>
> > > I can't ASSUME
> > > things about non-participants. For all I know anything we do
> > > (including filtering) might hurt them. If they don't speak up, we
> > > don't know.
> > And this takes us full circle to just about my first question on this
> long
> > thread has anyone actually as
On 12/09/11 19:01, phoebe ayers wrote:
> Congratulations and welcome to Wikimedia District of Columbia, the
> 36th Wikimedia chapter and 2nd chapter to be formed in the U.S.:
Welcome aboard Wiki D.C. :-D
--
Ashar Voultoiz
___
foundation-l mailing l
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 10:53 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 11 September 2011 17:22, Kim Bruning wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 09:38:38AM -0700, Sue Gardner wrote:
>
>>> I wrote the questions, with Phoebe and SJ, in Boston at the Wikipedia
>>> in Higher Ed conference.
>>> It's not a secret --
On 14/09/11 19:56, Kim Bruning wrote:
> Why else would you need to hide things from yourself, if not because
> somewhere in your past, you learned that it was "wrong" or
> "uncomfortable" to look at?
Because somewhere in your past, you found out that it was wrong or
uncomfortable to look at. You
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 3:05 AM, Andrew Garrett wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 1:26 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>>> wrote:
"We do realize that what we did was wrong, and this is clearly not a
situation where we can go on with the 'your opinions have been
duly noted' haughty att
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 09:41:41AM +1000, Andrew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 3:56 AM, Kim Bruning wrote:
> > Well, when I ask people why they want the feature, that's what it
> > comes down to. They say they want to be able to hide things that are
> > offensive to their own culture. (
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 10:50:55PM +0100, Thomas Morton wrote:
> >
> > A wiki usually serves its participants first, (with the world at
> > large being a secondary goal; after all - the entire world is
> > invited and welcome to participate if they want to).
> I've commented at length already on wh
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 20:02, Andrew Lih wrote:
> The question is, would paid staff be a healthy temporary boost for
> sustainability or be futile artificial life support? I fear it's the
> latter.
As Wikipedia requires WMF employees to keep servers running, Wikinews
requires one or small number
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 20:03, Theo10011 wrote:
> certain Elections come to mind. For example, there is the recent case of the
> upcoming steward election which was previously handled by Cary as a
> Volunteer Coordinator (among several dozen things Cary did) but since his
> departure, those tasks
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Phil Nash
> wrote:
>> Sue Gardner wrote:
>>> On 12 September 2011 18:15, geni wrote:
On 12 September 2011 23:45, Samuel Klein wrote:
> Now: what do we need to do to make Wikinews better and more
> useful? What are the c
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 1:56 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 17:44, Stephen Bain wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 1:26 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>> wrote:
>>> "We do realize that what we did was wrong, and this is clearly not a
>>> situation where we can go on with the 'your o
On Sep 14, 2011, at 2:21 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 2:14 AM, Sarah wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 14:28, Theo10011 wrote:
>>
>> Adding video-taped interviews is the next step. Imagine articles about
>> the Second World War containing video interviews by Wikipedians of
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 3:56 AM, Kim Bruning wrote:
> Well, when I ask people why they want the feature, that's what it
> comes down to. They say they want to be able to hide things that are
> offensive to their own culture. (Given that it would work) This
> method would allow them to do so, witho
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 17:44, Stephen Bain wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 1:26 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>> wrote:
>>> "We do realize that what we did was wrong, and this is clearly not a
>>> situation where we can go on with the 'your o
On 14 Sep 2011, at 23:05, WereSpielChequers wrote:
> I remember hearing a couple of times that CorenSearchBot was down, but just
> assumed that something so important was being rescued, though I did wonder
> slightly about the recent net increase in articles on EN wiki. 3,738,826
> articles today
Only the English Wikipedia, and while en.wp is our most successful project
so far, there are other successful Wikipedias that were formed only through
community efforts with no paid editors.
2011/9/14 Kim Bruning
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 07:17:49PM +0100, Thomas Morton wrote:
> > The elephant
I remember hearing a couple of times that CorenSearchBot was down, but just
assumed that something so important was being rescued, though I did wonder
slightly about the recent net increase in articles on EN wiki. 3,738,826
articles today means we've way overshot the 3 million projection, the 3.5
m
>
> A wiki usually serves its participants first, (with the world at
> large being a secondary goal; after all - the entire world is
> invited and welcome to participate if they want to).
I've commented at length already on why this is the wrong approach; and
forces us into an even more insular c
On 14 September 2011 18:34, Kim Bruning wrote:
> Actually, wikipedia did have a paid full-time editor at bootup.
Yes, and that went really well, didn't it? ;)
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wik
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 2:14 AM, Sarah wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 14:28, Theo10011 wrote:
> > I doubt that would be enough to satisfy the no original research
> > requirement. The idea linking back to a Wikimedia project as a source is
> not
> > a new one, it has been tried many times and
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 14:28, Theo10011 wrote:
> I doubt that would be enough to satisfy the no original research
> requirement. The idea linking back to a Wikimedia project as a source is not
> a new one, it has been tried many times and doesn't work.
