On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 6:05 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:45 PM, George Herbert
> wrote:
>> Has this been an observed issue within the WMF?
>
> In some areas. In my view, a well-functioning agile team is
> self-organizing and self-managed, and it
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> as I mentioned in a response to Liam the other day, we've been working
> on having org charts generated in a more automatic, scalable form.
>...
Thank you for that.
On a meta-question that raises - there are a lot of direct repo
Very sad, I met him and he seemed to be a very good guy.
Seems to be a bad week; a friend of mine from college passed on Sunday morning.
Focus on big things and have fun while you're here.
George William Herbert
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 14, 2012, at 19:42, phoebe ayers wrote:
> Those of you
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> On 03/12/12 12:35 PM, George Herbert wrote:
>>
>> Without delving into the specifics here, or concluding either way as
>> to the current case lacking actual evidence in front of me, it is a
>> real and quite serio
I would almost like to simply +1 here, but...
Without delving into the specifics here, or concluding either way as
to the current case lacking actual evidence in front of me, it is a
real and quite serious problem if we don't hold senior and longtime
editors to account for abuses they may perpetua
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> I should add a response on this point:
>
> 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 accoun
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:35 PM, George Herbert
> wrote:
>
>> If the answer to one is "yes", then "These things happen" is an
>> explanation but not an excuse, and should be a prompt to help us al
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> Fred Bauder writes:
>
>> I think it probably seems to climate change deniers that excluding
>> political opinions from science-based articles on global warming is a
>> violation of neutral point of view, and of basic fairness. That is just
>> o
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote:
> As said above...it is being moved ;p
Where / on which lists were the location experiments discussed prior
to implementation? Both with regards to the locations to be tested
and to the pages to test on?
--
-george william herbert
george.her
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 6:02 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 4:24 PM, George Herbert
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 3:39 PM, FT2 wrote:
>>> It's worth pointing out the discussion was open from 15 December to 16
>>> January before any
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 3:39 PM, FT2 wrote:
> It's worth pointing out the discussion was open from 15 December to 16
> January before any close.
No, there was informal discussion going back into December. "The
discussion" - the concrete, date-attached specific policy and
implementation proposals
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 5:18 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> Hi George,
>
> The push came about after the IRC office hours.
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours/Office_hours_2012-01-12
After ongoing review of the IRC thread, on-wiki threads, mailing lists etc...
I think the key fail
I would normally start by floating this on wikien-L or on-wiki at the
usual places, but the time for that has passed and thus I am going to
drop this on the Foundation, who I believe are responsible for the
particular problem here.
On the English language Wikipedia, there has been a longstanding
d
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Jan Kučera wrote:
> I see following wikis hold secred information:
>
> http://internal.wikimedia.org
> http://office.wikimedia.org
> http://board.wikimedia.org
>
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can NOT freely share in
> the sum of all knowledge.
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Klaus Graf wrote:
> This case has to be discussed IN THE PUBLIC. As
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Philippe_%28WMF%29#File:DPAG_2011_55_Herren_im_Bad.jpg
>
> gives not sufficient reasons for the decisions and no sufficient
> background there is N
I am seeing a lot of "lack of support from WMF for these smaller
projects" but not being a smaller projects editor I don't know what
specific issues there are.
Can someone up on the situation send out more specifics?
Thank you.
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 3:13 PM, M. Williamson wrote:
> It's worth
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:53 PM, geni wrote:
> On 12 August 2011 20:24, George Herbert wrote:
>> We still have wide gaps in knowledge coverage. Not in the most common
>> areas, but in many specialized areas, where they're not heavily
>> geek-populated.
>>
>
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:16 PM, geni wrote:
> On 12 August 2011 13:47, David Gerard wrote:
>> On 12 August 2011 13:37, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
>>
>>> My point is that making it easy to fork does not create good competitors.
>>> Good competitors come from elsewhere. And they will come, if we
Actually, Facebook's losing members this year, not gaining, in the US
/ North American market.
