http://www.benchmarkcs.com/hello.php?html143
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Phoebe,
If concerned about equality, why not have two chapter seats and two community
seats?
From: phoebe ayers
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Wed, October 20, 2010 2:52:46 PM
Subject: [Foundation-l] chapter board seats (was: Greg Kohs and Pe
Can you explain your statement more? Since only one or three seats are selected
by the community out of nine(depending on your definition of community)?
From: Guillaume Paumier
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Wed, October 20, 2010 9:05:11 AM
Subje
I would say the biggest reason why Wikipedia is still top dog would probably be
"anyone can edit" combined with timing.
From: Thomas Dalton
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Thu, July 1, 2010 9:01:47 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010-11 Annual Pla
Now if we were to get into a pissing contest over the top organizers of
Wikiversity, I would say the persons most likely to be considered founders
would be John Schmidt, Cormac Lawler, and Robert Horning. Ottava does have a
point that he is one of the most senior active custodians, since not tha
iable here in cases where it has not been
made aware of potential violations. Section 230 probably applies up to the
point where the Foundation refuses to take appropriate action.
I'm not a lawyer though, so I might be wrong here. What do you think?
G
Wouldn't regulating content mean abdicating the role of webhost, which would
call Section 230 into question?
From: David Gerard
To: susanpgard...@gmail.com; Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Sun, May 9, 2010 4:21:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Sexu
This is a interesting proposal, but I'd suggest taking the idea to Meta. There
is already a Symptom checker at WebMD, but it could potentially upon a legal
can of worms for WM to get involved in medical troubleshooting.
From: Yao Ziyuan
To: foundation-l@lists
David and Erik,
I must respectfully disagree with your belief that we need stronger global
blocking. Each community should set its own behavior standards, not have them
imposed from above. Just because we consider a person a troll on one project
does not automatically make them a troll on othe
I support the changes, its cleaned up my inbox and made the discussions I'm
seeing more worthy of attention. The list is running better than ever.
From: Benjamin Lees
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Tue, March 16, 2010 9:43:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Fou
Veronique, what would be the maximum we'd want to go with a reserve fund. I
know that with Army Emergency Relief for example, they get dinged by Charity
Navigator for having massive reserves of money. What do you think the maximum
would be for Wikimedia?
Fro
That sounds like a good idea, maybe make it a Wikiversity course? Or run
training on IRC?
From: Chad
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Sun, February 21, 2010 3:15:20 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [Wikipedia-l] Please HELP save Wikipedia
histo
Can we kill this thread? It appears quite clear that the Foundation staff have
decided to run the Craig ad, and nothing here will affect their decision.
From: Waerth
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Tue, December 15, 2009 11:02:54 AM
Subject: Re:
The only reason the servers and internet access produce CO2 emissions is
because of the defective and antiquated energy production systems we use across
the world. As we move towards more efficient and "cleaner" means of energy
production, the carbon footprint should decrease.
Moving servers
There are some pages that should legally be restricted, like the bylaws. i do
believe that most pages should be open to public editing because of the risk of
some non member Aussie thinking of a better way to do something and being
stifled.
From: private musi
The spirit of the one person per account policy was to prevent people from
disclaiming responsibility by claiming another person did it. I feel that
allowing accounts for GLAMs would not violate the intent of the policy, but
suggest that the account be required to verify, maintain a valid email
Thats a great idea! The exchanges were the biggest clog previously, and this
seems like a reasonable warning to use.
From: William Pietri
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Mon, November 30, 2009 11:57:21 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Housekeeping:
wrote:
> Ryan Lomonaco wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:17 AM, Geoffrey Plourde >wrote:
> >
> >> Another possibility would be imposing a throttle on replies
> >> to threads, e.g. 5 per thread per day.
> >>
> > That's something tha
I really hated the idea of posting limits at first, but must commend the list
mods for implementing it. Now that there is a specific cost to replies, I have
scaled back on the amount of emails I have sent and prioritized based on
discussion. Another possibility would be imposing a throttle on re
Foundation level issue is whether or not a community have the right to exclude
a specific class or category of users from editing based upon unsubstantiated
claims of potential misbehavior?
