace Wikipedia, especially with "other entities" getting media exposure. --Sky Harbor 13:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specific location

[edit]

Just so everyone will know...the World Trade Center Manila is huuuuge; there are 404 slots for booths in the place, but even if some exhibitors will be occupying more than one booth, you can be sure that we'll need to agree on a specific spot where we could meet up.

Here is a map of the floor plan. The website doesn't have any information (yet) about the specific booths, so from what I can gather so far with the little information I have, a meet-up somewhere in the lobby or near a conspicuous location at the WTC-Manila (such as the Dining Area, the Function Room, or one of the booths just near the entrance) is good. I was tempted to say "concessionaire", but it looks like it's a long, long walk =P

Once there is more information on the website, I'll try posting them ASAP. If possible, I'll also try visiting the Book Fair before the meet-up, as I'll need all the time in the world to look for the books I wanted to buy (and that also means that, if and when I make it on Sept. 2, I will surely be at the bookfair as early as it opens...yeah, I'm such a bookworm ;) --- Tito Pao 03:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take note though that the map is from the back forward, so the top portion of the map is the very back of the WTC. --Sky Harbor 01:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guys..WikiPilipinas is asking your confirmation for the meet-up meeting.http://www.filipiniana.net:8080/forum/viewtopic.php?t=145--125.252.109.28 02:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hi guys, this is to announce that the venue for your Manila2 Meet-up has been confirmed by Gus at Skyline Restaurant of the World Trade Center. Lunch has been set at 12:00 PM to 3:00 PM..for more details See WikiPilipinas Activities--Wikiboyphilippines

Thanks Wikiboy! We'll be there. :) --seav 16:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI guys, the venue will be at the Marina Restaurant in CCP Complex as indicated in WikiPilipinas' activities. BTW, who will be our contact there from WikiPilipinas? -Jojit fb 05:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One day to go...

[edit]

...so I have the following peepz' numbers on my email inbox:

And, of course, I have Sky Harbor's number as well (but you should all be able to find that information as well =P I also have Scorpion prinz's email address, but not his number...so if I have to send out something, I'd like to include him as well.

I'd like to first apologize for not having updated myself lately: my new work sked begins this week and, while I still have Sundays and Mondays off, my work hours were moved a few hours early, so that would mean I leave for work when most of you are sleeping or have just turned off their TV sets after catching up on Bandila or 24 Oras; I'm taking my lunch while most of you are just having your breakfast; and I'm getting prepped up for bedtime when most of you are having merienda. I'm still having migraines since this is the first week of my new sked =P

Per seav, the new venue will be at the Marina Restaurant near Wensha Spa. The date and time will be this Sunday, Sept. 2 2007, at around lunchtime.

Nino is proposing something for the meet-up---in particular, he thinks that those who wants to come to the meet-up should...well, meet up first before proceeding to the Marina resto. I'll be e-mailing the details to the others and, as soon as I can, text everyone about this proposal. I'll be prioritizing those I've named above. If you want to be included in my mailing list, please let me know ASAP. My "Email this user]] link is still open for you to use, so feel toxic to send me a note.

One final note: I'll be copying this post to the other post in the Meet-up page, so feel free to respond to either thread. Thanks --- Tito Pao 18:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note. Been to the Blogger's Dinner and talked to Wikiboy about the arrangement for the lunch Meet-up. They're actually quite busy with the Book Fair (especially since it's a weekend) and they probably won't meet us face-to-face to talk about things. It's basically just us and a FilNet representative who will foot the lunch bill. Anyway, I got Wikiboy's contact number in case we guys really need to have a dialogue with the FilNet/WikiPinas people. --seav 00:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ganon? Okay, I'll be sending out an email to you that contains everyone's numbers, with a CC to the others (including Sky Harbor. I'll try to update myself after the shift (just a little after lunchtime), we all really need to discuss plans for tomorrow. If ever, please pass word that I will be online tonight and, probably, a little bit between lunchtime and before dusk, so that we can all discuss how to go about this since hindi rin lang pala matutuloy yung meet-up with the WPinas key people. Thanks. --- Tito Pao 02:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guys a little off topic lang ha pero pwede ba sa World Trade tayo magkita? Kasi doon papunta yung pamilya ko at hindi ko alam ang lugar. Lenticel (talk) 09:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biglang nawala tong post ko, hindi alam kung bakit--Lenticel (talk) 09:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually going to the bookfair first thing in the morning since I wasn't able to make it in the past few days (because of my !%@?!ing schedule (grrr...), so either way I would still be there. How about the others? --- Tito Pao 11:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Magsisimba ako sa Day by Day (CCP) so around 12 ako makakapunta.Lenticel (talk) 12:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


