https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/32157
The fussy buggers of Wikimedia need to get nitpicking ...
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 3 April 2012 07:47, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> We had started a stub table about this:
> https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_things_that_need_to_be_free
This is brilliant! I've been after something like this for a while.
- d.
___
foun
"America’s most trusted encyclopedia, Conservapedia, have decided to
launch a new wiki-based semantic data project named Conservadata. The
new project will make right-wing soundbites available in machine
readable form."
http://blog.tommorris.org/post/20277406012/conservadata
- d.
__
This is about what happens when someone does the *bloody simple and
obvious* with all the data that Facebook, FourSquare, etc. live of
getting people to give out:
http://www.cultofmac.com/157641/this-creepy-app-isnt-just-stalking-women-without-their-knowledge-its-a-wake-up-call-about-facebook-priv
On 30 March 2012 13:56, WereSpielChequers wrote:
> That's a very welcome move, and I hope it helps build bridges back to the
> community. From time to time we will have very divisive issues to discuss,
> and in such situations it is much easier for the "losing" side in the
> community if they can
On 27 March 2012 23:43, Patrick Hayes wrote:
> The first beta release of the Wiktionary mobile app for Android has been
> released! You can download the .apk file here
> (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4187555/WiktionaryActivity-v101b.apk) and load it
> onto your device.
This ... is fantastic! Mobi
On 24 March 2012 23:16, Sarah wrote:
> Does anyone know what kind of experiments we're talking about?
Only those who read to the top of the thread. (Article feedback tool,
new article wizard, etc.)
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@li
On 23 March 2012 20:13, geni wrote:
> Every article on a non extinct animal species is a somewhat viable and
> useful goal (and it keeps us one step ahead of web of life)
Goodness yes. My 4yo loves videos of animals, and there's e.g. just
about no fish that can be filmed that someone hasn't fil
On 22 March 2012 15:39, Bod Notbod wrote:
> I can't say I find that a particularly exciting prospect. Especially
> not, as perhaps I wrongly conjure from context given by this
> discussion, video shot on mobile phones.
> I'm picturing wonky-cam, shakey footage that someone has taken walking
> dow
On 22 March 2012 10:56, En Pine wrote:
> Why would you not want to provide people guidance before they've made their
> first edit, and why not provide them some encouragement to edit in a welcome
> message?
Because in practice, new editors don't read them - they think the
messages are just bo
On 22 March 2012 10:47, En Pine wrote:
> Your tone comes across as harsh.
I believe this is actually an objection to the content of my post
rather than its formatting.
> Do you have any positive suggestions about how to improve editor retention?
This is evidence you haven't been reading com
On 22 March 2012 08:37, En Pine wrote:
> First, has anyone thought about automatically adding a welcome message to the
> user’s talk page when they first register, not only for EN but also for
> Commons, Simple, and other projects?
Is there any evidence anyone reads the template and doesn't j
On 22 March 2012 00:11, MZMcBride wrote:
> Can you show an example of a user making his or her 10th, 100th, or 1000th
> high quality edit who's being blanketed with impersonal warnings? I don't
> understand this phenomenon, though it sounds fascinating.
I'm around the hundred thousands and I st
On 21 March 2012 22:32, Zack Exley wrote:
> Today those kinds of communications happen much more rarely. My hunch is
> that templates caused that. Now, we just leave template messages instead of
> writing a personal note about a specific edit.
And it turns out the new editors often assume the t
On 21 March 2012 08:17, Jürgen Fenn wrote:
> I wonder whether we should rather use our strength in users' demand in
> order to make pressure on manufacturers to support free-software
> codecs than adopting the costly and patented codecs. I mean, it's not
> only about content. MediaWiki and Wikime
On 20 March 2012 20:02, Lars Aronsson wrote:
> I'm not opposed to trying H.264, but I doubt it will solve our problem,
> which is that we have too few videos.
> The category:Videos from Sweden (an early adopter market) is now at
> 110 files, which is a ridiculously small number. It has doubled ea
On 20 March 2012 18:39, Tom Morris wrote:
> On 20 March 2012 18:24, Andrew Gray wrote:
>> (The SEO people are correct that Wikipedia has a high Google ranking,
>> and correct that this is something of an odd skew on Google's part.
