Erik Moeller wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 10:37 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
>> Are there any other consequences of a list rename?
>
> You will feel a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of
> voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.
:D
A few pages
name.[1] I'm still not sure a move
(from "foundation-l" to "wikimedia-l") has more benefit than cost.
MZMcBride
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Foundation-L_Proposal
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
e. Personally, I think
having Board members respond to direct follow-up questions regarding
specific votes that community members are interested in (on the mailing list
or on Meta-Wiki) would be more useful.
MZMcBride
___
foundation-l mailing list
fou
Samuel Klein wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 1:06 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
>> Experiments are acceptable... sometimes.
>
> MZM, I didn't expect you to become the voice of conservatism!
>
> I cannot agree with your premise that experiments are somehow
> 'optiona
out what Wikimedia's
mission actually is (and how to best achieve it). For the Wikimedia
Foundation, the goalposts seem to have shifted and it's now all about adding
people to build a movement. Is this the right approach, though?
MZMcBride
_
birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Mar 21, 2012, at 8:53 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
>> Sue Gardner wrote:
>>> Everybody knows that reversing stagnating/declining participation
>>> in Wikimedia's projects is our top priority.
>>
>> Thank you for sharing thi
Zack Exley wrote:
> MZMcBride wrote:
>> I was thinking more about this today and how it somewhat relates to you and
>> your previous work at MoveOn.org.
>>
>> Mandatory voting laws look great on paper: increased democratic and civic
>> participation, a more in
t for keeping new
editors around? For example, deleting a new user's article is probably the
easiest way to discourage him or her, but is the alternative (allowing their
spammy page to sit around for a while) an acceptable cost for the potential
benefit?
MZMcBride
_
ng the numbers (a
focus on quantity) is overshadowing the arguably more important goal of
improving the content (a focus on quality)?
MZMcBride
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
articles
generally sit around for weeks, if not months or years. I'm not sure what
you're talking about.
MZMcBride
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
MZMcBride wrote:
> Indeed. I've commented out the iframe for now while discussion continues.
> Once there's a clearer understanding of the implications of using this code
> and whether this particular third-party's policy is compatible with
> Wikimedia's.
>
>
.
I say "compatible" as it's a passive read action of wikimediafoundation.org
that will trigger data being sent to Jobvite. Adding a footer might be nice,
but if the user doesn't consent to Jobvite's privacy policy, simply reading
wikimediafoundation.org has alr
://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy
* http://recruiting.jobvite.com/privacy-policy.php
I don't know the answer, but I imagine someone will be along in short order
to clarify.
MZMcBride
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.w
king
users, but this is a separate case with fewer privacy implications, I think.
Thoughts?
MZMcBride
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
ly recall some major site being interrupted
within the past year because their domain registration password (on a site
like GoDaddy or HostGator or wherever) was incredibly weak. You'd be
surprised what kinds of domains are registered where. :-)
MZMcBride
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
ddening
> day.
You've excluded Wiktionary, Wikiquote, Wikispecies, Wikisource, etc. there.
I guess it would be less sad for them.
MZMcBride
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
MZMcBride wrote:
> Kat: Thank you for weighing in. I know many people appreciated hearing from
> you, Phoebe, and some of the other "big" voices who have commented here. And
> I think some of the replies in this thread have gone a long way to helping
> ease some tensions and
s: I think
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2012-March/072463.html is
one of my favorite posts to foundation-l ever. I'll go add these examples to
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Problems> now.
MZMcBride
___
quot; when there aren't even
dumps of the images on Commons, much less one of the other 1,000 issues
you'd hit when trying to fork a Wikimedia wiki. Be reasonable, please.
MZMcBride
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
a question about the status
of X (e.g., controversial content software implementation) without needing
to bother Board members. ;-)
Any ideas on implementing something like that? I'm not sure how many other
high-level projects there are, even. Any guidance on this
h butterflies would be separated from
> other types of monarch, etc.
Interesting. :-) I encourage everyone to take a look at
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming> and
chime in.
> Beyond wanting to drop the list a note about Niabot's idea, I also
e's a project
status page somewhere with updated info, feel free to just link that.)
MZMcBride
P.S. I'm always fascinated by cases where there's an extreme contrast
between how seemingly innocuous the search term is and how explicit the
search results are. I think my current favorite ca
Oliver Keyes wrote:
> MZMcBride wrote:
>> At a minimum, the tab needs to be moved to the sidebar side so that it's out
>> of the way. There's no feedback that you're soliciting that's so important
>> that it should stand in the way of reading an infobox
he reader's part just as much as they merit clarity and
> brevity on the writer's or speaker's part. Being simplistic about the
> "corporate world" is no more charming or noble than is ignorance about
> any other field.
Applying corporate jargon to a non-prof
ime.
Respectfully, I don't think this is as much about being vigilant as it is
about saying that the bullets should be taken out of the gun rather than
leaving it loaded on the table. I don't foresee a lot of good coming from
this (predictable) step by the Wikimedia Found
Philippe Beaudette wrote:
> MZMcBride wrote:
>> A political (lobbying?) arm of Wikimedia? And the Wikimedia community and
>> Board have said they're okay with this?
>
> I'm not really sure where you get that, MZ. Politics and lobbying were not
> mentioned a
dia community and
Board have said they're okay with this?
MZMcBride
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
so important
that it should stand in the way of reading an infobox or other actual page
content.
MZMcBride
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
The English Wikipedia has become "one of those sites with a feedback tab"?
Example: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Russell_Burnham>.
How did this happen?
MZMcBride
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#Bad_choice_of_featured_article
is pretty good reading.