WikiPilipinas

[edit]

The Wikipedia vs. WikiPilipinas Debate in Manila Bulletin

[edit]

Check out the Technews section of today's (Sep 3) edition. I've been interviewed by Ms. Annalyn Jusay regarding WikiPilipinas and Wikipedia. It doesn't seem to be online yet, so try to get the actual paper in the meantime. :-) --seav 08:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy... http://www.mb.com.ph/issues/2007/09/03/TECH20070903102006.html --Nino Gonzales 07:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merging Wikipiniana and the filipino wikipedia

[edit]

i know that you guys want to be independent, but maybe it is just more easier and more convenient if someone will merge the two resources

Andre boink100 13:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be the other way around. --Howard the Duck 14:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Technically speaking, that is not only impractical, it's infeasible. Either you order WikiPilipinas to take their servers to Florida et.al. (but then, WPinas would appear like it's Wikipedia content), or tell Wikipedia to cram its humongous data into the much smaller ISP of WikiPilipinas (Wikipedia's servers are distributed over a hundred servers in different ISPs and universities in three continents; the host of WikiPilipinas, AFAIK, is hosted by one company only.) It's like trying to cram all the animals of a zoo inside a chihuahua's doghouse. Kamusta naman yon? =P Bear in mind that WikiPilipinas is much smaller in scope than Wikipedia---it limits itself only to Philippine-related topics. And although you can see Pinoys here on the Wikipedia, we're still very much a part of the greater Wikipedia. Demanding a merge of Wikipedia and WikiPinas is being simplistic and naive, to put it mildly. --- Tito Pao 16:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. As Howard and Pao have stated already, bad idea. WikiPilipinas' scope is purely Philippine-related topics while the Filipino Wikipedias (Tagalog, Cebuano, other dialects) are Wikipedia-in-another-language. So they keep Wikipedia's scope of...pretty much anything. Shrumster 07:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiPilipinas' Bloggers Dinner

[edit]

Hello, I've been invited to attend their dinner for bloggers and I'm preparing for it. I'd like to solicit all questions, clarifications, etc., especially those you haven't aired here yet. I'll collate these and try to ask them during the dinner. This way, we can minimize the topic of WikiPilipinas in the Manila Wikipedia Meet-up 2. Thanks! :-) --seav 14:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One good topic to raise is the one that Shrumstermentioned (re uploading files): the GFDL. I'm not sure what he meant by this, but my understanding is that it looks like the moderators/organizers of WPinas barely understand the GFDL and how it works, so it might be a good idea to check how much do they really understand the GFDL. I also have issues with how they take my assertion that Wikipinas is a stub of the Wikipedia; my impression is that they (especially that anonymous guy who accused me of having a crab-mentality complex) does not even know what forking means (even though they did import a good number of articles from WP). I have more topics in mind but I'll need to organize my thoughts; since I was unable to determine when this dinner would be, I'm not sure if I can submit my other questions just in time. I'll try to get back ASAP. Thanks! --- Tito Pao 00:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. points noted. The dinner is this Friday night. The schedule is here, not in the actual event page. :-) --seav 01:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problemo ;-) If and when I've come up with a more comprehensive list, I'll try getting it e-mailed to you, as well as to the others in the list. Speaking of...I now have three (3) phone numbers with me...four (4), if you'll include Sky Harbor's. I have the email addresses of some people (including a few inactive Wikipedians) but not their numbers. --- Tito Pao 02:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, the GFDL question nga pala. Not sure how the question(s) should go but they have to be made aware that they need to go through the proper attribution processes and that articles and images forked over from Wikipedia should link to the history of that article/image at least. Also, their image-upload software seems to not record the different iterations of that same image name. Problem there is when derivative works are made, they often don't note down that the new image is a derivative of the older one. Shrumster 06:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, several questions just came to mind:
  • I'm wondering if they have something along the lines of WP:COI. I mean, if they're expecting people to make Friendster-like pages, then COI is thrown out the window. But how about "encyclopedic" articles on notable/famous people/companies? Where do they draw the line to stop these companies/people from shamelessly promoting themselves through their articles?
  • I'm also curious on how they plan to handle article deletions (and images/etc). Right now, it seems like anyone can tag an article with a "Category: for deletion" which is kinda bad since there's no due process.
  • Third, just a comment. I think they should have more people working on their policies and guidelines instead of/alongside the tons of people just dunking stuff into articlespace. Right now, important topics such as requests for admin status, page protection, deletion, etc are mostly redlinks. I'm just wondering if they have any plans on expanding the number of admins (last I checked, there were four) or policymakers. Oh and along that, are they adopting the same policy-making-by-consensus gig of WP? Shrumster 07:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, one more. First, are they aware that some of their editors are creating almost-blank articles (not even stubs) presumably to inflate the article count? I'm curious as to if they actually allow/condone/endorse this and if they don't, what their failsafe measures are to prevent this from happening. Shrumster 07:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Have you heard of Wikipiniana (aka WikiPilipinas)