>> What always amuses me is the recurrent belief that Wikipedia
>
This is a drastic policy change that affects all projects, and so
needs wider discussion than just wikitech-l.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Brion Vibber
Date: 20 March 2012 01:24
Subject: [Wikitech-l] Video codecs and mobile
To: Wikimedia developers
As some may know, we've re
On 14 March 2012 12:50, Michael Peel wrote:
> On 14 Mar 2012, at 12:21, Russavia wrote:
>> Interesting news indeed.
>> Lead's one to wonder when WMF will launch it's first printed
>> encyclopaedia. Perhaps a 2013 Citation Needed edition is in the works?
> Something like this:
> http://www.labnol
On 14 March 2012 05:16, Béria Lima wrote:
> I will actually look for a copy of the 15th edition (for sentimental
> reasons) to buy before they get too rare and too expensive :D Of course I
> will miss it! If Britannica is gone we will need to start printing
> Wikipedia ;-)
I see old sets of Bri
On 14 March 2012 07:33, rupert THURNER wrote:
> I did use a very old "konversationslexikon" as a child, mainly for the
> pictures. With our children this got replaced now by online resources. And
> no, not by wikipedia, but by YouTube. And every time I spend 15 minutes to
> find a video to illust
On 14 March 2012 00:22, phoebe ayers wrote:
> I've been asked to write a short editorial about this development from
> a Wikipedian's perspective and am curious about (and would love to
> include) other Wikimedian experiences -- did you use print
> encyclopedias as a kid? Was a love of print ency
On 12 March 2012 02:52, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> There are a number of sections touching on Wikimedia, notably those
> beginning on the following pages:
> http://www.parliament.uk/documents/joint-committees/Privacy_and_Injunctions/JCPIWrittenEvWeb.pdf#page=425
Written by you and ... Edward Buckne
On 12 March 2012 20:24, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
> I'm tired to reply to this kind of comments since I said anything important
> multiple times already. So I will keep it as that and only write the
> following:
> Sorry, but your comments are total bullshit¹ and you know it.
> ¹ includes strong la
On 12 March 2012 14:35, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> That is beside the point. You are against the proposal that is on the
> table. It is a compromise. Now the fact that some want much more and you
> want much less makes it a compromise.
Erm, I'm addressing Richard's stated rationale.
- d.
_
On 12 March 2012 13:55, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> When you consider that the current proposal is for a system where it takes
> one click to see something anyway, I do think the notion that something is
> not knowable is over the top.
The rationale is problematic: to appease a target audience of
On 12 March 2012 12:28, Richard Symonds
wrote:
> deepest parts of the US bible belt, and areas such as Pakistan and India,
> which have sizeable English-speaking populations and a very strong religious
> vein. With such a diverse worldwide readership on one language, it is only
> natural that peo
On 11 March 2012 11:19, Robert Alvarez wrote:
> I see at least two current Arbcom members posting there quite recently and
> even responding to requests of banned users to do things on their behalf on
> Wikipedia (such as John Vandenberg working for Edward Buckner).
Editing on behalf of banned
On 10 March 2012 22:15, Andrew Gray wrote:
> The image filter may not be a good solution, but too much of the
> response involves saying "we're fine, we're neutral, we don't need to
> do anything" and leaving it there; this isn't the case, and we do need
> to think seriously about these issues wi
On 10 March 2012 14:58, David Gerard wrote:
> On 10 March 2012 14:54, geni wrote:
>> Not that I'm aware of but if you follow special:newpages for any
>> length of time you will notice a tendency for the problematical
>> articles to be orphans. After all a redli
On 10 March 2012 14:54, geni wrote:
> Not that I'm aware of but if you follow special:newpages for any
> length of time you will notice a tendency for the problematical
> articles to be orphans. After all a redlink generally means that at
> least one other person has thought that the article shou
On 10 March 2012 14:18, geni wrote:
> People creating articles by clicking on redlinks are not as a general
> rule a significant issue.
That appears to be a numerical claim. Do we have numbers?
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.
On 9 March 2012 14:50, Thomas Morton wrote:
> Partly because it is the low hanging fruit (i.e. the thing that will have
> the most impact in forwarding our goals of accessible knowledge).