The no original research policy was never i
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 1:52 AM, Achal Prabhala wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday 15 September 2011 01:43 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> > On 14 September 2011 21:02, Achal Prabhala wrote:
> >
> >> It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that the world now follows the
> >> Wikinews model.
> >
> > No, you're des
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 13:10, Andrew Lih wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Sarah wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 12:34, Andrew Lih wrote:
>>> And, in Wikipedia's crowdsourced way, potentially a re-oriented,
>>> mobilized Wikinews could produce in one week what National Geographic
>>>
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 1:32 AM, Achal Prabhala wrote:
>
>
> I've been following the Wikinews discussion, and I've been hesitant to
> comment only because I know so little about it. The little I know tells
> me that it could be something great, and perhaps the reason it's not
> quite there yet is
On Thursday 15 September 2011 01:43 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 14 September 2011 21:02, Achal Prabhala wrote:
>
>> It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that the world now follows the
>> Wikinews model.
>
> No, you're describing bare skimming of the unedited social media pool.
> Wikinews follo
On 14 September 2011 21:02, Achal Prabhala wrote:
> It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that the world now follows the
> Wikinews model.
No, you're describing bare skimming of the unedited social media pool.
Wikinews follows a process-heavy review model, so laborious that news
dies before get
On Thursday 15 September 2011 12:40 AM, Andrew Lih wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Sarah wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 12:34, Andrew Lih wrote:
>>> And, in Wikipedia's crowdsourced way, potentially a re-oriented,
>>> mobilized Wikinews could produce in one week what National Geog
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 09:45:38AM -0400, Sydney Poore wrote:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillarization
> >
> > Due to my knowing the historical context, I would actually prefer that
> > people were confronted by cultural differences and have a healthy
> > dialogue about them, to preven
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Sarah wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 12:34, Andrew Lih wrote:
>> And, in Wikipedia's crowdsourced way, potentially a re-oriented,
>> mobilized Wikinews could produce in one week what National Geographic
>> normally produces in one year. This could be a multimed
Unfortunately the proposed mechanism (which cannot with integrity be
disentangled from the proposal, for juts such reasons as this) would
download the images regardless, the filter would merely affect the
display. It is possible that even a smarter mechanism might suffer the
same drawback if a
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 11:54:07PM +1000, Andrew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Kim Bruning wrote:
> > The end game for this strategy of giving every (sub-) culture their own
> > subset of the images and/or text (when every medium agrees all at once),
> > and where everyone liv
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 12:34, Andrew Lih wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Sarah wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 12:02, Andrew Lih wrote:
>>> of Wikipedia principles. Wikis depend on eventualism: given an
>>> infinite timeline, pages eventually get better. News cannot survive on
>>>
2011/9/14 Andre Engels :
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Marcin Cieslak wrote:
>> I am especially interested in
>> countries where access to information is restricted by the environment,
>> for example by governments, whether the same reasoning applies to them
>> as to less restrictive regions.
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Sarah wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 12:02, Andrew Lih wrote:
>> of Wikipedia principles. Wikis depend on eventualism: given an
>> infinite timeline, pages eventually get better. News cannot survive on
>> that. The "decay" of the value of breaking news and even
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 07:17:49PM +0100, Thomas Morton wrote:
> The elephant in the room in all this is that Wikinews lacks the critical
> mass of editors to overcome these issues.
>
> So...
>
> Producing a functional daily news outlet (website) requires a substantial
> full time staff... of cou
The elephant in the room in all this is that Wikinews lacks the critical
mass of editors to overcome these issues.
So...
you could have a strict review system; if there were enough good reviewers
you could cover a broad spectrum of news; if there were enough editors
you could implement collaborat
On 13 September 2011 13:06, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 12:24, wrote:
>> It's my opinion, that Wikimedia should try to support a Wikinews by
>> paying a editor in chief and a core team of reporters to secure that
>> the project always stays above the critical mass.
>
> That's a
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 12:02, Andrew Lih wrote:
> of Wikipedia principles. Wikis depend on eventualism: given an
> infinite timeline, pages eventually get better. News cannot survive on
> that. The "decay" of the value of breaking news and eventualism are at
> odds with each other.
>
> The questi
Hi Milos
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 9:18 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 16:17, Theo10011 wrote:
> > My main point (although I *did* make it clear), was that volunteer-work
> is
> > what this movement is built on. Tell me a single content project that was
> > built by paid employ
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
>
> In other words, to have successful Wikinews, you have to have editor
> pool which have Wikipedia itself and to be more structured. The only
> other option is to hire someone to do that job.
Wikinewsie Brian McNeil's signature says, "Facts d
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Lodewijk wrote:
> Hi Phoebe,
>
> thanks a lot!
>
> Reading the minutes, I am wondering - are the reports of the independent
> companies (KPMG and Daniel J. Fusco & Company) available online so that the
> considerations of the board can be better understood? If so,
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Marcin Cieslak wrote:
> Can you help me in understanding in why such a user control feature may
> possibly bring more people to Wikipedia?