[edit]

Wikipiniana is apparently a new site that seems to be like Wikipedia but for Filipino topics. It's currently a full-fledged fork of Philippine-related topics from Wikipedia. What say you? --seav 03:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should we sign-up there as well? hehe. =) -- • Kurt Guirnela • ‡ Talk 03:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a complete waste of effort seeing as they've adopted Wikipedia's philosophies (e.g., NPOV) and policies wholesale. They've already got several active contributors--who could've been Wikipedians instead. We really need to get Wikimedia Philippines going. --seav 03:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We do have a Philippines Wikia with 2 articles. --Howard the Duck 04:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But Wikia is designed to be a commercial endeavor that is sponsored by ads. It can co-exist with Wikipedia. Wikipiniana, on the other hand, seems like duplicated effort. --seav 04:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can make it a dumping ground of deleted articles though. Some Philippine-related articles which were deleted can be "transfered" there. --Howard the Duck 04:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(resetting indent) Hmm...okay, since some of the articles were lifted from this site, do you think we might consider this as a fork of WP? --- Tito Pao 06:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they ripped off articles from here, they should say where it came from. --Howard the Duck 06:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. -- • Kurt Guirnela • ‡ Talk 06:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, they took articles from Wikipedia and took it correctly. There's a link to the original Wikipedia article at :the bottom and they're licensed under the GFDL. So they're technically a fork. --seav 09:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would call them a fork. If WMPH were established, we should include Wikipiniana in its scope. Or if not, we should encourage "Wikipinianians" to join Wikipedia. --Sky Harbor 09:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I joined the community and peppered it with references to Wikipedia. I've started tagging my maps (e.g., this physical map of the Philippines) that they included there and pointed it to my user page and to Wikipedia. I've also put up Wikipedia-cheerleading prose on my user page there to convince Wikipinianians to contribute to Wikipedia instead. I think we should all do the same. And tagging TheCoffee's locator maps would also help. --seav 19:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad news for WMPH. They've recently registered WikiPilipinas.org, WikiPhilippines.org, WikiPilipinas.org, and WikiPinas.org. --seav 03:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be bad. We have to register all Wikimedia-related domains (including the key www.wikimedia.org.ph) and possibly invite them to discuss WMPH-related stuff. I also feel sad that editors on Wikipiniana are also, according to this poll on their forum, supportive of making an identity separate from Wikipedia. I don't want a Spanish Wikipedia-Enciclopedia Libre controversy to break out here. --Sky Harbor 12:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, you guys might want to read my blog entry about Wikipiniana. You might find the visitor comments interesting. --seav 08:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

" We love to compete, and we believe that competition brings out the best in us. "--Exec8 12:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The best way to defeat an enemy is to make him an ally. Good for real wars, strategy games and maybe in this situation as well.--Lenticel (talk) 12:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are really good in what you are doing and we all love Wikipedia, but I think as fellow Filipino, putting your fellowmen down is kinda having a "crab mentality" attitude. They want to do it, fine.. maybe they have their own reasons and we respect that. I visited Wikipiniana twice already and I found that there are "fork" articles that made it to balloon that fast. But I have noticed that they were trying to redefine an encyclopedia based on contents the wikipinians have contributed and still contributing.