Citation needed.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundati
On 9 March 2012 13:52, Nathan wrote:
> So what you're saying is, you feel confident that everyone agrees with you,
> and thus perfectly comfortable speaking on behalf of the entire community?
> I see.
I thought he was noting the observation that when the Board and staff
tried to push the issue,
On 8 March 2012 07:13, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 3:00 AM, phoebe ayers wrote:
>> So, yeah, things are on hold essentially because there are more urgent
>> things to do, and because given the rather extraordinary scale of the
>> debate and all of the controversy, serio
On 7 March 2012 23:08, Thomas Morton wrote:
> On 7 Mar 2012, at 23:03, David Gerard wrote:
>> I think you have no grasp of just how far beyond merely "mainstream"
>> Wikipedia is.
> The answer being; Not much at all.
We're beyond mainstream and are now
On 7 March 2012 22:41, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> WMF is looking to work together with lots of mainstream organisations, from
> the British Museum to the Smithsonian. But this kind of curation of adult
> content is an embarrassment for the Wikimedia Foundation, and a potential
> embarrassment for all
2012/3/7 Juliana da Costa José :
> so it would be not longer possible too, to have medical pictures f.e. from
> surgeries, organs or corpses, because they could frighten people?
Knowledge is an inherently frightening thing, as is the prospect of
other people feeling they have a right to know thi
On 6 March 2012 00:57, phoebe ayers wrote:
> Well, in my opinion I haven't given much indication of what I
> personally think on the issue at all, as I often explicitly ignored
> speculation about my own personal views or motivations whether it was
> right or wrong. I *have* spent a great deal of
On 5 March 2012 18:21, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> There are people in this movement who are happy with this status quo, and
> who say they will fork if anything changes.
> Let them.
You have that backwards. You are demanding the board enact something
precisely because the overwhelming majority of t
On 5 March 2012 22:07, geni wrote:
> On 5 March 2012 20:40, Chris Keating wrote:
>> I suspect a court would hold that the set of "cakes" is disjoint from the
>> set of "objects on permanent display", and thus that a photograph of cake
>> can never benefit from freedom of panorama.
> Well you sa
On 5 March 2012 17:07, phoebe ayers wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 11:32 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> You do realise this has become a toxic electoral issue for the board,
>> with people who voted twice for the resolution now backpedalling?
> Just for the record, not sure wh
On 5 March 2012 05:03, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> I am sorry to say that unless you are prepared to put your foot down, and
> represent the tens of thousands of people who expressed their views in the
> (admittedly suboptimal) referendum, you risk becoming an irrelevancy – in
> exactly the same way t
http://blog.opendigital.org/2012/03/crowdsourcerequest-for-feedback-review.html
They're trying to compile a suitable response to the Hargreaves Review
of copyright in the UK. Wikimedia's name is dropped. It's clearly a
draft, further ideas and detail working out will be helpful.
- d.
__
On 4 March 2012 13:11, James Heilman wrote:
> Wikimedia Commons has the potential to become a central repository of
> creative commons content. There are a large number of other sites running
> Mediawiki software to partner with. If we could either host their images or
> allow users of other site
http://blog.foursquare.com/2012/02/29/foursquare-is-joining-the-openstreetmap-movement-say-hi-to-pretty-new-maps/
"When we initially began looking around for other map providers, we
found some incredibly strong alternatives. And while the new Google
Maps API pricing was the reason we initially sta
On 1 March 2012 16:30, Erik Moeller wrote:
> The rename would likely occur by unsubscribing current members from
> this list and re-subscribing them to the new one, to avoid breaking
> links or accidentally corrupting archives -- meaning that list
> archives pre-move would be accessible via a dif
On 1 March 2012 10:23, Strainu wrote:
> If names are that important for you, go ahead and rename foundation-l,
> but there is really no need for yet another list.
+1
Adding a new list would be largely redundant.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
https://twitter.com/#!/tommorris/status/173557756882722816
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 22 February 2012 13:29, Thomas Morton wrote:
> However I am interested in whether you have a specific idea of what you
> would change? Can you express a reason for why using the published test is
> a poor signal?