From: George Herbert
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Sun,
'06 wikiversity
From: Jon Davis
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Sun, November 29, 2009 12:19:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Follow up: Fan History joining the WMF family
Perhaps she mistook the meta proposals for strat. Where, by all accounts,
Thats baloney. It is a slippery slope. You are making a distinction based on
what might happen, and prejudging a class of individuals. This doesn't help
wiki, but sends a message that some people are less worthy than others."I don't
like it" is not a valid reason to disenfranchise people on susp
So you are taking a stance based on one particular class of criminal behavior?
Following your reasoning, we should be blocking all self professed
hackers/crackers too. They might do something illegal for jollies to disrupt
the community, so lets block em!
Fr
We also might want to look into policy overhauls to reduce barriers to
contribution.
From: David Moran
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Tue, November 24, 2009 5:53:35 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Can you tell us about ... - An Idea to encourage
I see a lot of well meaning people responding here, but maybe its time to go
back to the basics. No non free pictures, period. No more bureaucracy plus cost
savings on not having to run the permissions systems.
From: Tomasz Ganicz
To: Wikimedia Foundation Ma
At first glance, my inclination would be recycle bin the proposal, but after
reading comments, I think there is some merit to the proposal. I would support
bringing this in and expanding it to cover group dynamics (Wikitribes). This
project could be valuable to sociology and psychology as it
pr
Is 19.95 your cost? I'ver mentioned before that this is the best way to
effectively put them out of business.
From: Gregory Kohs
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wed, October 14, 2009 10:10:32 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Alphascript Publishing s
This is a bit different than liberating software for personal or small
commercial use. This is roughly equivalent to someone printing out britannica
articles and selling them for 20-150 quid
From: "jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com"
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mail
The issue I see is that if a computer doesn't have japanese character support,
ja-wp would be hard to navigate.
From: aokomoriuta
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Sun, October 4, 2009 3:06:39 AM
Subject: [Foundation-l] "Wikipedia" localization
Hell
Best option would be to have two sets, one for Europe and one for the Americas.
From: Cary Bass
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Monday, September 28, 2009 2:38:12 PM
Subject: [Foundation-l] Office hours
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SH
While I like the idea of bounties, this idea actually has merit. To make him
work, I would give him the amount of money for childcare as a down payment,
with the wages payable on delivery. Can someone from the Foundation look into
this? We have quite a few talented mooks, who might be able to ha
It still isn't the place of a third party to police someone else's copyrights.
From: Sage Ross
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2009 3:32:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal: Commons Force
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 6:10 PM
s, not the community.
From: David Gerard
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2009 3:12:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal: Commons Force
2009/9/7 Sage Ross :
> On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
>> The Commons Force pr
I agree, vigilantism is not necessary and counter productive. The Commons Force
proposal represents a clear and present danger, both for whoever hosts it and
participates in it. It is not for a third party to intervene in a contract
between two people and only two people. If the Commons Force re
We'll know tomorrow whats up.
From: Sfmammamia
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Monday, September 7, 2009 10:27:57 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Head of Communications position open?
No, the print ad definitely says "Head of Communications" -- in
Why not the Signposts, Wikizine, and the SF mailing list? No need for
"exclusives".
From: geni
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Sunday, September 6, 2009 1:43:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] WMF seeking to sub-lease office space?
2009/9/6 Ger
Mailing List
Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2009 4:43:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] WMF seeking to sub-lease office space?
2009/9/6 Thomas Dalton :
> 2009/9/6 Geoffrey Plourde :
>> The plan may have been mentioned ages ago, but a press release about the
>> move would have
The plan may have been mentioned ages ago, but a press release about the move
would have eliminated the opportunity for trolling.