Seav, Putting commentary narrative(can be considered as vandals) in a wiki site to promote something is a "no-no" to wikipedia's policy and I think they have the same,too. So it's not possible that moderators or editors can just erased that instantly and may brand you into something else. If they want to waste resources, fine! its not our loss anyway, but we never know what entice these volunteers to contribute to Wikipiniana instead to Wikipedia. Can this be considered as a break-away from Wikipedia? 122.52.32.190 07:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More or less it could, but for something to be considered a breakaway in this sense requires that existing Wikipinians were Wikipedians first (i.e.Spanish Wikipedia-Enciclopedia Libre controversy). Before Filipiniana.net even considered making Wikipiniana, I wish they considered Philippine content on Wikipedia first. But then again, if that's how Gaspar Vibal and (possibly) his affiliated publishing companies want it, let them be. --Sky Harbor 09:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Michael, I'm sure it's you commenting here since you brought up the "crab mentality" argument on my blog also. Yes, it's not our loss if they "want to waste resources" but I'm really concerned with the waste of effort due to duplication. Now it will be about doubly hard maintaining the quality of the same articles in both Wikipedia and Wikipiniana. --seav 09:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So they're claiming they're not a fork yet they use Wikipedia content? --Howard the Duck 11:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The name is terrible, but, man, the site of the parent org, www.filipiniana.net, is amazing! I was giddy with geeky joy as I was browsing through the sources they have made available online!
But going back to Wikipiniana. (again, the name is terrible... the most imporatant part of filipiniana is filipin!) At first sight, it seems to be a needless redundancy to Wikipedia. But considering the sources in filipiniana.net, I think the filipiniana wiki (I can’t stand its official name) can have its own niche. I think it could be the biggest open source collaborative research infrastructure in Philippine history! (I mean that in both senses). The value proposition of the filipiniana wiki, I think, is that you can do original research, something you couldn’t and shouldn’t do in Wikipedia, and something which is sorely lacking in Philippine scholarship (we need more historians!) I’m singing up now! --Nino Gonzales 02:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a reason why Original Research is frowned upon, especially in open edit softwares like Wikis. Berserkerz Crit 05:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could understand NOR in Wikipedia or any encyclopedia, but I don't see why wikis could not be used for collaborative research (in fact, they are). And if software and enclyclopedias can be created with the opensource model, I don't see why original research couldn't. --Nino Gonzales 15:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Skeptical and a little annoyed for now, but on the positive side, it could become a good reference on its own terms ...eventually. But we could use their people, and they're getting part of our audience... Annoyed since they copied Pugad Baboy - one of the first articles I ever edited, while still anonymous. Amused since I added a long deleted "list of ripped-off sources for Encantadia", which I started! OR is allowed, right? Heh! But I plan on doing nothing else there - pretty much a Wikipedia loyalist. It's pretty much "just another fork on the web" now. A little envious of their media coverage. Uthanc 15:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A semi-official response from Wikipiniana

[edit]

