In other words[1].
1.http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Nobody_cares
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Steven Walling
wrote:
> People on ED are exactly the same as 4chan: they are in it for the lulz.[1]
>
> They will probably always write these attack pages/satire/whatever term you
> prefer. We'
> I think that the field for professional Wikipedians are exactly PR
> departments and agencies. And I prefer much more to see two or more
> professionals who are arguing by using facts, than two or more amateur
> POV-pushers whose best argument are personal attacks.
So, to take a random example
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 6:42 PM, Cary Bass wrote:
> On 10/22/2010 09:27 AM, Muhammad Yahia wrote:
> > I wonder if the couple
> > of points he was making were even worth it, we do have people who are
> > capable of presenting criticism in a civil manner, so it's not about
> > 'opinion'. I believe
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 23:57, David Goodman wrote:
> Obviously, the ones who do better at it are the ones we cannot detect.
> My experience is that some in-house PR people do a very poor and
> easily detectable job. An expert specialist who knows what is
> actually wanted will do far better than
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Anthony wrote:
> I would think the people who think this list is useless have already
> unsubscribed.
>
I'm still here. I stay subscribed for the lulz.
-Chad
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.o
On 10/22/2010 09:27 AM, Muhammad Yahia wrote:
> I wonder if the couple
> of points he was making were even worth it, we do have people who are
> capable of presenting criticism in a civil manner, so it's not about
> 'opinion'. I believe WP:POINT and WP:GAME should apply to any medium we are
> tryin
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Houston Navarro
wrote:
> Mike Godwin will be missed by the WMF. It's a fact that he never lost a
> case in this position with the WMF.
I believe he's never lost a case in his life.
Of course, I haven't either ;).
___
I would think the people who think this list is useless have already
unsubscribed.
Can't please everyone.
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> Hoi,
> People who appreciate an upgrade from totally useless... obviously...
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On 22 October 2010 14:27, A
No. You underestimate their subtlety and professionalism.. See
Durova, at
http://searchengineland.com/seo-tips-tactics-from-a-wikipedia-insider-11715
. I am aware of editing by paid editing that is neither aggressive
nor inappropriate. Really good PR people can learn to be careful not
to expre
K. Peachey wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 3:45 AM, Sue Gardner
> wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> I want to let you know that as of this Friday, October 22, 2010, Mike
>> Godwin will be leaving his role as General Counsel for the Wikimedia
>> Foundation.
>> ...snip...
>> The search for his successor wi
The CentralNotice pages/js use client-side caching, so not ever page
view will actually spawn a new request to the squid servers.
Ryan Kaldari
On 10/22/10 4:00 PM, Michael Peel wrote:
> On 22 Oct 2010, at 02:02, Erik Zachte wrote:
>
>
>> A quick update on our inflated page view stats:
>>
>>
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 3:45 AM, Sue Gardner wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I want to let you know that as of this Friday, October 22, 2010, Mike
> Godwin will be leaving his role as General Counsel for the Wikimedia
> Foundation.
> ...snip...
> The search for his successor will begin immediately. It's be
On 22 Oct 2010, at 02:02, Erik Zachte wrote:
> A quick update on our inflated page view stats:
>
> Ryan's hypothesis that deployment of the new CentralNotice banner
> loader had something to do with it has been confirmed.
>
> So those extra page views were actually internally generated reques
> Obviously, the ones who do better at it are the ones we cannot detect.
It is not so much that they cannot be detected, after all their editing
has purpose and they are usually both aggressive and persistent. However,
adequate demonstration of such patterns of activity to other
administrators, or
Obviously, the ones who do better at it are the ones we cannot detect.
My experience is that some in-house PR people do a very poor and
easily detectable job. An expert specialist who knows what is
actually wanted will do far better than a PR generalist who approaches
it like any other PR. I have,
Since the can of worms has been opened...
In my opinion, which ironically is probably similar to Greg Kohs',
having any stance on paid editing of Wikipedia is pointless. Most large
companies and organizations are already paying people to edit Wikipedia
(albeit quietly). The ones we know about a
> Kohs
> will
> likely return with sockpuppets on the mailing list. He is relentless
> when
> prodded.)
> H.N.
Yes, but he is relentless when not prodded. Unless we chose to open up
Wikipedia to paid editing of the sort he does he will probably continue
to be relentless.