2009/9/5 Thomas Dalton :
> The Foundation has been sufficiently transparent. The reasons for
> leasing office space from Wikia were explained in detail when that
>
The best way to end this in the future is to give the community a brief heads
up along the line of "Hey y'all, we will be moving to NEW ADDRESS effective
DATE" This lets us know beforehand that the business address is going to
change, and allows the Foundation to leverage moving support from SF
Its a serious charge that is difficult to prove. The publicly released
financial statements are too general in nature to be useful. The only way to
prove/disprove this allegation and head off others is for the Foundation to
become more transparent. It is natural for people to come to assumptions
I think that swearing in a battalion of global sysops is both necessary and a
better idea than electing more stewards. Vandalism looks bad and deters people
from contributing. Lets face it, who wants to visit a library with all the
books defaced in various shades of Crayons. Also, does anyone wa
While I disagree with the modesty of the department head salaries, I feel that
it is up to the ED to decide who gets paid what. I have qualms about the
increases in expenditures, but am encouraged by the resourcefulness of staff in
raising money.
From: Thomas
There can only be one leader in a business.
From: Thomas Dalton
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 1:26:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Expert board members - a suggestion
2009/8/27 Geoffrey Plourde :
> Well, I h
Well, I have never understood why the board is so involved. Generally in
business, the Board hires and fires the CEO and that's it.
I also consider expert seats a waste of space as that is why we have department
heads.
Then again, I suspect I am and always will be in the minority.
_
The single best way to kill them is to reprint the exact same books, then sell
them at the low low price of cost + 10%. When people start snapping them up
like fruitcakes, Alphascript will be finished.
From: Peter Coombe
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
High Priest of Mediawiki?
From: Dan Rosenthal
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Saturday, August 8, 2009 5:59:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Upcoming tech hiring: CTO position split
Somehow I'm not disappointed that we're having a problem trying
Although I had already voted, I was not bothered by one tiny email reminding me
that I was eligible to vote. Thanks guys, hopefully this will get people to the
polls.
From: Casey Brown
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Friday, August 7, 2009 9:57:
Correct, we have built a system that does not value new users, but rather seeks
to get rid of them. Its a pattern I have observed in some businesses as well.
Subconsciously, people hate change. While they consciously want new users or
wonder why the flow has stopped, their subconscious is busy e
Well, if the list is for general dispute resolution technique, it could be
valuable to all projects.
From: Mike.lifeguard
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 6:06:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Dispute resolution mailing li
Nothing prevents you from starting your own mailing list if Cary won't. As I am
not a member of the wikien cesspool, what purpose are you thinking of?
Geoffrey
From: stevertigo
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 1:22:27 PM
S
Digitizing isn't really that hard. You take a scanner, upload an image, label
it, repeat.
From: Durova
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 9:28:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] foundation-l Digest, Vol 64, Issue 51
2009/7/18 D
This is pictures right? I fail to see how pictures aren't useable to everyone,
as they are universal.
From: Gerard Meijssen
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2009 12:23:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] A heads up
Hoi,
The curr
What an insult, Derrick only rates a solicitor
From: Gregory Maxwell
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 3:17:50 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] About that "sue and be damned" to the
NationalPortrait Gallery ...
On Sat, Jul 11,
Lets finish up the press releases and drop this thread. NPG can read it too.
Has a US press release been sent out?
From: John at Darkstar
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 10:12:14 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] About that "s
Dcoetzee cannot comply, as the deletions would result in the loss of his admin
bit.
From: Nathan
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 7:32:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] About that "sue and be damned" to the National
Portrait
First, I doubt that the FBI would investigate a barratry complaint (Counselors,
does such a provision exist in the US Code?) If they did, the courts would be
reluctant to actually hear such a case because the person being prosecuted
would actually have to be present to answer to the charges. I h
Do we really need so much stuff for these groups? I agree with a basic charter
for each group, but all the regulation (yearly renewal, regular reporting)
seems bureaucratic and pointless. It is not the wikimedian way to control but
rather to nurture an organic community. Also, we should let thes
unpleasant
consequences.
From: Ray Saintonge
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 5:07:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Info/Law blog: Using Wikisource as an Alternative
Open Access Repository for Legal Scholarship
Geoffrey
If a bot has a meaningful effect on server load (i.e. page requests), it falls
under the category of malicious software, which is highly illegal.