The following statement was posted by Wikiboy, one of their sysops, on my blog entry. --seav 21:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chk Chk!… I never thought that a single comment I made could spark a thread this hot! I prefer to keep mum about the issue being raised by Seav ’coz i have a lot of other important tasks to do at Wikipiniana. However, I believe its about time we air our side and clear certain misconceptions…so i am making an exception.
First, let me start by saying that Wikipiniana.org is still in its initial stages of development. In fact, it has not even been officially launched yet! (You’re all invited by the way.) That is why I, being part of Wikipiniana, am flattered by comments, positive or negative, pertaining to our project. I am grateful for the arguments raised here and our team welcomes all suggestions. I assure you that everything is being carefully weighed and considered.
Wikipiniana is a project still under development, envisioned to evolve in a direction determined by the variety and depth of the contributions inputed by Wikipiniana volunteers. Regarding being tagged as ’fork’ of Wikipedia (because some of Wikipiniana’s contents are from Wikipedia), that, we accept, but only for now. These articles are being expanded by a pool of writers, editors, and volunteers with a lot to share about the Philippines. Some of it can’t be accommodated by Wikipedia because of some restrictive policies. And as Wikipiniana moves forward—with the help of a new generation of readers—a new community different from that of Wikipedia’s will be formed inside our pages. Edgier and more exciting content will be developed as our editorial board is tirelessly working to give the site a unique and definitive identity. Editorial policies and other guidelines will eventually be modified.
Wikipedia is a very useful source of information, but let’s face it, it cannot absorb all the information we, Filipinos, have to offer. And while everyone has been talking about neutrality, we at Wikipiniana believe that Filipinos deserve something more. Since the start of contemporary history, the Philippines has been bombarded by writings on us but not by us. Unknowingly, we are actually reading our own history as it is written by foreigners. Fortunately, we were rescued by the likes of Constantino, Agoncillo, and Ambeth Ocampo. It is in this light that we from Wikipiniana hope to give the world OUR take on things. We believe it is about time the world hears what we want to say. We want to give the Philippines and our fellow Filipinos a site to call our own – Pinoy in origin, Pinoy by design, Pinoy by heart.
Wikipiniana is only building a facility for Filipinos to share their knowledge about their own country and it is for free. At present, Wikipiniana allows any substantial articles. Try to visit the site and take a peek of what these volunteers are doing.
Wikipiniana is just starting up guys and we need all the help we can get. Peace to all detractors and thanks to those who aired their support for the Wikipiniana project. I don’t want to argue or make personal attacks on anyone since that’s not how a Wikipedian or Wikipinian works. Wikipinians have welcomed (User:Seav) and (USer:Nino Gonzales) to the site without question. In fact, we would like to thank Seav for his contributions and for his help in sanitizing our contents.
PEACE to everyone… let’s move forward!
A spade is still a spade however they call it, whether they like it or not. --- Tito Pao 00:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Vwxyz#Wikipiniana. --Howard the Duck 03:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since they want more content, lets just put all the trash (AFDs, SDs, prods) Wikipedia cleans up. --Howard the Duck 02:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We should not do that. Both Wikipedia and Wikipiniana and its readers deserve quality articles. That's my opinion about this matter. Dragonbite 02:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, some of the deleted content on Wikipedia aren't that bad, they're just not notable, for example, fringe teen idols and Pinoy BB housemates. If they can't be here, then they can be there. --Howard the Duck 02:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm extremely unhappy. At the pace Wikipiniana goes, all Philippine-language Wikimedia projects will be emulated in some form. This I fear will lead to a splitting of communities on all Philippine-language Wikipedias (and Tagalog will end up being split even further into the Tagalog/Filipino and Taglish camps, which I fear the most) due not only to an emulation of effort, but the fact that all or most articles on one Wikipedia will be available on a similar Wikipiniana is quite fearsome. I'm not even quite fond of the names (WikiFilipino, WikiTaglish, WikiKapampangan, WikiPangasinan, etc.), but I'm happy that at least Kinaray-a and Hiligaynon will be unaffected, as well as the Tagalog Wiktionary, Wikinews and Wikibooks. I have a bad feeling that Wikipiniana and affiliated projects will end up filling the WMPH void, which is doubly bad. --Sky Harbor 13:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you notice that they shut down Wikipiniana and went with WikiPilipinas? Hey, I think these guys have a chance in being a successful Web 2.0 start-up... they actually listen to their users... hehe... Don't worry dude, I get the feeling that they are in this for profit (nothing wrong with that; I've been thinking about it as well). I think they will realize sooner or later that the money is not in connecting knowledge but in connecting people... I bet in a few months you will not see FA status level articles on the Vito Cruz LRT Station but pages on highschools, barkada gimik plans and family histories full of pictures and colorful fonts... And that would be good for Wikipedia... it will be training ground for future Pinoy Wikipedians... once they get wiki editing and collaboration skills, you just need to take care of writing and research skills... --Nino Gonzales 15:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how: some of their lists can be considered highly subjective (hmm...top 10 beauty doctors, tourist spots, unsung heroes, etc.). I just hope nothing bad happens, and with respect to the Philippine-language Wikipilipinas wikis, that communities will not be split. --Sky Harbor 23:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They'll have their official launch on this coming International Book Fair at the end of August. They'll definitely receive some media mileage then and the community split between the two projects will be "official". I suggest we try contacting the organizers and try to come up with some form of arrangement so that the duplication of scope is minimized. I'm hoping for the same kind of arrangement Apple has with the developers of the Konqueror web browser. Apple's web browser, Safari, uses Konqueror's KHTML web rendering engine. Any improvements Apple makes to the KHTML engine is given back to the KHTML development community. If there's a way for Wikipilipinas to bring back substantial improvements to overlapping articles in Wikipedia, then it's a win-win situation for both, right? Who's with me? --seav 02:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support wholeheartedly. I think a mutual relationship, even if Wikipilipinas tries to distance itself from Wikipedia, would be beneficial to both parties. Hopefully the same will go with WMPH and Filipiniana.org. --Sky Harbor 10:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I wouldn't worry too much about redundancy. They seem to be finding their niche quite well. I find it quite difficult to take seriously an "encyclopedia" that has articles for (purely subjective subject) Cutest PBA Players, (according to who?) All-Time Hunks, Prominent families (based on what?), 10 Most Corrupt Agencies (very misleading since their sole source is a public SURVEY) and Weirdest Creatures. (as a systematic zoologist, I find none of these "weird". Obviously written for a layman, by a layman.) There are tons more unencyclopedic articles. I'm not that perturbed though. They could act pretty much like Zion for the machines in the MAtrix universe. i.e. that's hopefully where the people who would otherwise add unencyclopedic info on WP go. Shrumster 20:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC) </ br> heh, dyan tayo magaling, mag-pirate =D †Bloodpack† 04:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man, it seems it is going tabloid. I had high hopes for it. I'm submitting an article on the "turf war" between Wikipedia and WikiPhilippines to a local tech magazine on Aug 7. Would appreciate your feedback. --Nino Gonzales 07:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hate this OR thing in Wikipilipinas and you should note this in the article. This new wiki places the contributor at equal footing with academics. At best they might put misleading info, at worst they are spitting at the faces of scholars.
Here is a scholar who spent months or even years to create, prove and finally publish his research paper. Now this WikiPilipinas contributor comes along and says otherwise. Since its "hip" and all, people will believe WikiPilipinas rather than that proven paper. Now that would really be a problem. Your dream of a progress in Phil. history will crumble as people publish historical paper after paper with "I think so" and "I read this on the internet" arguments courtesy of Wikipilipinas.

