I joined for part of the time last week and thought it was a great
discussion, so I definitely encourage people to get involved. I likely
won't be able to on this occasion, but if you're on IRC or can arrange
to be there during that time, it would be great to hear people's
thoughts on what the
Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> The single best way to kill them is to reprint the exact same books, then
> sell them at the low low price of cost + 10%. When people start snapping them
> up like fruitcakes, Alphascript will be finished.
>
>
>
>
Not just the same books, but the same books corrected
Dennis During wrote:
> Notice how easy it is to have vacuous "discussions" in the
> absence of facts about user behavior.
Query - to what "facts about user behavior" are you referring?
-Stevertigo
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikime
Yann Forget wrote:
> This discussion is very interesting. I would like to make a summary, so
> that we can go further.
>
> 1. A database of all books ever published is one of the thing
>still missing.
No, no, no, this is *not* missing. This is exactly the scope of
OpenLibrary. Just as Wiki
David Goodman wrote:
> The problem is extraordinarily complex. A database of all "books"
> (and other media) ever published is beyond the joint capabilities of
> everyone interested. There are intermediate entities between "books"
> and "works", and important subordinate entities, such as "artic
Correction - this will be at #wikimedia-strategicplan
On Aug 17, 2009, at 4:32 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
> Strategic Planning office hours happen tomorrow - Tuesday - at
> Tuesdays from 20:00-21:00 UTC, which is: 1-2pm PDT; 4-5pm EDT.
>
> We're going to try having this conversation in #wi
Strategic Planning office hours happen tomorrow - Tuesday - at
Tuesdays from 20:00-21:00 UTC, which is: 1-2pm PDT; 4-5pm EDT.
We're going to try having this conversation in #wikimedia-strategy
instead of taking over #wikimedia.
Hope to see you there!
Philippe Beaudet
Hoi,
Gregory, Domas and myself life in Europe. For us the interview was in the
middle of the night and yes, I am not pleased that the Wikivoices interview
was not published. I have been involved with the Wikivoices in the past and
it saddens me that Wikivoices is not able to publish its recordings
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Gregory Kohs wrote:
> At some time into the WMF Board candidates campaigning season, the
> Wikivoices project undertook a sort of "candidates debate", where a Skype
[snip]
> I was a bit concerned with several things:
In addition to the concerns you raised the forma
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Gregory Kohs wrote:
> At some time into the WMF Board candidates campaigning season, the
> Wikivoices project undertook a sort of "candidates debate", where a Skype
> conference served as a central meeting point for at least eight of the
> candidates to orally respo
You misunderstand the role of Wikivoices and its relationship to the
Foundation. It fulfills no official function, does not (and did not) have
any official sanction from the Foundation, and was simply an interesting and
different way for prospective voters and candidates to participate in a
discuss
At some time into the WMF Board candidates campaigning season, the
Wikivoices project undertook a sort of "candidates debate", where a Skype
conference served as a central meeting point for at least eight of the
candidates to orally respond to questions posed them. This debate
transpired about two
Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> The single best way to kill them is to reprint the exact same books, then
> sell them at the low low price of cost + 10%. When people start snapping them
> up like fruitcakes, Alphascript will be finished.
>
>
From looking at only two books published by Alphascript
The single best way to kill them is to reprint the exact same books, then sell
them at the low low price of cost + 10%. When people start snapping them up
like fruitcakes, Alphascript will be finished.
From: Peter Coombe
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> I would guess that the most important reason why english wikipedia is
> slowing down is because of the other language projects gets the
> attention of the editors. perhaps it would be possible to get some
> numbers on the total influx of content and how it is distributed among
> the projects?
>
2009/8/17 Jay Litwyn :
> Maybe there should be a [[:category:printed articles]]. It should ignore
> personal and educational use with a note at the top saying "Alphascript
> Publishing used this article in whole or major part for a commercial
> printing of Wikipedia.". It would be nice of them to c
16 matches
Mail list logo
