On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 04:37:40PM -0500, David Goodman wrote:
> In my experience, it is simply not correct that people who may be paid
> to edit, even for a nonprofit organization, are unlikely to have a
> bias. (Of course, so do the unpaid. COI does not require money , but
> money always produce
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 03:14:17PM -0700, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
>
> I can safely say that for fundraising we use a series of etherpads
> that absolutely couldn't be done on a wiki. We'd be edit conflicting
> all over the place. :)
>
Would you still say that if we (re)integrated Google^W
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 08:17:06PM -0800, phoebe ayers wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:05 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> > On 12 November 2010 17:34, Anthony wrote:
> >
> >> These are all questions which would have to be answered before WMF
> >> should even consider getting involved. ?To cover its
In my experience, it is simply not correct that people who may be paid
to edit, even for a nonprofit organization, are unlikely to have a
bias. (Of course, so do the unpaid. COI does not require money , but
money always produces COI.)
I've seen too many cases of such people adding inappropriate
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:25:12AM +, FT2 wrote:
> I drafted this. It still seems the best approach in terms of keeping good
> editing and reducing problematic editing:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FT2/Commercial_and_paid_editing
Hmm, your current rules fail the Duck test.(I also apply
could you please explain, how you reach such a conclusion and why you mix
renaming of the foundation up with merging of projects. It is quite out
of line with my thinking and my proposal here.
Regards,
Sir48/Thyge
- Original meddelelse -
> Fra: Federico Leva (Nemo)
> Til: Wikimedia Foun
--- On Sat, 11/12/10, wrote:
> People don't read they react. In the UK a couple of years
> ago there was
> a petition that gathered 50,000 signatures against a
> proposal to ban all
> photography in public spaces. As a point of fact there was
> no such
> proposal.
>
> This received over
Removing paypal etc would be equivalent to a statement "WMF supports
wikileaks". Unless we would make that statement formally as well, this
discussion goes nowhere. Much as I personally support them, this isn't WMF's
business and can only harm the project to make a formal stand.
Individual users m
On Dec 11, 2010, at 12:31 AM, Robert Tice wrote:
> 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.c
2010/12/11 Federico Leva (Nemo) :
>> Say the projects were all renamed. Great. What's changed? Only the name
>> on each page and likely the logo in the upper left. Will the smaller
>> projects magically get more readers and editors and Google page rank? No.
>
> In fact the proposers of renamin
Aaron Adrignola, 11/12/2010 05:01:
> 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
On 10/12/2010 23:51, John Doe wrote:
> 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
On 10/12/2010 20:37, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> 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 v
13 matches
Mail list logo
