Lets take a look at this really quick from a business side. Paypal might
think there is legal risk in supporting Wikileaks. More importantly for
them, they might get screwed monetarily (governments seize funds, etc). As
for Amazon, the Wikileaks website was getting DDOS'd and was a thorn in
thei
It was a matter of time before someone brought this subject up ;)
The refusal of paypal, mastercard and visa to process payments to wikileaks
is something i have watched with concern. Effectively, the victim has been
denied the acceptance of gifts and payments without any court involvement.
What t
I suggest that use of Paypal is contraindicated due to their deliberate
efforts to inhibit the spread of information by closing their account with
Wikileaks. It is inappropriate for Wiki to be associated with Paypal or
Amazon.com. These corporations are the opposite of what Wikipedia and
associat
The following is an important point by Fajro:
>
> Google has links to their other sites in the top of every poge:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/fajro/5249799850/in/set-72157625445178785/
> Wikipedia "sister proyects" are also relegated to the bottom of the page.
>
>
The idea of a navigation bar t
I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.
You're Invited to Gmail!
Mono mium has invited you to open a Gmail account.
Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail
See, we need to increase the visibility and role of the foundation.
Instead of calling it a "Wikipedia account", call it a Wikimedia ID
Promotion is key
mono
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Birgitte SB wrote:
>
>
>
>
> - Original Message
> > From: "wjhon...@aol.com"
> > To: foundati
- Original Message
> From: "wjhon...@aol.com"
> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Sent: Fri, December 10, 2010 10:35:07 AM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wiki[p/m]edia
>
> In a message dated 12/10/2010 6:52:05 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> zvand...@googlemail.com writes:
>
>
> >
In a message dated 12/10/2010 2:58:08 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes:
> my idea was that you will want to search pages that are referenced by
> wikipedia already, in my work on kosovo, it would be very helpful
> because there are lots of bad results on google, a
In a message dated 12/10/2010 1:10:26 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes:
> My point is we should index them ourselves. We should have the pages
> used as references first listed in an easy to use manner and if
> possible we should cache them. If they are not cacheab
In a message dated 12/10/2010 1:31:20 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes:
> If we prefer pages that can be cached and translated, and mark the
> others that cannot, then by natural selection we will in long term
> replaces the pages that are not allowed to be cached
In a message dated 12/10/2010 2:12:44 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes:
> Well, lets backtrack.
> The original question was, how can we exclude wikipedia clones from the
> search.
> my idea was to create a search engine that includes only refs from
> wikipedia in
On 10 December 2010 08:45, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Apart from summarising COM:PORN*, all that the draft sexual content policy
> was meant to do, actually, was to address two cases:
> * Material that is illegal to host for the Foundation under Florida law
> * Sexual images of people uploaded withou
In a message dated 12/10/2010 12:08:37 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jayen...@yahoo.com writes:
> Suggest you read the draft policy, rather than the votes.
>
You're suggesting that all the no votes are simply trolls then?
That's a lot of no votes to just cast them off as people who didn't read
th
I'm In the process of creating a cleanup tool that checks archive.org and
webcitation.org if a URL is not archived it checks to see if it is live and
if it is I request that webcitation archive it on demand, and fills in the
archiveurl parameter of cite templates.
John
___
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Virgilio A. P. Machado wrote:
> I forgot at least one of the rules (probably more) of this list, and
> (almost) always addressed my comments to the person who made the
> comment. The exchange went well, was mostly good humored, but that's
> not how things are suppo
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:02 AM, wrote:
> In a message dated 12/10/2010 2:58:08 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes:
>
>
> my idea was that you will want to search pages that are referenced by
> wikipedia already, in my work on kosovo, it would be very helpful
> bec
Hi all,
I'm analyzing the OSM license change [0] and the effects it will have
on data interchange between Wikipedia and OSM. At [1] they say that
there should be no change for maps, but I'm not clarified on how (and
if) will I be able to import batches of OSM data in Wikipedia after
the license ch
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:16 PM, wrote:
> In a message dated 12/10/2010 2:12:44 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes:
>
>
> Well, lets backtrack.
> The original question was, how can we exclude wikipedia clones from the
> search.
