I think that swearing in a battalion of global sysops is both necessary and a
better idea than electing more stewards. Vandalism looks bad and deters people
from contributing. Lets face it, who wants to visit a library with all the
books defaced in various shades of Crayons. Also, does anyone wa
"Meanwhile, the stewards have had to combat an increasing amount of
vandalism on the small wikis, and even though global rollbackers can help
some, blocking vandals and deleting nonsense pages ultimately becomes the
job of just a few of the active stewards."
If global sysops is such a controversial
I doubt it will generate enough interest this time around. Many of us are just
tired of seeing this proposal (and its variants) dragging on and on, to the
point that we just don't bother to show up and say no.
Andrew
"Fill the world with children who care and things start looking up."
> Fr
On Aug 30, 2009, at 4:16 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> I agree - if there is an announcement list it is an absolute must that
> all announcements be cross-posted to foundation-l (or another
> appropriate discussion list).
I actually agree with that too. Announcements don't happen in a
vacuum...
Many of the list regulars might remember the global sysop proposal that had
been brought up around May and June 2009. The idea ultimately fizzled,
because there was simply not enough support to actually have a global,
non-opt out sysop group. Since then, a new proposal has been drawn up, which
is c
Myself, I consider NPOV as what distinguishes an encyclopedia from
promotion and advocacy. Agreed it is hard to get there completely, but
the effort to approximate it is what makes Wikipedia a work of
reference, and conservopedia a joke.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 6:05 PM, quiddity wrote:
>
> I'd also be interested in how Birgitte's suggestion would work out, if
> adopted by everyone here: "I wonder if no one responds to [...] for a
> month how much he will continue to post."
>
It'd work fine - if no one is interested in discussing
Some people like to enumerate all the points, that other people might
take to be assumable/implied/given. This might be disparagingly
labeled as "an amazing capacity for stating the blindingly obvious".
It is a common symptom of various types of "youth".
I find the contributions of the two partici
2009/8/30 Brian :
> Quite the contrary, it is an even larger problem to be subscribed to an
> increasingly large number of ever fragmenting lists. Additionally, a
> read-only announce list would serve to stifle community discussion of WMF
> announcements. If the Foundation wants to have an announce
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Brian wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Philippe Beaudette <
> pbeaude...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Sometimes, fighting through the high traffic lists to find
> > announcements is a huge problem...
> >
> > Philippe
> >
>
> Quite the contrary, it
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Philippe Beaudette <
pbeaude...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>
> Sometimes, fighting through the high traffic lists to find
> announcements is a huge problem...
>
> Philippe
>
Quite the contrary, it is an even larger problem to be subscribed to an
increasingly large nu
On Aug 29, 2009, at 11:30 AM, Anthony wrote:
> I propose the foundation-announce-l mailing list be set up with the
> following posting rules:
> 1) One post per person per thread. That includes the initiator of the
> thread.
> 2) Responses in a thread must be in response to the original
> messa
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Anders Wennersten <
> anders.wenners...@bonetmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I am for the moment active in some 15 wikimedia mailgroups. I have
>> compared the working on foundation-l with internal-l for instance and
>> find that almost the same topics are up with very much
2009/8/30 Anthony :
> By the way, now that you mentioned it, I have to ask. Did this little
> thread happen to be canvassed on that internal-l?
I'm not on internal-l, but it seems unlikely. If there has been any
canvassing (and I see no evidence of it) I expect it would be done in
private. intern
> By the way, now that you mentioned it, I have to ask. Did this little
> thread happen to be canvassed on that internal-l?
>
No, Anthony, it wasn't discussed. This list doesn't play the central role
it once did, partially because of incessant unproductive posting by a few
people such as yoursel
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Anders Wennersten <
> anders.wenners...@bonetmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I am for the moment active in some 15 wikimedia mailgroups. I have
>> compared the working on foundation-l with internal-l for instance and
>> find
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Anders Wennersten <
anders.wenners...@bonetmail.com> wrote:
> I am for the moment active in some 15 wikimedia mailgroups. I have
> compared the working on foundation-l with internal-l for instance and
> find that almost the same topics are up with very much the sam
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <
cimonav...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Wikinews does not adhere to the strict NPOV interpretation that is
> inevitable for Wikipedia. Wikiversity could not even come close
> to employing anything remotely like it. Wikispecies actually
> doesn't ha
Anthony skrev:
> This is especially true if the main person complaining about the discussion
> has only been here for a month.
>
Just for the record as I will not pursue this issue any more.
I have used e-mails daily since 1984 (actually then introducing the
first mailsystem into a major Swedi
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 8:17 PM, Mark Williamson wrote:
> > I'm sure all of you can figure out a way of setting up your email client
> so
> > it can work for you. If not, the archives are available online. There's
> no
> > reason you have to have this mailing list emailed to you in the first
>
2009/8/30 Mark Williamson :
>> I'm sure all of you can figure out a way of setting up your email client so
>> it can work for you. If not, the archives are available online. There's no
>> reason you have to have this mailing list emailed to you in the first place.
>
> That's an interesting attitu
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 5:10 AM, Delirium wrote:
> Sage Ross wrote:
>> Hence the desirability of creating a free alternative to Amazon's
>> reviews.
> I buy this, but my main question would be: why Wikimedia? It doesn't
> seem to have a lot to do with collaborative editing, wikis, knowledge
> produ
> I'm sure all of you can figure out a way of setting up your email client so
> it can work for you. If not, the archives are available online. There's no
> reason you have to have this mailing list emailed to you in the first place.
That's an interesting attitude you have there. You're going to
Sage Ross wrote:
> Hence the desirability of creating a free alternative to Amazon's
> reviews. Amazon's reviews, especially for manufactured goods, are an
> extremely valuable public service (even if you don't shop at Amazon),
> and the fact they are controlled and maintained by a for-profit
> c
24 matches
Mail list logo