Not that this is relevant to the WMF. The great thing about the web
writ large is that everyone can participate in the things they chose
to. Facebook's popularity is orthogonal to WMF participation /
W
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
>
> On Jun 25, 2011, at 4:41 PM, Jan-Bart de Vreede wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> Having had the honor of being one of the first outside appointed board
>> member to the Wikimedia Board I do want to add that one of the main reasons
>> for having appoi
I would like to personally thank the WMF staff and board for having
pursued this.
Good luck.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Geoff Brigham wrote:
> Yesterday, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed an amicus
> ("friends of the court") brief in Golan v. Holder, a case of great
> import
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:00 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:30 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> On 4 June 2011 15:42, MZMcBride wrote:
>>
>>> I think it's a fairly dangerous precedent to have the Wikimedia Foundation
>>> involved in making individual decisions about who can and can'
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
>
>> On Jun 3, 2011, at 8:29 AM, Scott MacDonald wrote:
>>
>> > Imagine if poetlister now engages in identity theft and deception at
>> > Wikiversity.
>>
>> How precisely does one engage i
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Neil Harris wrote:
> On 03/06/11 00:44, Mark Wagner wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 16:11, Neil Harris wrote:
>>> Tape is -- still -- your friend here. Flip the write-protect after
>>> writing, have two sets of off-site tapes, one copy of each in each of
>>> two s
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Thomas Morton
wrote:
> The privacy policy does not preclude releasing private emails, and even
> writes in specific exceptions. When raised on en.wiki in relation to
> releasing CheckUser information (in that case linking an IP to an account) I
> thought the respons
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:55 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 2 June 2011 18:48, Fae wrote:
>
>> In 2016 San Francisco has a major earthquake and the servers and
>> operational facilities for the WMF are damaged beyond repair. The
>> emergency hot switchover to Hong Kong is delayed due to an ongoing
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 5:30 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
>(excellent long form work)
Thank you, Milos. Very informative.
Out of curiosity - I assume those are the "native speakers" counts for
that language. Do we have "exclusive speakers" counts as well?
I don't know for sure what the right answe
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 4:15 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> I am preparing document for Wikimania. Presently, I am in process of
> analyzing data (SIL [1], Ethnologue [2], Wikimedia projects). I am using
> Ethnologue data for population estimates.
>
> Before I started this task, I thought that the situ
or K
>
> בתאריך 22/05/11 08:08, ציטוט George Herbert:
>
>> On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 9:57 PM, Dror Kamir wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I found an email today from someone who still cares to keep me updated
>>> about what happens on the English Wiki
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 9:57 PM, Dror Kamir wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I found an email today from someone who still cares to keep me updated
> about what happens on the English Wikipedia's "corridors". Since my name
> is mentioned in the discussion, he thought I'd be interested in this.
> There is a use
On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 8:22 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
>> On 5 April 2011 03:02, MZMcBride wrote:
>>> Another example might be an UploadWizard that is focused on
>>> ensuring that Wikimedia fulfills its Multimedia grant requirements rather
>>> than actually being fully developed a
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> it is my pleasure to announce that Dario Taraborelli (User:DarTar) is
> joining the Wikimedia Foundation as Senior Research Analyst, Strategy,
> reporting to me. As of this week, Dario is based in San Francisco,
> having relocate
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 8:45 PM, The Mono wrote:
> The problem is simple. Our top contributors leave. Because the way things
> work makes it simply intolerable.
>
> *25%* of all respondents [in a survey of contributors] said they stopped
> contributing because
>
> *"Some editors made Wikipedia a d
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Keegan Peterzell
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 12:56 AM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
>
>> On 3/28/11 5:20 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
>> > There's a theory that doing something like editing a free online
>> > encyclopedia is a niche activity, with a finite amount of people wh
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> I doubt there is any way the court in question can enforce its ruling,
> which is probably why the WMF didn't bother responding.
subscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I am sort of curious as to what the substa
#x27;re not opening it up to the world in general, which is a
> matter of some concern to most of them.