--Lenticel (talk) 09:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the article with a discussion of NOR. If you take a look at Vibal's comments in its discussion page, it seems they are not setting contributors and academics at equal footing, segregating the pop (wikipilipinas) and the academic (filipiniana.net). It would have been an interesting experiment to mash them up. --Nino Gonzales 14:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Wikipedia alone has a lot of trouble with unsourced statements, even with the increased emphasis on reliable sources and the like. In order for WPinas to even approach the level of credibility of WP, extreme measures must be taken to curb the tabloid-like nature of the wiki. And personally, WP doesn't even have that much credibility within the academic and educational fields. I know I don't let my students use WP as a source, and utterly kill them if they do. :P Shrumster 10:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my knowledge, Wikipedia does not make a guarantee that all articles are 100% reliable. Other encyclopedias make this claim as well; a great number of articles in the 11th edition of Encyclopedia Brittanica contains a lot of information that, if used today, will be certainly erroneous (and, yes, there were also disclaimers on that edition). Even printed encyclopedias will have these disclaimers because facts change and so does the world. The consensus---at least, for some editors---is that Wikipedia should be a starting point of research (see also this and this) and not as the only point of research (that's what the External Links and the References are for). In the first place, WP aims to be a free online repository of knowledge, and this is where we (the editors) all come into the picture: we help build the encyclopedia by contributing knowledge and we also help improve the quality of WP articles by constant revisions and rewrites of articles (not to mention vandal reverts). Having said that, I am still having problems with a "free and hip" wiki that claims to be an encyclopedia loaded with things that are better found in a tabloid. If you are a school teacher or a college professor, would it sit well with you knowing that some of your students will be referencing a site that contains unlikely topics such as "top 10 scams" (defined by what criteria?), "best churches for weddings" (according to whom? to Wikipilipinas' owners? to a professional wedding organizer?) and "sexiest actresses" (according to whom? FHM? Maxim? Uno? your friendly neighborhood barber?)? Unless Wikipilinas wakes up from this honeymoon period and take stock of the trash that is littered all over their place, I can't take their website seriously for now as an "encyclopedia". --- Tito Pao 00:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiPilipinas' vision lacks clarity. It is trying to be everything all at once: magazine, putative encyclopedia, pluralistic community forum, soapbox-for-a-day, rumor rag, fight club. It is a pastische of different entities, each of which has been successful on its own, but it remains to be seen whether they will be as successful when smashed together. It is less an organic fusion as it is an unnatural pile-up of knowledge-sharing methodologies taken from Euro-America. In many ways, it is symptomatic and representative of the Philippine condition. --- shdl3423 02:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's now so gay. --Howard the Duck 02:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it seems their website is down. --Howard the Duck 02:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I hate Wikipiniana as much you do, but please don't use the word "gay" as a pejorative. That ain't cool. ;) shdl3423 05:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gay can also mean happy, since they're into making a hip encyclopedia. Maybe an encyclopedia for hippies, or whatever. --Howard the Duck 06:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Their forking is shoddy. It seems like in their rush to excise anything "non-Philippines-related", they neglected a LOT of articles that *are* wikilinked in the articles that they did decide to port over. Took a look around their organism-related articles...each and every description has a ton of red links. If they mean to keep their scope as Philippines-oriented as possible, they're going to have to unlink thousands of red links in the articles that they copied over. Or rewrite everything. Shrumster 09:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment They just decided to make a Bikol WikiPilipinas. Great. What about the Bikol Wikipedia? --Sky Harbor 10:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they'll be that big soon. If and when they start having vandals (when vandals start registering), then they're big. --Howard the Duck 12:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello tambays! I'm back! What's new? I just went to see this wikipiniana and waaaaa walang Chavacano (unfair unfair unfair!)...anyway, oks lang. Mukhang wannabes naman sila and good luck na lang sa kanila in the spirit of...whatever! Sky Harbor: whatever happened to our proposal?...Can you please update me? I just gave my full support for the Bikol Wikipedia over at meta.. so to all Bicolanos, Good luck! Jondel: I'm back... are you ready to help me (again) with Chavacano Wikipedia? Seems like I have so many things to do as far as catching up here. ^_^ --Weekeejames 13:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a simple explanation: Chavacano is too small while Pangasinan hosts both a Wikipedia and a Wiktionary. Oh well. WMPH is stunted on member growth; we need more members since 20 is "critical mass" for membership. --Sky Harbor 10:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WMPH has only 15 members as of yet. Perhaps, we should put a link at the main tambay page, the main portal of Filipino wikipedians who frequent the English wikipedia. --Weekeejames 10:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's WMPH? Shrumster 01:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia Philippines. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Philippines --Weekeejames 04:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of WikiPilipinas