> my idea was to create a search engi
Nonsense.
Wikimedia is a Great Brand, the problem is that it was never promoted properly.
In fact, the brand / logo is hidden at the bottom of the footer in every page!!
No wonder why people don't know what Wikimedia is!
See the login page of Wikipedia: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fajro/5249248
Well, lets backtrack.
The original question was, how can we exclude wikipedia clones from the search.
my idea was to create a search engine that includes only refs from
wikipedia in it.
then the idea was to make our own engine instead of only using google.
lets agree that we need first a list of re
I'm aware of that discussion, but thanks for pointing to it. I do not,
however, feel that it has been "discussed at length" since most of the
discussion centers about a proposal to merge all projects into Wikipedia.
That is rightly opposed as being harmful to the projects and also seems
not to be d
Absolutely worth re-reading this message from 2007 on brand unification:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-May/029991.html
(thanks Nemo)
Ziko
2010/12/10 :
> In a message dated 12/10/2010 6:52:05 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> zvand...@googlemail.com writes:
>
>
>> It is difficu
I know all about the aspects of programming and copyright, I thought I
answered the questions.
Of course I can program this myself, and we can use open source
indexing tools for that. the translations of course are a separate
issue, they would be under the same restrictions as the source page.
If
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:54 PM, wrote:
> In a message dated 12/10/2010 12:48:31 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes:
>
>
> I am not talking about books, just webpages.
>
> lets take ladygaga.com as example
>
> Wayback engine :
> http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://w
I am not talking about books, just webpages.
lets take ladygaga.com as example
Wayback engine :
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.ladygaga.com
Google cache:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1720lEPHkysJ:www.ladygaga.com/+lady+gaga&cd=1&hl=de&ct=clnk&gl=de&client=firefox
--- On Fri, 10/12/10, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> From: wjhon...@aol.com
> > Apart from summarising COM:PORN*, all that the draft
> sexual content
> > policy
> > was meant to do, actually, was to address two cases:
> >
> > * Material that is illegal to host for the Foundation
> under Florida la
i mean google has copies, caches of items for searching.
How can google cache this?
Archive.org has copyrighted materials as well.
We should be able to save backups of this material as well.
mike
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 5:16 PM, wrote:
> In a message dated 12/9/2010 11:06:30 PM Pacific Standard
In a message dated 12/10/2010 6:52:05 AM Pacific Standard Time,
zvand...@googlemail.com writes:
> It is difficult to say how many people refuse to donate to Wikimedia
> because they want to donate to Wikipedia. People should know that you
> can't donate to a website itself but only to the instit
In a message dated 12/10/2010 12:45:46 AM Pacific Standard Time,
jayen...@yahoo.com writes:
> Apart from summarising COM:PORN*, all that the draft sexual content
> policy
> was meant to do, actually, was to address two cases:
>
> * Material that is illegal to host for the Foundation under Flo
In a message dated 12/9/2010 11:06:30 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes:
> Google does it, archive.org (wayback machine) does it, we can copy
> them for caching and searching i assume. we are not changing the
> license, but just preventing the information from disap
Strainu, 10/12/2010 17:31:
> At first thought, this proposal seemed like a "branding suicide", but
> considering the enormous difference in awareness between Wikipedia and
> the other brands, it could be a subject worth discussing.
It's been discussed at length:
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wik
I also think that it is worth considering and that it's not a suicide,
although other opinions are welcome.
I am mostly active in Wikipedia, but i am also quite active in
Wikisource and Commons. I wouldn't be offended if Wikisource's name
would change. When i talk about my biggest Wikisource proje
At first thought, this proposal seemed like a "branding suicide", but
considering the enormous difference in awareness between Wikipedia and
the other brands, it could be a subject worth discussing. It would
also help avoid composed word that sometimes sound strange or are just
plain weird in langu
I was about to write a suggestion similar to the one indicated by Ziko
van Dijk. I second it and recommend that the following be given serious
consideration:
Change as soon as practically possible the naming of the Foundation to
the "Wikipedia Foundation" and the naming of the projects to Wikipedi
Dear friends,
There should be nobody offended, and no apoligize is necessary. We try
to deal with a complicated situation that would not exist if Wikipedia
would be simply the product of Wikipedia Publishing House.