>
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 8:10 PM, George Herbert
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 3:18 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 8:13 A
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 3:18 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 8:13 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
>> 2011/3/15 SlimVirgin :
>>> Speaking of the CREDO accounts, several people have asked that their
>>> accounts be reassigned, but they don't know how to do it. Could Erik
>>> advise? Se
This is getting kind of stuck on the specifics of BLPs being separated (or not).
Can we step back and address the generic idea again. A restatement of
the intended benefits and advantages of splitting the project would be
appreciated.
--
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com
__
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Risker wrote:
> On 14 March 2011 09:53, David Gerard wrote:
>>[...]
>
> David, I strongly object to your continued twisting of my words, and your
> personal crusade to turn the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee into a
> "personal attacks" police force. That
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 1:32 PM, THURNER rupert
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 21:50, Juergen Fenn wrote:
>>
>>
>> Am 08.03.11 21:36, schrieb Andrea Zanni:
>>
AFAIK, these publishers make the pricing upon the number of
>>> scholars/researchers/students of a certain university/corporation: I
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Liam Wyatt wrote:
> On 8 March 2011 00:23, church.of.emacs.ml wrote:
>>
>> >> Lead Architect for the next generation MediaWiki platform
>>
>> I'd really like to hear more about that. Did I miss something or is this
>> a new project? :-)
> I'm quite interested in wh
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Jon Davis wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 07:59, emijrp wrote:
>
>> What about hurricanes? ; )
>>
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Florida_hurricane_%28pre-1900%29_tracks.jpg
>>
>>
> Maybe that's why the new Datacenter is being built in Virginia [1]? The
>
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 5:00 PM, aude wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:17 PM, geni wrote:
>
>> On 18 February 2011 23:24, aude wrote:
>> > Heather Ford, a former Wikimedia advisory board member and
>> researcher/writer
>> > in South Africa has written an essay, "The Missing Wikipedians" about
Thank you for this.
Will ops staff be monitoring wikitech-l for email reports of observed
problems from those of us who are IRC-impaired? Is there an another
preferred non-IRC channel for reports?
Thanks.
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Rob Lanphier wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> In case you miss
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 4:51 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 28 January 2011 12:47, Amir E. Aharoni
> wrote:
>> 2011/1/28 David Gerard :
>
>>> The idea of getting samizdat copies of Wikipedia into Egypt appeals.
>>> Airlift in current-article dumps of ar:wp and en:wp on SD cards by the
>>> thousand
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Stephanie Daugherty
wrote:
> Split permissions have been a perennial issue for en.wikipedia for a while.
> It's proposed every couple months, has vocal support and a handful of even
> more vocal opponents, and fillibustered into oblivion to resurface a few
> months
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Stephanie Daugherty
wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 5:48 PM, masti wrote:
>
>> why should tht be decided on foundation level? Do you think communities
>> are so broken that they cannot make their own decisions?
>> This would be the only reason to start discussing
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Amir E. Aharoni
wrote:
> 2011/1/16 Joseph Seddon
>>
>> I am going to be quite frank and say that it is pointless to have this
>> discussion on this list. Only a fraction of the english wikipedia community
>> are on it. If you are genuinely serious about this then
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Virgilio A. P. Machado wrote:
> Is this supposed to be funny?
>
> Time to address this matter to the list moderators.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Virgilio A. P. Machado
Neither of these was funny; both were backhanded insults to you.
That said - I am not sure what role yo
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 3:43 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 28 December 2010 16:54, Stephanie Daugherty wrote:
>
>> Not only is the current markup a barrier to participation, it's a barrier to
>> development. As I argued on Wikien-l, starting over with a markup that can
>> be syntacticly validated,
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 4:12 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
>[...]
> The line between what is and is not acceptable or defensible.
I find the vehement assumptions of bad faith in this thread disturbing.
--
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com
___
f
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Ryan Lomonaco wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 6:26 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>
>> For added self-referentiality, you can't read this article unless you
>> identify yourself to the NYT.
