Re: [Foundation-l] Improving foundation-l

If there's a legitimate agreement as to what should be done to improve the list, I'd be more than happy to try it out, and I think Austin would be willing to as well. I don't see any agreement on what to do at the moment. There are four potential problems cited on that page. The first three were

Re: [Foundation-l] Improving foundation-l

> wjhon...@aol.com wrote: >> The entire page is founded on unsubstantiated and generic complaints >> which all lists share. I'm on moderated lists which are completely horrible. >> And I'm on unmoderated lists which are absolutely excellent. >> >> Jimmy Wales himself has stated, and I've quoted

Re: [Foundation-l] Improving foundation-l

2009/10/1 Chad : > If I've noticed nothing else in the last 4 years, it's that Wikimedians > have very short attention spans when it comes to these sorts of > things. We all talk about our bright and shiny ideal future and throw > around a few ideas. Someone starts a page (or an entire wiki) to > d

Re: [Foundation-l] Improving foundation-l

wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > The entire page is founded on unsubstantiated and generic complaints > which all lists share. I'm on moderated lists which are completely horrible. > And I'm on unmoderated lists which are absolutely excellent. > > Jimmy Wales himself has stated, and I've quoted him in on

Re: [Foundation-l] Improving foundation-l

Chad wrote: > On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Anthony wrote: > >> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Improving_Foundation-l hasn't had any edits >> in a couple weeks now. Have we decided this isn't such a big problem after >> all? Have we given up? Just waiting a few months for someone to post a

Re: [Foundation-l] It's not article count, it's editors

2009/10/1 Erik Zachte : > Another complication is that e.g. in China and large parts of Africa (and > India?) most web activities happen in internet cafes and on other shared > computers. In those countries the number of accounts, and the number of web > connected people can differ dramatically (e

Re: [Foundation-l] Improving foundation-l

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Anthony wrote: > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Improving_Foundation-l hasn't had any edits > in a couple weeks now.  Have we decided this isn't such a big problem after > all?  Have we given up?  Just waiting a few months for someone to post a > complaint so we can

Re: [Foundation-l] Improving foundation-l

personally, i just gave up. This won't become a useful list any more as it once was. eia 2009/10/1 Anthony > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Improving_Foundation-l hasn't had any edits > in a couple weeks now. Have we decided this isn't such a big problem after > all? Have we given up? Just wa

Re: [Foundation-l] Improving foundation-l

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 5:05 PM, wrote: > > The entire page is founded on unsubstantiated and generic complaints > which all lists share. I agree. But that page was created by one of this list's moderators, so it's not quite so simple as just ignoring it. So how do others feel? Do the current

Re: [Foundation-l] Improving foundation-l

-Original Message- From: Anthony To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Sent: Thu, Oct 1, 2009 1:46 pm Subject: [Foundation-l] Improving foundation-l <

[Foundation-l] Improving foundation-l

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Improving_Foundation-l hasn't had any edits in a couple weeks now. Have we decided this isn't such a big problem after all? Have we given up? Just waiting a few months for someone to post a complaint so we can repeat this all over again? Austin? Ryan? Anyone? __

[Foundation-l] It's not article count, it's editors

Andrew Gray: > There's a couple of estimates on: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Internet_usage > though they look a little dated. > Alternatively, users by country is reasonably well estimated, I think, > and you could try estimating based on languages from that. I do agree that numbers o

Re: [Foundation-l] Office hours

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 04:02, Liam Wyatt wrote: > The WMF have already offered to do it at two timeslots and if these are > sufficiently different from each other then that's about all that can be > done. You're never going to be able to please everyone in this issue. Agreed, but having two slot

Re: [Foundation-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with the Frenc...

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 6:14 AM, Nikola Smolenski wrote: > wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: > > wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > >> The image is in the public domain. That's the point. > >> Public means all public, not limited to the whims of what the boundary > of a certain > >> country might be tod