When I was checking out
hah, can we pre-order?
I would also like to add my voice to those offering appreciation for all
your good works, Mike.
- Original Message -
From: "David Gerard"
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Ann
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Marc Riddell
wrote:
> Has either of these persons, Greg or Peter, been destructive of the
> substance of the Project: the body of the Encyclopedia?
Yes, in my opinion.
Both were banned from English language Wikipedia and (I believe) other
projects, for content an
Sad news. I remember an office hour with Mike Godwin, competent and
sympathetic.
Best wishes
Ziko
2010/10/22 Houston Navarro :
> Mike Godwin will be missed by the WMF. It's a fact that he never lost a
> case in this position with the WMF.
>
> H.N.
> __
Austin Hair, you have very recently publicly stated: "Greg Kohs went beyond
being merely critical (which is welcome, and even encouraged) to the point
of being antisocial and counterproductive."
This is in follow-up to calling him "completely unable" to keep
contributions "civil".
In the past, D
Mike Godwin will be missed by the WMF. It's a fact that he never lost a
case in this position with the WMF.
H.N.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Like Steven said ED is in it for the lulz. So please don't feed the trolls
(I know a few editors from en:wp that are on ED).
In terms of legal standing, US has much less plaintiff-friendly Defamation
laws than most European Countries, and most differ widely from state to
state. I don't think you w
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 9:53 PM, Steven Walling
wrote:
> People on ED are exactly the same as 4chan: they are in it for the lulz.[1]
>
> They will probably always write these attack pages/satire/whatever term you
> prefer. We're mostly pretty odd folk, so it's easy to make fun. But giving
> them a
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 4:44 PM, James Heilman wrote:
> Encyc. Dramatica seems too take pride in creating attack pages regarding
> Wikipedians. Of course they are exposing themselves to libel suits but
wow, now I have an excuse to finally look at this page! I did not look
at the p0nr pages that w
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
>
> If you are counting votes, please count mine for moderation.
+1.
Although I am not privy to all of Mr. Koh's engagements with the
community, he has certainly made himself notorious for polemical
disruption over various Wikimedia pr
I support the list admins in making this assessment. I dont think it is very
productive to then discuss every assessment on this list. So if we agree
that moderation might be necessary under certain circumstances, if we agree
what circumstances those are and who should be the list admins (or at lea
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 12:54 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 22 October 2010 08:19, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
>
> > If you are counting votes, please count mine for moderation.
>
>
> +1
>
> Seriously, this list is commonly referred to as "troll-l" and lots of
> chapter people refuse to even look
People on ED are exactly the same as 4chan: they are in it for the lulz.[1]
They will probably always write these attack pages/satire/whatever term you
prefer. We're mostly pretty odd folk, so it's easy to make fun. But giving
them attention of any kind is what they want most, since it gives them
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Marc Riddell
wrote:
> I am listening, and do hear what you are saying, Fred. But banishment from
> something, whether it be from a working project or a country, means that
> person is being openly, or even surreptitiously, destructive of the body,
> the substance,
> on 10/22/10 10:11 AM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
> This is a public list for discussion of matters which concern and affect
> the Wikimedia Foundation. It is open to supporters and critics of our
> projects; to novices and old hands.
>
I am listening, and do hear what you are
> Whatever happened to freedom of speech? Encyclopedia Dramatica is a
> parody site. Plenty of people have tried to shut them down before,
> it's unlikely to ever happen (and in my opinion, should never happen).
> If they have an offensive article about you, trying to get rid of it
> will probably
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 4:44 PM, James Heilman wrote:
> Encyc. Dramatica seems too take pride in creating attack pages regarding
> Wikipedians. Of course they are exposing themselves to libel suits but
> looking at some of the rest of their site this seems to be the least of
> their worries with a
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 11:00 AM, M. Williamson wrote:
> Whatever happened to freedom of speech? Encyclopedia Dramatica is a
> parody site. Plenty of people have tried to shut them down before,
> it's unlikely to ever happen (and in my opinion, should never happen).
> If they have an offensive art
Whatever happened to freedom of speech? Encyclopedia Dramatica is a
parody site. Plenty of people have tried to shut them down before,
it's unlikely to ever happen (and in my opinion, should never happen).