[edit]
Old Media
[edit]
New Media
[edit]
I guess the anti-NPOV policy also applies to news items. With simple selective quoting, I have just become their biggest fan. What I wrote:
The name is terrible, but, man, the site of the parent org, www.filipiniana.net, is amazing! I was giddy with geeky joy as I was browsing through the sources they have made available online!
But going back to Wikipiniana. (again, the name is terrible... the most imporatant part of filipiniana is filipin!) At first sight, it seems to be a needless redundancy to Wikipedia. But considering the sources in filipiniana.net, I think the filipiniana wiki (I can’t stand its official name) can have its own niche. I think it could be the biggest open source collaborative research infrastructure in Philippine history! (I mean that in both senses). The value proposition of the filipiniana wiki, I think, is that you can do original research, something you couldn’t and shouldn’t do in Wikipedia, and something which is sorely lacking in Philippine scholarship (we need more historians!) I’m singing up now! --Nino Gonzales 02:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
What the blog says:
Nino Gonzales, an information technology blogger and a Filipino member of the rival Wikipedia team, called WikiPilipinas, “the biggest open-source collaborative research infrastructure in Philippine history.” In a follow-up article in a tech magazine on August 7, Gonzales predicted an impending Wikipedia versus WikiPilipinas turf war.
--Nino Gonzales 14:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Searches
[edit]

NOTE: WikiPilipinas sponsored the Wika2007 blog writing contest. So some blog entries may only mention WikiPilipinas as a sponsor and the blog post itself is the contest entry.

Wikipedia article

[edit]
  • Been fixing the article. Feel free to chip in if you guys find any ideas. Not sure how it should go, never worked on an article about a content-provider web service before. Shrumster 08:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Now I'm a Wikipedia source. Hehehe. --seav 16:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although Wikipedia frowns upon blogs as a whole as sources, since most, if not virtually all of the commentary has been in the Philippine blogosphere, and since the majority of the blogs involved are from prominent and/or influential bloggers, I think we can let this one pass. --Sky Harbor 01:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More Wikipilipinas commentry