It produces a rich crop of both false positives and false negatives. I
can't th
On 22 February 2012 03:04, Mike Godwin wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:35 PM, George Herbert
> wrote:
>> The post-facto probability of 1.0 that the researcher was in fact
>> professional, credible, and by all accounts right does not mean that a
>> priori he should automatically have been trea
On 16 February 2012 11:27, John Du Hart wrote:
> Is this really something to get upset over? It's not as if he was calling
> you stupid, he simply misspelled your name (shortened it, really).
People's own names are extremely important to them.
- d.
___
On 13 February 2012 14:29, marcos wrote:
> There is a simpler solution: to dissolve the current structure of chapters
> and to leave everything in hands of the magnificent professionals of San
> Francisco...
This is effectively how fundraising now works.
- d.
__
On 9 February 2012 09:04, wrote:
> I guess my concern is that it may encourage readers to type in suggestions
> and take it no further rather than take the next step and begin editing
> themselves.
At present, the average reader doesn't even fix typos.
> Definitely important to watch for a
On 7 February 2012 17:03, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> He's been doing it for years and has never screwed up badly enough for the
> community to take the job away from him. It's as simple as that. The
> Wikipedia community can be uncharacteristically pragmatic at times!
I note that even the front-pag
On 3 February 2012 12:57, Florence Devouard wrote:
> I do not know if Phoebe would have been community elected or not. She did
> not try. I can only guess that if she were not chosen this year by chapters,
> she could very well be community elected in the future because she is
> obviously very in
On 1 February 2012 17:12, Lodewijk wrote:
> could you perhaps elaborate how exactly the Free Knowledge would benifit
> from boycotting non-OA journals? (Not meant sarcastic, I really want to
> know)
> Also, how would you imagine such support? I could imagine that with any
> support by Wikimedia f
On 24 January 2012 15:31, David Richfield wrote:
> Maybe implement a subreddit schema and some way to create a subreddit
> for each article? I don't know what Conde Nast's nastiness level is,
> though.
The Reddit code is open source. Apparently takes more than a little
work to do useful things
On 24 January 2012 14:47, Béria Lima wrote:
> Maybe is a stupid question, but who is this guy?
No-one in particular. I just thought it amusing and apposite :-)
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https:/
"Under SOPN, all copyrighted material which is not licensed under
creative commons or public domain or an equally free and liberal
license (collectively called "public") should be banned from the
Internet. By removing all such material which is not publicly
licensed, SOPN will kill piracy with one
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/01/23/1725231/carl-malamud-answers-goading-the-government-to-make-public-data-public
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundati
On 22 January 2012 23:50, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> So we will put a few fallback datacenters elsewhere, just so our
> various communities and chapters realize we aren't going to be
> bullied by US jurisdiction.
AIUI setting up the new Virginia datacentre took considerable effort
and plann
On 22 January 2012 23:39, Svip wrote:
> The name 'talk page' is also a terrible name and very ambiguous as to
> what it is. A far more appropriate candidate for such a page's name
> would be 'collaboration page', 'work page', 'improvement page' and so
> on.
English Wikinews calls it "collabora
On 22 January 2012 21:43, Yao Ziyuan wrote:
> Hello All,
> I just filed a feature request which I think is of strategic interest
> to Wikipedia:
> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33889
Similar to the "Opinions" tab on Wikinews. Could be interesting. Would
need to be plausibly use
On 21 January 2012 22:57, MZMcBride wrote:
> David, I'm a bit surprised that you think a policy that includes the
> language "Sexual language and imagery is not appropriate for any conference
> venue or talks." is a good idea. I think it'd be difficult to have a
> discussion about Wikimedia Commo
On 21 January 2012 22:50, Steven Walling wrote:
> If a policy makes good sense, we clearly need it, and feedback about the
> text is mostly positive, then we should adopt it. Rejecting a good idea
> because of process wonkery is stupid.
+1
- d.
___
On 20 January 2012 22:19, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
> Would it make sense to create some kind of a local mirror of Wikimedia
> Projects to facilitate participate in such areas? Creating a data
> center in every such place would probably not be cost-effective, but
> maybe there's some clever networki
On 19 January 2012 17:26, FT2 wrote:
> Point of information: - are proposals mooted for an alternative DNS root?
> Presumably, since satellite proposals exist and those are even more radical.