>>
>
> I was able to read the article without registering - it's worth noting th
Ah, bueno. I was unaware of the Kartika version; excellent that the
Foundation's already figured it out and was working on it.
Thanks, Philippe and MzMcBride. Good job to whoever thought it up
earlier and did the test run.
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Philippe Beaudette
wrote:
> We tested
Thanks, Sue.
Obligatory current event tie-in -
Could we get a more multi-ethnic "I am a Wikipedian" campaign going
for the fundraising drive?
As attractive looking as Jimmy is, the community isn't a million
clones of him. Seeing more of the variety would certainly help
attract attention, I thin
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Strainu wrote:
> 2010/11/17 :
>> Obama is exactly half-black and half-white.
>> Funny how he is "African American" but of course he is equally "Caucasian
>> American"
>
> Which shows only hot dangerous "political correctness" can get. I
> wonder if in 2050, when t
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 12:38 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> There's a place for applied engineer hubris[1]. With due caution.
>
> - d.
>
> [1] http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/engineers%20and%20woo
(grump)
While generally true, there's a lack of regard there for
engineering-oriented polymaths.
--
-ge
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 1:54 PM, SlimVirgin wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 14:19, George Herbert
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:38 PM, SlimVirgin wrote:
>>> We would not allow the people who make Coca Cola to be our sole
>>> sources on whether it's
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:38 PM, SlimVirgin wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 16:26, Fred Bauder wrote:
>>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 15:59, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
And where there is a body of scholarly research, the peer-reviewed
scholarly literature is the most authoritative literature ar
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 6:17 PM, Robert S. Horning
wrote:
> On 10/23/2010 03:42 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
>>
>> If at any moment it can be stood on its head then the information
>> contained in the articles can never be authoritative. Suppose I have a
>> calculator that every once in
On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Marc Riddell
wrote:
> Has either of these persons, Greg or Peter, been destructive of the
> substance of the Project: the body of the Encyclopedia?
Yes, in my opinion.
Both were banned from English language Wikipedia and (I believe) other
projects, for content an
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Risker wrote:
> On 20 October 2010 16:47, Muhammad Yahia wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Risker wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > The board defines both "community" and "chapter". I'm not sure that the
>> > board does ultimately answer to the community; there's no
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Marc Riddell
wrote:
> You are very right, Virgilio. The body of work, of the Project, is quite
> salvageable; as well as ultimately sustainable. But it is quite clear that
> the present management doesn't have the slightest clue, nor apparently, the
> vaguest inte
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Peter Damian
wrote:
>...
> In summary, Wikipedia is hardly making a dent. Where it is making a dent,
> it is by cheapening the product. No win all round.
Broadening, not cheapening.
--
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com
___
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>>
>> You understood, I'm sure, that he was making an exaggerated comparison
>> between the Chinese government's approach to public debate and
>> Wikipedia's governance? He clearly believes that Liu Xiaobo has been
>> mistreated (which he has be
GerardM
>
> On 6 October 2010 04:11, George Herbert wrote:
>
>> NPOV is good as far as it goes, but the issues of wiki naming and
>> language are necessarily one where positions need to be taken on some
>> very touchy real-world issues.
>>
>> The naming of mo.
NPOV is good as far as it goes, but the issues of wiki naming and
language are necessarily one where positions need to be taken on some
very touchy real-world issues.
The naming of mo.wikipedia and its use of Cyrillic were particularly
unfortunate, as the Moldovan standard alphabet is Roman, the
T
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Birgitte SB wrote:
>
>
> --- On Tue, 9/28/10, Risker wrote:
>
>> From: Risker
>> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27
>> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
>> Date: Tuesday, September 28, 2010, 5:22 PM
>> On 28 Septem
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Peter Damian
wrote:
> Risker >>In 2005, the English Wikipedia had less than half the number of
> articles it has now.
>
> Hs anyone made a serious study of what these articles actually contain?
