On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:54 AM, wrote:
> In a message dated 11/26/2009 3:39:23 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> valde...@gmail.com writes:
>
>
>> The final solution is that only people who are already expert in the
>> processes can impose their point of view and in fact en.wikipedia
>> don't assure
What we really need are highly skilled encyclopedists doing their highly
demanding work.
>What we need is an Office of the Editor Advocate. Any arrested person has the
>right to an attorney, provided free of charge by the state. That is what we
>need. Advocate-attorneys who are on the side o
> On Nov 26, 2009 8:56 PM, wrote:
>> Any arrested person has
>> the right to an attorney, provided free of charge by the state.
>> That is
>> what we need. Advocate-attorneys who are on the side of the arrested
>> editor.
I'm totally okay with discussing this concept, but arguments like t
on 11/26/09 9:06 PM, Chad at innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
> We had that. They called themselves the "Association
> of Member's Advocates." They were disbanded because
> everyone saw them as a huge waste of time with 0 net
> benefit.
>
Everyone? I'm not familiar with the one you mention, but, l
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Association_of_Members%27_Advocates
As for having some level of "who polices the policeman" at least on
Wikipedia we already have bureaucrats, checkusers, admins, arbitrators,
oversighters, stewards... So I'm pretty sure we've got the checks and
balances
We had that. They called themselves the "Association
of Member's Advocates." They were disbanded because
everyone saw them as a huge waste of time with 0 net
benefit.
-Chad
On Nov 26, 2009 8:56 PM, wrote:
I already pointed out that you cannot impose "friendliness". Our current
state is one i
In a message dated 11/26/2009 3:39:23 AM Pacific Standard Time,
valde...@gmail.com writes:
> The final solution is that only people who are already expert in the
> processes can impose their point of view and in fact en.wikipedia
> don't assure a neutral point of view but the point of view of ex
I already pointed out that you cannot impose "friendliness". Our current
state is one in which any particular admin may sit on any particular editor
with or without adequate cause and that editor has nearly no power to affect a
hearing. There is no advocate for the editors who are not admins
--- El vie, 27/11/09, Bod Notbod escribió:
> De: Bod Notbod
> Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not bureaucracy, said bureaucrat and
> deleted article
> Para: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Fecha: viernes, 27 de noviembre, 2009 00:58
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:29 PM,
> Felipe O
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Felipe Ortega
wrote:
> This is Andrew Dalby's quote, not mine.
>
>> I would like to hear from Felipe clarification of the claim
>> that 49,000 contributors left Wikipedia. If it is so, then en.wp
>> has around ten times more fluctuation of contributors. (Accordin
--- El jue, 26/11/09, Milos Rancic escribió:
> De: Milos Rancic
> Asunto: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not bureaucracy, said bureaucrat and
> deleted article
> Para: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Fecha: jueves, 26 de noviembre, 2009 11:36
> Read
> http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/11
Hoi,
Please assume good faith.. I am truly interested in good ideas.. It is
exactly because I value your opinions that I asked. The fact that there is
moderation is intended to prevent unproductive discussions. My intention is
to be to the point, clear in my statements and questions and publish as
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> Your question is not constructive because new rules of the list
> include the rule that 30 messages per month per person should be a
> limit.
http://strategy.wikimedia.org
No posting limit. Little bureaucracy. Ideas welcomed with open arms.
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> So you have an idea ... please share it and explain why you think it will
> make a difference. It does not really help to leave with a cliff hanger ...
>
> 2009/11/26 Milos Rancic
>
>> (Actually, I have a couple of
>> possible changes in m
Hoi,
So you have an idea ... please share it and explain why you think it will
make a difference. It does not really help to leave with a cliff hanger ...
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/11/26 Milos Rancic
> Read
> http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/11/25/160236/Contributors-Leaving-Wikipedia-In-Record
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> Read
> http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/11/25/160236/Contributors-Leaving-Wikipedia-In-Record-Numbers
>
> Article is based on Felipe Ortega's research. There are two claims
> from this article:
>
> 1. English-language version of Wikipedia s
Read
http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/11/25/160236/Contributors-Leaving-Wikipedia-In-Record-Numbers
Article is based on Felipe Ortega's research. There are two claims
from this article:
1. English-language version of Wikipedia suffered a net loss of 49,000
contributors, compared with a loss of
17 matches
Mail list logo