[edit]
  • What I feared would happen...is actually happening. Some of their "top X lists" are being...vandalized by a couple of editors (who *should* be blocked asap but haven't been after a day now. Changing names to a bunch of unknown people (who actually have Friendster accounts, for christ's sake), marking perfectly good articles for deletion, etc. Weird thing is, a lot of the pages in their "category for deletion" don't have anything on their talk pages that says why they should be deleted. I seriously think they should strengthen their policies first before even thinking about bulking up their stuff. Shrumster 19:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And they don't have the amount of white blood cells/recent changes patrollers yet so I guess these kiddie vandals find it easier to sneak their edits past the vandalwatchers. Shrumster 19:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has begun! [1] The Friendster-ification of WikiPilipinas! I guess they do have a niche after all. They'll be where we point people to to show them what happens to an online "encyclopedia" when notability is thrown out the window. :P As a side thought though, seems like a good idea for an uber-networking/personal database-type site. Just *not* an encyclopedia. Shrumster 15:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just realized...if this is the way they're going, I wonder if they will be implementing or trashing WP:OWN? I see a lot of potential for malevolent vandalism in this case. I mean, who hasn't passed by a rather-annoying-looking Friendster/MySpace/Multiply/LJ account and wondered...what if you could just change what it says? :P Shrumster 15:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned before, WikiPilipinas is a amalgamation of various content styles. It's not just an encyclopedia anymore. As such, I disagree with their usage of the word "encyclopedia" to describe themselves since they're not focusing on the academic properties of their content. --seav 17:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah. The term "encyclopedia" promotes a particular air of...academic authority that's a bit dangerous when it's being applied to something that seeks to take one particular majority point-of-view. BTW, hope you don't mind, I mentioned you by name in the WPinas article. :P Shrumster 17:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That exactly is my reason why I'm not taking WPinas seriously, even if it has the backing of a textbook publisher. There was no editorial oversight to speak of in the first place, policies (if there are any) are virtually ineffective, and any efforts to try cleaning up or boosting their image would be too late an action. In a word: total chaos. And they call that an "encyclopedia"? --- Tito Pao 18:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, as long as people visit the site, vandals or otherwise, they will have eyeballs to sell ads to, which, basing on their editorial policy, is probably what they are after. But, yeah, "encyclopedia" seems to be misused.--Nino Gonzales 06:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm... I guess they didn't adopt WP's WP:COI policy either. Shrumster 06:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more red light. Their software doesn't show subsequent file uploads using the same filename. i.e. file history. I wonder if anyone over there actually knows how the GFDL works. Shrumster 07:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL to the nth power. Gus Vibal is proud that WikiPilipinas currently has "33,000" articles, beating the Norwegian, Thai, and Bahasa Melayu Wikipedia editions. You know what? They actually only have 17,000+ articles currently. They're using the Total count (which includes talk pages, user pages, redirects, stub articles, etc.) not the conservative count that all Wikipedias base their size on. See this. Tsk, tsk, tsk. --seav 11:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amen to that. I'm a bit distressed by this press release. (en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Press_Release:WikiPilipinas_continues_its_juggernaut_dominance_of_Philippine_knowledge) here. It seems like their priority seems to be along the lines of...in colloquial terms..."palakihan ng TT." :P Can't believe I actually registered (to prevent anyone from using my username and to tag images with sources). Shrumster 12:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could anyone tag my images (like say "came from User:Howard the Duck of the English Wikipedia"? I'm too lazy to register there (I have lots of memberships already, I don't the passwords of other websites I go to :D). Thanks. --Howard the Duck 12:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks (it's not even complete hehehe). You may also check out the upload log. But some of those are really simple "coloring book" images. But don't tag the logos, they're not mine. And can you at least tag images there as an IP? It'll be much easier for me. --Howard the Duck 13:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoops, finished with the school colors. :P Although I did attribute that they're in the public domain and that you were the one who originally uploaded them onto the en.wp. I also attributed the espana pic (they didn't copy the arch one/deleted it) and the two archdiocese maps already. Haven't done the others yet. I've been creating image categories kasi. Can't believe they haven't even ported over the GFDL/CC/etc categorization. :p Shrumster 17:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great, tried warning someone/pointing someone towards the appropriate page to be used when copygin text from WP, my message was deleted. diff. Shrumster

DYK?

[edit]
  • Just wondering, would the new article (recently expanded within the last 5 days) pass for a WP:DYK? On a less-selfish note, it'd be an interesting start for a Philippine-related DYK. On a selfish note, that'd up its pagerank. ;) No idea how the DYK system works though. Anyone? :D Shrumster 08:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it was a stub 5 days ago, then it's legit. --Howard the Duck 12:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, might not pass. I nominated it anyway. *crosses fingers* Shrumster 17:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yey, it made it! Shrumster 16:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Meetup/Manila_2&oldid=1136058518"