There are many existing alternate roots. I suspect it would break into
national or continental roots wh
On 19 January 2012 17:15, FT2 wrote:
> The question is, do you plan to migrate the major search engines and DNS
> servers? If so, then migration might help.
Come the SOPAcalypse, the DNS root will fragment. I wonder if Google
will break itself up for the purpose.
- d.
___
On 19 January 2012 02:27, George Herbert wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 6:02 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
>> The community en.wp decision is separate, but it was also nuanced, and
>> so I don't think it's true that all these issues were bulldozed,
>> within Wikipedia or the WMF. (I don't know about
On 19 January 2012 02:27, George Herbert wrote:
> It sounds like the Foundation was more organized about it than the
> community, and didn't reach out to push early enough. I understand
> the desire not to be seen to be leading the community around, but it
> seems to have led to a counterproduct
On 18 January 2012 23:08, Marc Riddell wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/technology/web-protests-piracy-bill-and-2-
> key-senators-change-course.html?_r=1&nl=afternoonupdate&emc=aua2
Call me churlish, but I find it difficult to assume good faith in
Orrin Hatch having changed his mind o
On 18 January 2012 13:46, Bod Notbod wrote:
> Anyway, sorry, I've made rather a pig's ear of what was meant to be
> some light coverage of UK Twitter responses to the blackout. I shall
> post no more on the subject.
Heck no, this is useful :-)
- d.
___
On 18 January 2012 09:16, Zugravu Gheorghe wrote:
> apparently if you disable java in your browser - you have normal access
> to en:wp!
JavaScript, not Java :-)
It's not a hard, secure block. Basically it's a black, full-page ad
banner. Think of "Wikipedia Blackout" as the event's name, a prop
On 18 January 2012 09:05, Huib Laurens wrote:
> So lets say that Wikipedia doesn't have a active anti vandal crew today,
> but people can still edit within the English Wikipedia by mobile phone.
> So we will find in a year all kind of vandal edits done today?
Only bots (I think) and some WMF pe
On 18 January 2012 08:58, John Vandenberg wrote:
> the emergency access should be at a different location.
> mobile users should not be privileged.
Yeah, I thought it was a bit silly too. But I think we can live with it.
- d.
___
foundation-l maili
On 18 January 2012 08:26, John Vandenberg wrote:
> Why is the mobile site operational for English Wikipedia?
The herd of cats wanted it that way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action
"Provisions for emergency access to the site should be included in the
blackout softw
On 18 January 2012 08:03, Peter Gervai wrote:
> Just a foreigner sidenote: we got the notice about SOPA and PIPA which
> does not start by defining, or even linking to what "SOPA" and "PIPA"
> is, what they are shorthand for, and background if anoone wants. It
> could be (should be) links on the
On 18 January 2012 05:04, Chris Lee wrote:
> The "Learn More" link at en.wp is blocked too.
Works fine for me (and I can read about SOPA and PIPA too), but I've
seen a couple of reports of it not working.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundati
On 17 January 2012 15:50, Minh Huy (WMF) wrote:
> Vietnamese Wikipedia community is planning to show banner on 18/1.
> Similar to ItalianWiki, GermanyWiki, and Commons.
> See
> https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Th%E1%BA%A3o_lu%E1%BA%ADn/%C4%90%E1%BB%81_xu%E1%BA%A5t_tham_gia_ph%E1%BA%A3n_%C
On 16 January 2012 20:21, emijrp wrote:
> But I know what I have to do the next time I see a dangerous cultural
> situation that need help. I won't give a damn.
If you post about it in a manner that doesn't come across like an
abusive idiot, you may get further. It's worth a try!!
- d.
_
On 16 January 2012 18:40, emijrp wrote:
> If I write that post, I will post it on my blog. Making WMF work is not my
> interest. My interest is to remark the biased behaviour of them and post
> some suggestions.
Handy hint for the future: this is volunteer land. If you really want
something to
On 16 January 2012 19:27, Dan Collins wrote:
> http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/204167-sopa-shelved-until-consensus-is-found
> The House decided they're going to stop bothering with this bill for a
> while, so while we should continue to think about what we will do when
Not i
On 16 January 2012 17:31, emijrp wrote:
> WMF reply to this thread
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Field_cricket_Gryllus_pennsylvanicus.ogg
> Step 1 was not taken yet.