From: Ray Saintonge
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 2:35:52 PM
Subject: Re: [
For Supreme Court cases, would it be possible to have a bot pull the audio
decisions from Oyez, and convert them into text?
From: David Gerard
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 8:41:45 AM
Subject: [Foundation-l] Info/Law blog
For some reason, I am reminded of a Supreme Court case about the information in
telephone directories. Maybe because of the insanity of trying to put public
domain material under copyright.
From: Brian
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Saturday, J
Just because several projects have decided to disable local uploads does not
mean that Commons is ready to accept them.
From: Pedro Sanchez
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 11:41:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia C
: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 11:13:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Commons: Service project or not?
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> Commons is an oddball project. Other projects produce work, but Commons
> stores it. Wikisource could be considered another oddba
e cabinets
themselves are repositories.
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> Commons is an oddball project. Other projects produce work, but Commons
> stores it. Wikisource could be considered another oddball for the same
> reason. At this point in time, I would
Commons is an oddball project. Other projects produce work, but Commons stores
it. Wikisource could be considered another oddball for the same reason. At this
point in time, I would class Commons as a service project (and wikisource as
well) because it provides a service to other projects and it
What if there were two image spaces?
From: Samuel Klein
To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List
Cc: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 8:06:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [Commons-l] Some reflections about the governance
of Common
PM, while I respect your opinions, I must express my strong disagreement with
most of them.
Your first idea is restricting sexual content from userspace. This would
encroach on personal freedom, because why shouldn't people be able to post
whatever they want in their personal space?
The secon
Common courtesy, maybe?
From: Fred Bauder
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 7:24:12 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons
and freely licensed sexual imagery
> 2009/5/14 Fred Bauder
Did you consider starting off with asking for a simple disclaimer? If they
don't have it uploaded and one was sent, disregard previous statement.
From: Mike Godwin
To: Thomas Dalton
Cc: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 11:53:
I would guess probably not. Then again I am not German and have no legal
training in the Basic Code.
From: David Gerard
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 12:51:27 AM
Subject: [Foundation-l] ID requirements proposed for Germ
While I may not be a lawyer, I believe that this system is a paper tiger. It is
simply impossible for them to enforce it for many reasons.
1. It is impossible for us to determine which users are from South Korea
2. It would be a privacy violation to deliver names and numbers of non Koreans
to t
So we need to speed the process up.
From: RYU Cheol
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 8:24:03 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] South Korean Government's regulations on real name
for Internet
Don't hurry up. They announce the s
I think that the general principles are a perfectly acceptable "policy" and
creating a compulsory policy is a bad idea. Each project needs the independence
provided by the general principles. Due to the vast diversity of the Wikimedia
family, we cannot make hard and fast rules and expect each pr
I agree with Austin. We cannot just force communities to adopt this new thing.
Lets try for a clean start.
From: Austin Hair
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 5:30:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Divergent Wiktionary logo
:25 AM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> You are wrong my friend. When you hit that little button, you agreed to
> license your contributions under 1.2 or any later version.
Any later version published by the FSF.
> Therefore if the Foundation moves to 1.3, the license transfers.
Interesti
You are wrong my friend. When you hit that little button, you agreed to license
your contributions under 1.2 or any later version. Therefore if the Foundation
moves to 1.3, the license transfers. As 1.3 is a dual license, its dual
licensed.
From: Anthony
To
Biographies of living people bring up legal issues, this matter does not.
From: Delirium
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 5:05:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Pissed off at en:Wikisource
Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
>
case, so its a moot point really.
Also, you may want to reconsider the logic of posting your interpretation
and conclusion about events and *then* asking for the thread to be killed.
Mods aren't here to provide you with the last word.
Nathan
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Geoffrey
I have refrained from commenting in the interests of letting this play out but
find myself in disagreement with our worthy colleague from Wikisource. The
locus of this complaint, as I see it, is that he was unfairly removed from his
position. I see no merit in his claims for the following reason
Baseline, maybe?
From: Thomas Dalton
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Saturday, March 7, 2009 10:18:01 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey and licensing next steps
2009/3/7 Erik Moeller :
> The author attribution survey is now closed.