Yes. But not across "all articles". Anyone can pick and chose
subset
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 12:58 AM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
> wrote:
>> John Vandenberg, 16/09/2010 03:00:
>>> English, French, German, Italian, Polish, Portugeuse, Swedish and
>>> Chinese Wikipedia all appear to have some mirrors, but are any
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 5:03 AM, Teofilo wrote:
> 2010/9/7, Tim Starling :
>
>> Presumably this conspiracy would have to extend beyond the WMF to
>> PediaPress and Purodha Blissenbach, the developers of Collection and
>> mobile.wikipedia.org respectively.
>
> The absence of a history tab in the mob
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> Here's the Archive's on-demand service:
>
> http://archive-it.org
>
> That would be the most reliable way to set up the partnership emijrp
> proposes. And it's certainly a good idea. Figuring out how to make
> it work for almost all editors
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Cary Bass wrote:
> It is with deep regret that I tell you I will be leaving the staff of
> the Wikimedia Foundation at the end of December.
>
> I'm leaving the staff, but I will continue to be involved with the
> Wikimedia movement as a volunteer, both as a contribu
Meta-question -
Is there in fact sufficient evidence that this is a topic that the
Foundation must, or should, engage in actively at this time?
I know why the Foundation has an inclination to get involved - people
ask about it, and some very uncomfortable stuff finds its way into
Commons and the
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 5:26 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
> There's been discussion of the gender gap among Wikimedia editors on
> and off for many years now, and it's a focus of the strategic planning
> process. This is a part of a larger issue of how to get members of
> underrepresented groups to edi
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:30 AM, Amory Meltzer wrote:
> Good?
>
> "Though the Wikipedia has more than 12 million registered users, its
> inner core consists of roughly 1,700 administrators who possess the
> ability to reject edits, lock down pages from further editing, and
> deem entire entries unw
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 11:37 AM, wrote:
> Terrified. For that reason, I actually did not unveil my country-of-origin to
> the Board until a few weeks ago. That is one of Canadians' special skills: we
> can walk amongst Americans, and they are completely unaware :-)
That's not true, many Americ
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Klaus Graf wrote:
> For me there is no reason to believe that Mr. Godwin is a good lawyer.
>
> If he receives a formal (blah-blah) correct take-down-notice he will
> take OFFICE ACTION.
>
> It was clearly un-lawful to take down the TU Munich logo which isn't
> prote
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> Gerard writes:
>
> Hoi,
>> When I read: "Wikisource content in the French language targets the French
>> public, and therefore, under French conflict of laws principles, the
>> copyright law of France applies to this content." I do read the Fre
2010/5/13 geni :
> 2010/5/13 Tomasz Ganicz :
>> As you maybe now, after the sudden death of Lech Kaczynski (jn airjet
>> crash in Smolens) we have now fast presidential election. One of the
>> most serious candidates Bronisław Komorowski was cached with printed
>> copy of Wikipedia article about
>>
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
>[...]
> However, I also see the issue from another frame that is not part of
> Tim's spectrum. Sexual photographs, especially those of easily
> recognized people, have the potential to exploit or embarrass the
> people in them. I place a high
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:36 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 10 May 2010 22:32, Mike Godwin wrote:
>> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:31 PM, David Levy wrote:
>
>>> > Can you point me to major media entities that have accepted the notion
>>> that
>>> > "Fox News was correct"?
>
>>> I'm referring to the c
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 4:31 PM, robert_horn...@netzero.net
wrote:
> -- Original Message --
> From: Thomas Dalton
>
>
> No, it won't. People have been saying that for years and the fact
> remains that a screen full of a text with a few relevant images is a
> much better way to conv
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Amir E. Aharoni
wrote:
> Your email is a bit too black and white: There are important articles in
> Humanities, not just in exact sciences, and a Bob Dylan album is arguably a
> touch more important than a South Park episode.
>
> But in general you make an importa
There's been an unusually aggressive set of these this spring; one of
my accounts got hijacked for a week before I noticed it, and a
friends' gmail account as well.
Sigh.