Whether the names amplify the problem, whether "Wikimedia" was a good
name choice
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Philippe Beaudette
wrote:
> When we get letters saying things like "I'd donate, but only to Wikipedia,
> not to Wikimedia", it spells
> out for us that it's possible we could attract more people with the
> institution of Wikipedia than the
> institution of Wikimed
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Domas Mituzas wrote:
>> Like you say, though, it's definitely a technical issue to be taken up
>> elsewhere.
>
> Where you will be told that this is 'working as intended'. & is usually
> sent in URLs by broken clients, so we block them as early as possible.
With
On 10 December 2010 11:20, Anirudh Bhati wrote:
> Let us add another line to the end of the appeal explaining that "the
> Wikimedia
> Foundation is a non-profit organization that hosts {{{SITENAME}}} and
> other sister-projects."
We had something like this in the 2008 and 2009 appeals - 2007 wa
On 10 December 2010 12:33, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> With that said, the banners are being changed right now - they'll say
>> Wikimedia.
>
> That's progress, but it is still wrong. Sue is not the ED of
> Wikimedia. She is the ED of the Wikimedia Foundation. I am part of
> Wikimedia, but Sue is defi
> Calling Sue Gardner the "Wikipedia Executive Director" is simply wrong
> (factually and morally) and doing so is entirely unacceptable. Wikimedia
> ought to hold itself above lying to readers in order to solicit donations.
> These banners and landing pages are a violation of what Wikimedians stri
Sorry for keeping an off-topic (now) for a while; it won't continue so
long and I'd love to make the below clear before going to buzgilla.
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Domas Mituzas wrote:
>> Like you say, though, it's definitely a technical issue to be taken up
>> elsewhere.
>
> Where you wi
> Like you say, though, it's definitely a technical issue to be taken up
> elsewhere.
Where you will be told that this is 'working as intended'. & is usually
sent in URLs by broken clients, so we block them as early as possible.
Domas
___
foundation-l
On 10 December 2010 00:20, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
> Hi everyone -
>
> First, let me thank you all for your concern about the recent banners.
> Michael Snow is right - we tested some things, thinking that we could manage
> to raise the yield slightly by deliberately attempting to clarify (not
2010/12/10 KIZU Naoko :
> And thank you for noticing me/us it's somehow weird. Without the
> entity "&" it works - so we might find two things to fix. I'll
> later file the bug on the entity related thing, it seems a pure
> technical thing and need to dig up further here.
The issue there is that y
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 5:46 AM, Zack Exley wrote:
> OK, everyone -- I learned my lesson! Thanks for teaching it.
>
> I was looking at it from the perspective of the reader who has never heard
> the word "Wikimedia". There are millions and millions of them. Luckily they
> simply think we are missp
Hello,
I used to think that Peter adds an interesting point of view to
Commons, but he went too far.
I think that he should be blocked now once and for all.
Regards,
Yann
2010/12/7 Adam Cuerden :
> It concerns me greatly that Commons seems unable to deal with a user who, at
> various times, has
> This is because the campaign is centred on Wikipedia only and
> specifically on Jimbo (who is famous thanks to Wikipedia).
> Hopefully the contributors appeals will also say something about
> Wikimedia and other Wikimedia projects and provide some banners which
> won't look out of place on sis
jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
> --- On Fri, 10/12/10, Mariano Cecowski wrote:
> > Problem is, Controlled Viewing is an option to deletionism,
> > but is not being seen as it. The current poll is to set a
> > criteria for the exclusion of material from commons, whereas
> > content hiding is [generally
Delphine Ménard, 10/12/2010 08:51:
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Zack Exley wrote:
>> OK, everyone -- I learned my lesson! Thanks for teaching it.
>
> They say you are not really part of the tech team until you have
> broken the site. I guess you are not really part of the Wikimedia
> c
--- On Fri, 10/12/10, Mariano Cecowski wrote:
> Problem is, Controlled Viewing is an option to deletionism,
> but is not being seen as it. The current poll is to set a
> criteria for the exclusion of material from commons, whereas
> content hiding is [generally speaking] against it.
>
> Why do we
50 matches
Mail list logo
