- Original Message -
From: "David Gerard"
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 9:43 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
> I predict Wikipedia's biology articles will far outshine its
> philosophy articles for the simple f
On 28 September 2010 12:38, David Gerard wrote:
> You can hardly move on Wikipedia without tripping over experts in
> whatever topic you're editing. Why are there any experts on Wikipedia?
I predict Wikipedia's biology articles will far outshine its
philosophy articles for the simple fact that
Just to let you know that Part 3 of the Study on Controversial content is now
up on its own Meta page
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content:_Part_Three.
Thanks to everyone who has contributed to the discussion so far -- it has been
expectedly passionate,
Bonjour,
Le vendredi 01 octobre 2010 à 11:10 +1000, John Vandenberg a écrit :
>
> Have the software changes in the last 12 months addressed the issues
> raised by French Wikipedia?
>
> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Sondage/Flagged_revisions
>
> If so, maybe they would like to do a
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> Plus to convince voting ChapCom members enough that it is good idea to
> convince WM Serbia that it is a good idea.
>
> As a non-voting member of ChapCom and Board member of WM RS I can
> confirm that the harder task is to convince ChapCom.
A
On 30 September 2010 20:31, Nathan wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>> On 29 September 2010 17:57, Nathan wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Thomas Dalton
>>> wrote:
Actually, I'm quite the pragmatist. You are being an idealist by
assum
For those who haven't been following the movement roles work on
meta[0], I wanted to take a minute for blatant self-promotion.
Of particular note is the initial proposal[1], which we're trying to
wrap up before the WMF Board meeting in just over a week. Those of
you thinking that this is happenin