-george
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Cary Bass wrote:
> Alex "Mr.Z-man" wrote:
>> http://www roulette-casino-en-ligne
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:50 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
wrote:
> George Herbert wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
>>
>>> [...]
>>> And therefore if the Wikimedia logos are used with permission on
>>> Wikimedia-hosted project
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
>[...]
> And therefore if the Wikimedia logos are used with permission on
> Wikimedia-hosted projects, the earth will crack open, and dogs and cats will
> start living together openly.
Please stop using this example. You're living in California
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> 2010/3/30 Delphine Ménard :
>>> That is the website UI, which is not content. They could say that the
>>> UI should also be completely "free" of copyrighted works. IMO that
>>> would be going overboard.
>>
>>
>> If that is the case, while I
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 4:03 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> George Herbert wrote:
>> If this was the English Wikipedia, the response would be somewhere
>> between "please do not be silly" and "Stop this or we will block you
>> for disrupting Wikipedia to prove a poin
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Kwan Ting Chan wrote:
> Marcus Buck wrote:
>>
>> The Swedish Wikipedia decision is consequent and logical. Logos are
>> copyrighted. Copyrighted material cannot be included. So no logos. It's
>> plain and simple. The problem is not the reasonable decision of the Sw
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Lennart Guldbrandsson
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> After a long and tiring discussion on the Swedish Wikipedia Village Pump (
> http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bybrunnen#Wikimedialoggor_i_artiklar),
> the logos of the Wikimedia Foundation projects have been deemed "u
widespread support...
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Benjamin Lees wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 4:33 PM, George Herbert
> wrote:
>
>>
>> There has been no organized or widespread attempt to either ask Jimmy
>> to give it up or to take it away. I can name a num
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 12:49 PM, geni wrote:
> On 25 March 2010 02:51, Tim Starling wrote:
>> Gregory Kohs wrote:
>>> Point of clarification... does Jimmy Wales have the authority to
>>> impose a "global ban" on a user?
>>
>> Yes, Jimmy has always had such rights, and he continues to enjoy broad
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
wrote:
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
>> Dan Rosenthal wrote:
>>> You've identified one of the criticisms of OCILLA/DMCA -- that it can be
>>> easily abused by copyright holder to keep stuff offline. (This is what the
>>> EFF is probably gettin
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> Some books are very productive in that way, if you have time to add each
> interesting fact to the encyclopedia. TV is a bit awkward to reference,
> at least routinely.
>
> Fred
>
>
>> Does anyone else suffer from this problem, whereby you lis
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 9:55 AM, geni wrote:
> The text of the advert:
> "Craig of Craigslist urges you to support Wikipedia. Why?"
>
> In that context the separation between person and company is rather weak.
The name "Craig Newmark" is web-searchable but many people not in the
web industry won'
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:25 PM, David Levy wrote:
>> > The "hand in hand with children" wording seems to conflate physical
>> > space with cyberspace.
>
>> How about "collaborating with children"?
>
> That's accurate, but I'm not quibbling over terminology. As I
> explained to George, my point i
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:28 AM, David Levy wrote:
> The "hand in hand with children" wording seems to conflate physical
> space with cyberspace. Please see my relevant reply to George William
> Herbert.
There's a known and ancedotally (but not known to be statistically)
significant trend of pe
Without picking on anyone in particular, I urge everyone to go back
and reread Brad's comment earlier.
This conversation is following the path that public discussions on
this have repeatedly before.
It is not clear that anyone has raised any issues which are
appropriate or necessary for the Found
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 3:57 PM, David Levy wrote:
> This is the risk that we run when we begin banning editors because we
> dislike beliefs and behaviors unrelated to their participation in the
> wikis. We might avoid some negative attention that would accompany
> their involvement, but what sor
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Jake Wartenberg
wrote:
> I am not talking about "pedophilia activism", but instances where the
> individual in question is not disruptively editing.
There are a wide variety of reasons to permanently block people who
were elsewhere identified (more commonly, self-
1 - 100 of 167 matches
Mail list logo