As I noted, you want it to happen, you would be the person to write the post.
- d.
_
On 16 January 2012 14:08, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> WMIT is interested, too, because the board has decided to move the
> semi-free and PD-Italy content hosted on biblioteca.wikimedia.it to
> wikilivres and we'd like Canada to be still able to host it...
PD-Italy is broader than PD-Canada -
On 14 January 2012 10:58, Tom Morris wrote:
> I'm seeing a rough consensus for action on English Wikipedia, and
> German Wikipedians seem to be up for acting in solidarity, but, as
> I've said on the page on enwiki, I don't see how enwiki consensus for
> a SOPA action ought to bind other proejcts
https://plus.google.com/u/0/118383351194421484817/posts/foj5A1fURGt
About a business moving from Google Maps on its site to doing their
own from the available free content.
"$200,000 to $300,000 a year is, at the very least, the same as hiring
a very good engineer for a year (and paying all the t
On 10 January 2012 20:57, Bod Notbod wrote:
> It would be lovely if each of the new hires could guest post on the
> Foundation blog and/or write a page for Signpost once they've settled
> in and let us know what their average day is like and some insight
> into what they're working on. The staff
On 8 January 2012 18:19, James Heilman wrote:
> Thanks for the clarification. Yes we at Wikmedia Canada we had
> discussed starting a Wikisource north of the border due to the
> benefits of our copyright law. I will send this out to some of our
> members to see if anyone is interested in taking i
On 8 January 2012 09:09, Milos Rancic wrote:
> Structural help is not Wikimedia's task [yet]. There are a lot of
> other institutions which could give them money for daily operations or
> artifacts preservation and not require from them knowledge liberation.
> In other words, it's presently bette
On 7 January 2012 21:13, emijrp wrote:
> I'm not sure. If the WMF goals are to collect/preserve/disseminate
> educational content, they can start with the holdings in endangered
> cultural institutions. It is not my work, but some suggestions, from low to
> high involvement:
> * blog post exposin
On 7 January 2012 20:12, emijrp wrote:
> The Historical Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovina holds 400,000 artifacts.
> Any National Cultural Institution closing is a disaster.
Yes, it is. So what's the game plan?
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
fou
On 7 January 2012 16:53, emijrp wrote:
> It is sure that LOC is in the top priorities for Americans, and the BNL for
> Serbians, don't you think so? Thanks for showing your patent chauvinism.
> Funding disputes can be sorted out in the same fashion SOPA disputes, if
> agents work to solve them an
On 31 December 2011 14:58, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> I'm pretty sure I raised both these concerns last year when you ran
> similar banners and they were never addressed other than to say that
> such banners raise a lot of money (which is the point - they are
> misleading people into donating a lot o
On 31 December 2011 12:01, Fae wrote:
> Full agreement with geni here. Blinking banners are against the spirit of
> the Wikipedia Manual of Style. If this is not clear in the banner
> guidelines then this needs to be made explicit.
Indeed. Inspiring people to install AdBlock may not be the best
On 24 December 2011 18:01, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 7:57 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> You might think so, but readers (pretty much) don't know those exist,
>> and never mind the tab at the top. (They pretty much don't know the
>> hi
On 24 December 2011 17:45, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
>> I'm quite keen on the idea of a free-form comment box accessible to
>> those wanting to edit. It's much more accessible article feedback than
>> the same from OTRS.
> I dunno, like a talk page, perhaps?
You might think so, but readers
On 24 December 2011 17:10, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> I do not think the aims of the mechanism are wrong. But I *do* think the
> mechanism itself and any attempts to fashion such in a universe of human
> beings is totally and fundamentally disrespectful towards reality. That is the
> hard sho
On 24 December 2011 11:55, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> I freely admit I was being a bit flippant. But that was just because I knew
> I was in the right. Let us put it this succintly: "Being passive aggressive
> rather than aggressive about the way things are allowed as valid contributions
> to
On 24 December 2011 11:23, Oliver Keyes wrote:
> So, to reply to Liam's point first - no, that's not the "real reason",
> that's something that I, personally, think should be taken into account as
> a secondary consideration; as said, I've emailed people asking for more
> concrete information on
1 - 100 of 1151 matches
Mail list logo
