On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Yann Forget wrote:
> I agree that the core content of Wikipedia should be educational, not trivia.
Well, here's our core content (5 thousand or so out of 3.x million):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Expanded
As it happens I've been proof
- Original Message -
From: "Nathan"
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
> As for progress since 2005 - unless I'm mistaken, all of your own work
> dates to after 2005. Would you n
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Peter Damian
wrote:
> Regarding 'academic' and 'educational'. These are not the same. Friday's
> featured article
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Today%27s_featured_article/September_17,_2010
> is about the Ormulum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ormulum . T
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Peter Damian
wrote:
> I would appreciate it if people did not make reference to banned users
Is that because you're a banned user?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://list
I would appreciate it if people did not make reference to banned users
unless it is relevant to the subject of this thread, which is about the
nature of education, whether educational content is appropriate for
Wikipedia, and whether encyclopedia is improving its coverage of educational
content
MZMcBride wrote:
> John Vandenberg wrote:
>> The key would be to allow the mirrors to delete their mirror when they
>> need to use their excess storage capability. If they let us know in
>> advance that they are reclaiming the space, another organisation with
>> excess storage capability can take
Hello,
2010/9/17 Peter Damian :
> - Original Message -
> From: "Wjhonson"
>
>> Quote: "Then you are misunderstanding the meaning of the word
>> 'educational' I think. "
>>
>> Perhaps the word you want is "academic".
>
> No I meant 'educational'. I'm actually quite shocked by some of the
Topic: Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
Nope, not a thing changed. We just got a few more entries, but we were
successful in keeping exactly the same structures, prevent people from
getting to know us, vandalism stayed at the same rate and therefore there
was no need to change the software at al