By giving people who do not want to run the risk of seeing certain images
that they disagree with one less reason to _not_
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 10:37, Marcin Cieslak wrote:
>> Hello Saper,
>>
>> Could you explain how that you think an user controlled image filter would
>> make a difference to a person who lives on a country politically restricted
>> country? Do you think that it would hurt or help, or make no diffe
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 18:19, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 17:48:58 +0200, Milos Rancic
>>
>> Theo, volunteers do not care about things which require to be
>> accurate. Besides that, more and more volunteer positions were
>> replaced by paid staff, beginning with Brion. And t
>> > Other people want it because of a desire to keep controversial content
>> out
>> > of their home. Giving these user control over image selection may bring *
>> > more* people to Wikipedia, and an article with controversial content.
>> > Intellectual curiosity may entice them to click through
On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 17:48:58 +0200, Milos Rancic
wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 16:17, Theo10011 wrote:
>> My main point (although I *did* make it clear), was that volunteer-work
>> is
>> what this movement is built on. Tell me a single content project that
was
>> built by paid employees? If we
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 10:49:06AM -0500, Aaron Adrignola wrote:
> CorenSearchBot has not been operational for several months since Yahoo
> stopped allowing automated queries. Bing's terms of use don't permit
> this either and apparently the same is true for Google.
It might be useful to have a c
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 17:44, Stephen Bain wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 1:26 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> wrote:
>> "We do realize that what we did was wrong, and this is clearly not a
>> situation where we can go on with the 'your opinions have been
>> duly noted' haughty attitude. We apolog
> From: Tempodivalse
> To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 10:30:44 -0500 (CDT)
> Subject: [Foundation-l] The WikiNews fork - for lack of a copyvio detection
> bot half a project was lost
> CorenSearchBot would be quite useful for both Wikinews and OpenGlobe;
> in genera
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 16:17, Theo10011 wrote:
> My main point (although I *did* make it clear), was that volunteer-work is
> what this movement is built on. Tell me a single content project that was
> built by paid employees? If we abandon our identity, then how would we still
> be volunteer-dri
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 1:26 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
wrote:
>
> "We do realize that what we did was wrong, and this is clearly not a
> situation where we can go on with the 'your opinions have been
> duly noted' haughty attitude. We apologize for even going that route
> ever in the first place.
On Wed Sep 14 07:40:20, WereSpielChequers
wrote:
> I think the responses are a credit to Wikinews. This one
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikinews-l/2011-September/002035.html
> in particular. It seems that they need something like CorenSearchBot to
> trackdown copyvio and plagiarism
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Tim Starling wrote:
>>
>> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content
>>
>> However, the editor community could sabotage it in various ways. For
>> example, there's no guarante
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Marcin Cieslak wrote:
> >> Sydney Poore wrote:
>
> > Other people want it because of a desire to keep controversial content
> out
> > of their home. Giving these user control over image selection may bring *
> > more* people to Wikipedia, and an article with con
>> Sydney Poore wrote:
> Other people want it because of a desire to keep controversial content out
> of their home. Giving these user control over image selection may bring *
> more* people to Wikipedia, and an article with controversial content.
> Intellectual curiosity may entice them to click
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 9:52 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 14 September 2011 14:45, Sydney Poore wrote:
>
> > Besides your acknowledged bias towards confronting people with their bias
> > and forcing a discussion, it is also not very practical that we be the
> host
> > for discussions on talk pag
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 9:03 PM, wrote:
>
> Zitat von Theo10011 :
> > I don't quiet agree with that analysis. You comparison with professional
> > competitors might have held true in the last age of publishing, the
> playing
> > field has been much more leveled. Even the New York Times has a hard
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Kim Bruning wrote:
> The end game for this strategy of giving every (sub-) culture their own
> subset of the images and/or text (when every medium agrees all at once),
> and where everyone lives past each other is actually well known and well
> studied:
> h
On 14 September 2011 14:45, Sydney Poore wrote:
> Besides your acknowledged bias towards confronting people with their bias
> and forcing a discussion, it is also not very practical that we be the host
> for discussions on talk pages continuously with large groups of people. It
> fatigues our est
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Kim Bruning wrote:
> >
> > I fundamentally disagree. If the content can be managed to be culturally
> > sound, that is effective to disseminate globally. If Islamic countries
> do
> > not want to see images of Mohammed, that is effect in maintaining other
> > co
>
> I fundamentally disagree. If the content can be managed to be culturally
> sound, that is effective to disseminate globally. If Islamic countries do
> not want to see images of Mohammed, that is effect in maintaining other
> content without blocking the site. Same applies to other religious
I think the responses are a credit to Wikinews. This one
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikinews-l/2011-September/002035.html
in particular. It seems that they need something like CorenSearchBot to
trackdown copyvio and plagiarism.
I appreciate that lack of coding resource isn't the only pro
62 matches
Mail list logo