If they have an offensive article about you, trying to get rid of it
will probably make it wo
On 22/10/2010 08:54, David Gerard wrote:
> On 22 October 2010 08:19, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
>
>> If you are counting votes, please count mine for moderation.
>
>
> +1
>
Are you both asking to be put on moderation or to be banned>
> Seriously, this list is commonly referred to as "troll-l"
Encyc. Dramatica seems too take pride in creating attack pages regarding
Wikipedians. Of course they are exposing themselves to libel suits but
looking at some of the rest of their site this seems to be the least of
their worries with a great deal of racist content as well as underage
pornography.
Very sad to hear of Mike leaving; he's a charismatic lawyer.
I used to get a kick out of telling people that we have *the* Godwin
on board. I am going to take it for granted that "do you have an
internet meme and law named after you?" will be one of the key
questions when recruiting the next legal
> To what "use" are you talking about, Gerard; groupthink-l?
>
> Marc Riddell
This is a public list for discussion of matters which concern and affect
the Wikimedia Foundation. It is open to supporters and critics of our
projects; to novices and old hands.
Fred
On 22 October 2010 14:14, Marc Riddell wrote:
> on 10/22/10 8:49 AM, Gerard Meijssen at gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
>> People who appreciate an upgrade from totally useless... obviously...
> To what "use" are you talking about, Gerard; groupthink-l?
Your answer appears to have fallen prey
on 10/22/10 8:49 AM, Gerard Meijssen at gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hoi,
> People who appreciate an upgrade from totally useless... obviously...
> Thanks,
> GerardM
To what "use" are you talking about, Gerard; groupthink-l?
Marc Riddell
> On 22 October 2010 14:27, Anthony wrote:
>
>>
Hoi,
People who appreciate an upgrade from totally useless... obviously...
Thanks,
GerardM
On 22 October 2010 14:27, Anthony wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 3:54 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> > Seriously, this list is commonly referred to as "troll-l" and lots of
> > chapter people refuse to
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 3:54 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> Seriously, this list is commonly referred to as "troll-l" and lots of
> chapter people refuse to even look at it. Pulling it out of the mire
> might make it even slightly useful again.
Who want's a list that's slightly useful?
__
Hello,
2010/10/19 Federico Leva (Nemo) :
>
> For those who have forgotten it, we had a similar issue with
> http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Les_Protocoles_des_Sages_de_Sion (I've
> never understood how it's concluded: it's so complicated!).
>
> Nemo
There was never any formal request for deletion b
Hoi,
I would like to qualify Wikihow not as a competition to WMF projects but as
a welcome addition.. Remember we are all one Wiki movement :)
Thanks,
GerardM
On 22 October 2010 10:15, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> On 10/21/10 6:14 PM, Robert S. Horning wrote:
> > On 10/21/2010 08:21 AM, Ziko va
On 22 October 2010 08:19, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> If you are counting votes, please count mine for moderation.
+1
Seriously, this list is commonly referred to as "troll-l" and lots of
chapter people refuse to even look at it. Pulling it out of the mire
might make it even slightly useful a
On 21 October 2010 20:18, Robert Rohde wrote:
> I would also like to add my gratitude to Mike for his years of useful
> service. It is hard to imagine who could be a suitable replacement.
Having been privileged to see some of the breathtaking thngs Mike
pulled off for Wikimedia that cannot as
On 10/21/10 6:14 PM, Robert S. Horning wrote:
> On 10/21/2010 08:21 AM, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
>> I wouldn't say that a "how-to" is necessarily NPOV, although there are
>> more ways to do something. But such a project can be realised already
>> within Wikibooks.
> How-to books are on Wikibooks main
If you are counting votes, please count mine for moderation.
Cheers
Yaroslav
On Fri, 22 Oct 2010 02:23:16 +0100, "Virgilio A. P. Machado"
wrote:
> Three days after the announcement made by Austin Hair on behalf of
> this list administrators, which also includes Ral315 and
> AlexandrDmitri, th
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:07 AM, Peter Coombe
wrote:
> Perhaps a better solution (if this is a common enough problem) would
> be to edit
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Editnotices/Namespace/User_talk
> to inform/remind people that messages they leave there are public. I
> just checked a
50 matches
Mail list logo
