George William Herbert wrote:
> Wikipedia's strong culture of pseudonymity and anonymity makes protecting
> anyone, or detecting anyone, a nearly lost cause if they have any clue
> and sense of privacy. Unlike real life, we can't make guarantees with
> anything approaching a straight face.
>
> Ho
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 1:28 PM, David Levy wrote:
>> I think it is germane, because it means the choice we have is to ban a
>> pedophile from the start, before s/he gets a chance to cause any damage,
>> or to wait far too long to ban the pedophile, after much damage has
>> already been done. If
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:25 PM, David Levy wrote:
>> > The "hand in hand with children" wording seems to conflate physical
>> > space with cyberspace.
>
>> How about "collaborating with children"?
>
> That's accurate, but I'm not quibbling over terminology. As I
> explained to George, my point i
Hoi,
You might have waved a red rag, time to hoist the pirate flag... What
nonsense. Wikipedia is the Wikimedia Foundation's biggest project and indeed
it gets most of the attention and most of the tender loving care. HOWEVER,
there are other projects that are most definitely not encyclopaedic and
Anthony wrote:
> Right, because the only two possible solutions are to ban everyone and
> to ban no one.
Obviously not. Likewise, we have more possible outcomes than "banning
all known pedophiles" and "banning no known pedophiles."
> > Also, please address my point that banning self-identified
G'day all :-)
I mentioned in a previous post (
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-November/056092.html)
that I was personally interested in getting some external advice from
Volunteering Australia (
http://www.volunteeringaustralia.org/html/s01_home/home.asp ) about good
practic
Ryan Lomonaco wrote:
> I don't see how that would be an issue. Notability is not a foundation
> policy, it's a community guideline that was enacted by editors of the
> English Wikipedia. Other projects within the WMF family would not
> necessarily be subject to the same standards, in the same wa
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Mike.lifeguard
wrote:
> I mean to say that since 2006, and perhaps even further back, there have
> been no proposals which should have been approved. Why do we need a
> process to handle something which, in essence, *doesn't happen*?
Does it not happen because th
Thats a great idea! The exchanges were the biggest clog previously, and this
seems like a reasonable warning to use.
From: William Pietri
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Mon, November 30, 2009 11:57:21 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Housekeeping:
Ryan,
You are correct. I apologize for the ambiguity of my suggestion. To restate, I
was suggesting that users be restricted to a fixed or variable amount of posts
per thread per day. It could also be done by percentages after a certain amount
of time or posts, e.g. Post has 50 posts in a day,
George William Herbert wrote:
> There's a known and ancedotally (but not known to be statistically)
> significant trend of pedophiles attracting victims online.
>
> Also, apparently, of them coordinating amongst themselves to pass tips
> about possible victims in specific areas.
I'm well aware.
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:28 AM, David Levy wrote:
> The "hand in hand with children" wording seems to conflate physical
> space with cyberspace. Please see my relevant reply to George William
> Herbert.
There's a known and ancedotally (but not known to be statistically)
significant trend of pe
2009/11/29 Laura Hale :
> As some one who has proposed a new project for the WMF (which would really
> probably be an acquisition if it happened), some changes need to be made:
(...)
This sort of presupposes that WMF, on the whole, wants to acquire
projects. My understanding for several years ha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Could someone let me know why we need a bureaucratic process (I mean
"bureaucratic" without the connotative value) to approve new projects
when there has been exactly zero proposals since 2006 that actually
needed to be approved? (And in fact, there is
Ryan Lomonaco wrote:
> My reading of it was X replies per person per day in each thread. I agree
> with you that there should not be a set limit per thread as a whole.
It might be interesting to combine that with a throttled number of
replies from one individual to another. At least for me, the
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 7:53 PM, David Levy wrote:
> I agree that we often wait far too long to ban disruptive editors, and
> I also agree that this is not germane to the discussion.
I think it is germane, because it means the choice we have is to ban a
pedophile from the start, before s/he gets
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Michael Snow wrote:
> Ryan Lomonaco wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:17 AM, Geoffrey Plourde >wrote:
> >
> >> Another possibility would be imposing a throttle on replies
> >> to threads, e.g. 5 per thread per day.
> >>
> > That's something that I think might
I agree with what Phoebe and William have written, and I'll just add a
few minor points and then a thought about the process of new project
creation.
* When dealing with the WMF and Wikimedia community, you might want to
avoid the language of business acquisitions; it's extraordinarily
unlikely th
> I think it is germane, because it means the choice we have is to ban a
> pedophile from the start, before s/he gets a chance to cause any damage,
> or to wait far too long to ban the pedophile, after much damage has
> already been done. If the banning process were much simpler, efficient,
> and
Reminder:
Our next strategy project office hours will be: '''20:00-21:00 UTC,
Tuesday 1 December'''.
Local timezones can be checked at
[http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=12&day=1&year=2009&hour=20&min=0&sec=0&p1=0
].
You can access the chat by going to https://webchat.f
Ryan Lomonaco wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:17 AM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
>
>> I really hated the idea of posting limits at first, but must commend the
>> list mods for implementing it. Now that there is a specific cost to replies,
>> I have scaled back on the amount of emails I have sent
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> When a group of people are to come up with a communal opinion, particularly
> when this opinion is intended in order to judge a situation, a behaviour,
> you can no longer dismiss this formed group opinion as just personal and
> dismiss it as such. Obviously you can
Hoi,
When a group of people are to come up with a communal opinion, particularly
when this opinion is intended in order to judge a situation, a behaviour,
you can no longer dismiss this formed group opinion as just personal and
dismiss it as such. Obviously you can, because you do, but in this way
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:17 AM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> I really hated the idea of posting limits at first, but must commend the
> list mods for implementing it. Now that there is a specific cost to replies,
> I have scaled back on the amount of emails I have sent and prioritized based
> on dis
24 matches
Mail list logo