This line of reasoning will end now. I am sick of seeing rants, tirades, and
personal attacks in my inbox. We have to improve our BLP policies, your sniping
is not helping that.
From: Anthony
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Thursday, March 5, 200
They wrote the damned thing, so they are most likely to understand it.
From: geni
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2009 7:41:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
2009/3/4 Erik Moeller :
> 2009/3/3 T
We should have him teach a Wikiversity class on how to be like Mike!
From: Gerard Meijssen
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2009 7:30:57 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Report a problem link
Hoi,
I doubt that it is worth our while
41 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> Not necessarily. You do them in bulk at a certain time each week or every two
> weeks.
And of course all applicants will be available at th
people
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> I care not about my application being killed. I am pointing out that it
> appears that you kill most of the applications, which may be the >reason for
> a lack of manpower.
Access to OTRS implies a high trust into t
: Guillaume Paumier
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Monday, March 2, 2009 9:05:58 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people
Hello,
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> I have some experience with customer service and
I have some experience with customer service and was willing to serve as OTRS
volunteer, but was rejected. The number of rejections I have witnessed is
really shooting OTRS in the foot.
From: Aude
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Monday, March 2,
t: Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> They have no recourse. We are not subject to Polish law.
>
Individual Polish editors are, however, likely to be and they might
apparentely be in danger of prosecutio
They have no recourse. We are not subject to Polish law.
From: Tomasz Ganicz
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Monday, March 2, 2009 6:24:09 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living people
2009/3/2 David Gerard :
I think that the implementation of Flagged Revisions will clean up a lot of the
BLP problems. Another possibility that I doubt anyone will support is
appointing a BLP Committee or group of administrators to oversee all BLP
matters.
From: Sue Gardner
To: fou
I didn't know the language committee was empowered to decide on whether or not
Simples were made. I thought your job was to determine valid languages. I
absolutely cannot support the continued existence of this body due to these
unknown powers and will make my voice known the next time someone o
I have refrained from commenting on this post in the interest of lessening the
impact on people's inboxes. However, I feel that after a cursory inspection of
my own, I should probably make a few points. One is that in the year or so I
have been subscribed to this list, I cannot think of any majo
Everything takes time. The techs will handle it when they get around to it.
From: Gerard Meijssen
To: Wikimedia developers ; Wikimedia Foundation
Mailing List
Sent: Monday, February 2, 2009 3:26:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikitech-l] second-class wik
Sam;
I think that this is more of a Commons discussion. While I disagree with much
of what you say, I agree that this class of image, by its very nature, requires
more scrutiny. Serious thought should be given to a Nude Model Policy of
requiring uploaders to answer about five questions under pe
What he is pointing out is that the chapter set up the whole process, thus
making them culpable.
From: Gerard Meijssen
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 12:14:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Commons and The Year of the
While I advised that a similar matter be dropped earlier, this has some
fundamental differences that I believe may have merit. Whereas the Missing
Manual is uploaded by a known mutual agreement, these photos are not
necessarily uploaded by mutual agreement.
In theory, we are supposed to have p
I don't think that either the Foundation or Mr. Broughton will be complaining.
Drop it.
From: Klaus Graf
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 7:59:15 AM
Subject: [Foundation-l] Help-book made available in en Wikipedia against
ion-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2009 12:53:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikia leasing office space to WMF
Geoffrey Plourde said:
"Why should a taco stand use a dry cleaning shop when it can get
another taco shop?"
Gregory Kohs responds:
I might be able to give a bette
: [Foundation-l] Wikia leasing office space to WMF
I wrote:
> > To clarify, did Wikia match the lowest bid?
Geoffrey Plourde replied:
> Mr. Levy;
>
> I respectfully believe that you are asking the wrong question.
> Rent is only a small part of cost. The whole cost should have
> bee
Its the same software for both parties, and its open source. Please just drop
it.
From: Anthony
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 6:41:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikia leasing office space to WMF
On Fri, Jan 23, 200
1 - 100 of 159 matches
Mail list logo
