Yes, it's really amazing to see the difference in coverage for pretty
much the exact same feature press was reporting on months ago, in the
exact opposite way.
I feel like this could be a case study for PR. Great job!
--
Judson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cohesion
_
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Domas Mituzas wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> > The question is, how do we thank the company that has everything?
>
> We can thank them by providing better content to everyone. That is both what
> they and us want.
>
And making the API more awesome, which helps everyone. :
http://adweek.blogs.com/adfreak/2009/12/wikis-fundraising-ads-send-wrong-message.html
Ah, well. :)
Judson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cohesion
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 5:05 AM, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
> Very simply. If an organisation is going to make a project it will get
> their own space on "Staging Area" and will upload their stuff there
> without any legal problems. Then, one or more editors must examine
> this stuff adding to it meta-d
That's really neat, I'm glad they worked on Wikipedia first. I'm sure
they are open to working with the licensing issues, they seem to like
to use a rather restrictive one as their default almost without
thinking about it, which I think is what happened with chrome also.
I'm sure they will be open
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Lars Aronsson wrote:
> The mention of a "patent license" should make us worried. Does
> Google, for example, have a patent on the animated playback?
> Should we need a patent for "flagged revisions" to counter that?
>
>
Their patent license is basically just sayi
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 6:40 PM, Lars Aronsson wrote:
> Judson Dunn wrote:
>
>> I can't sell my luddite co-workers on the idea of a blog, or a
>> wiki, but this is more obviously approachable. For more normal
>> web users, there are obviously a lot of advanced
On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Peter Coombe
wrote:
> The best description I've seen so far was "FriendFeed... with benefits" :-)
>
Right, it's not entirely new, which is I think why some people are
saying it isn't a big deal. The problem is, it's only not new for
people like us. We obviously s
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 9:26 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2009/5/29 Milos Rancic :
>> Probably, some of you already saw that Google made something for which
>> I think that it will be the new form of the mainstream Internet
>> perception. You may read Slashdot article [1], a good description at
>> th
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Anthony wrote:
> That would be great, but wouldn't it also mean the death of Google and
> pretty much any company which relies on web advertising to make money? How
> do you make money off of P2P? Software and data license fees, I guess, but
> is Google really pr
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 6:58 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>
> 2009/5/30 Thomas Dalton :
>
> > I don't get it... this is just MSN Messenger on steroids. It's a great
> > idea and if it works it should be really useful, but it isn't
> > world-changing and certainly isn't going to restructure the internet
This is sort of unrelated, but may be of interest to the people
discussing language issues with search:
http://googleenterprise.blogspot.com/2008/12/cross-language-enterprise-search.html
Google is announcing some cross language searching for enterprise now
anyway, where you might search in one la
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Michael Peel wrote:
> IMO, the best approach would be to have a channel (a phone number, an
> email address, etc...) where governments can contact the WMF to
> request that certain pages are blocked in certain countries. These
> entries can then be publicly listed,
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:26 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> The censorship issue isn't really an issue - if an image (or content
> or whatever) is genuinely illegal in a given country then of course
> that country has every right to block it. If countries block legal
> images (as in this case), or bl
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 1:51 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hoi,
> Commons provides no benefit except for sharing the same picture to people
> who do not read / write English. They cannot possibly find pictures and
> consequently for them Commons is useless. Add to this the extreme
15 matches
Mail list logo