MZMcBride
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/opinion/steal-this-column.html
Some readers may find this interesting; it doesn't seem to have hit this
list.
MZMcBride
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
ifferent data has different expiries. A lot
of it is permanent (e.g., revisions aren't going anywhere for the most
part). I guess the question is specific to the ClickTracking extension:
<https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ClickTracking>?
MZMcBride
Béria Lima wrote:
> On 1 February 2012 21:56, MZMcBride wrote:
>> Béria Lima wrote:
>>> Risker, there are SEVERAL documents in meta with the guidelines used to
>>> elect the Chapter seats. Say that "nobody knows" is a bit offensive.
>>
>> SEVER
http://www.feld.com/wp/archives/2007/10/cto-vs-vp-engineering.html
> http://falseprecision.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/10/cto-vs-vp-engin.html
Thanks for the insight here. :-) Much appreciated.
MZMcBride
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@
rotocol (MediaWiki already does it to
spot mailto: links and irc: links and add pretty icons). Comparing against a
list that's maintained in the MediaWiki namespace probably wouldn't be very
difficult. It'd go in an extension, I guess.
Extensions
arly discover pages and
processes (or get frustrated with not being able to find them and create my
own).
I've always found the chapter seats poorly explained and often
misunderstood. If there are resources on Meta-Wiki (or even
wikimediafoundation.org) that can clarify some of this to me and others,
tly just noting for
posterity.
MZMcBride
[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2011-June/054040.html
[2] https://wikimediafoundation.org/w/index.php?diff=78986&oldid=78985
[3] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Staff_and_contractors
_
r
the like) can produce an occasional comment that's not completely awful and
useless. Most comment sections are filled with vile language (if people are
paying viewing the content) or spam (if people aren't).
It's certainly a reaso
olicies...
All kinds of different policies. Board --> staff; Board --> everyone; staff
--> staff; staff --> everyone(!).
MZMcBride
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
mplate as well for policies in development.
Thanks for this. I saw your edits. Overall pretty good. :-)
Using your tagging, it might be easier to clarify
<https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Policies#Policies>.
MZMcBride
___
foundation-l m
se import of data
> (that is from Wikipedia to OSM) will be impossible after the change,
> right?
You really ought to include links or at least spell out what you're talking
about in (opening) posts. "ODbL FAQ on the OSM website" kind of made my head
spin, and I
gt;
> +1
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 Commons with a rule l
with any group of people? This way forward certainly has the potential to
create some interesting policies. :-)
MZMcBride
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
ion, though some of the language will
undoubtedly need to be tweaked first.
Thoughts?
MZMcBride
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
A new policy should always be announced on foundation-l; forwarding.
MZMcBride
-- Forwarded Message
From: Sumana Harihareswara
Organization: Wikimedia Foundation
Reply-To: Wikimedia developers
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:30:07 -0800
To: Wikimedia developers
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l
Board-approved" and "Otherwise." Then I
considered splitting between "Staff-related", "Contributor-related,"
"Meetings-related," etc., but I wasn't so sure how many of these policies
actually (allegedly) apply to contributors (e.g., the w
ics is foolish."
Have any museums, newspapers, or other cultural or political institutions
joined this effort? Is there any concern about further damage to Wikipedia's
reputation and credibility as an academic resource when it behaves in the
same manner as sites like
Apparently there's now a vote at
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action>.
Not sure why there's a vote. Or why, if you're going to have a vote, you'd
use MediaWiki...
MZMcBride
___
foundation-l mailing
ith AdBlock and similar products, though.
More info here:
https://easylist.adblockplus.org/blog/2010/11/16/wikimedia-fundraising-banne
rs
MZMcBride
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
ck that would help Wikimedia
and outsiders track trademark usage. I think it fell by the wayside when
Mike left the Wikimedia Foundation and any work on it has mostly stopped. A
bit more info here: <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:TradeTrack>.
MZMcBride
__
g closer
to the idea of expert-approved or expert-endorsed revisions (implicitly or
explicitly). It's an interesting dichotomy between the extension's stated
goal of trying to attract new users and the extension's past (and present?)
interface that encourages self-identified expert co
any
skilled copy-editors who are able and willing to donate a few minutes to
look over and clean up the draft would be greatly appreciated.
Sometime in early 2012, a finalized version will be sent to the Wikimedia
Board for approval.
MZMcBride
___
foundatio
Why is the banner so visually unattractive? Is the English Wikipedia being
punished?
MZMcBride
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
to believe that if the Wikimedia Board is making such a
strong push for this feature to be implemented, there are very good reasons
for doing so. Whether or not that's the case, I wouldn't look (closely or
broadly) at the comments on this mailing list and try to divine
community-wide view
feature, it will need to assign staff and other resources. I don't think
this has been done at this point, so the ball is in its court.
MZMcBride
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
e.
I'm not sure you'd want to put it in a cookie, but that's an implementation
detail.
Watchlist editing is generally based on looking at titles. I don't suppose
you'd want a gallery of hidden images, but it would make filter-list editing
easier, heh.
MZMcBride
__
one as the project making "a world in which every single human being can
> freely share in the sum of all knowledge", as if the others have no
> relation to that mission. These are the the sorts of things that are actual
> causes of frustration,
would be at work during the normal time
> periods, to attend. I hope to see you all there :).
Using 00:00 or 24:00 is strongly discouraged (some people go so far as to
say that these times don't exist), as they create unnecessary confusion.
Please use 23:59 or 00:01 in the fu
#x27; interests. That's true, to be sure, but the costs of further
close collaboration may outweigh any benefit.
MZMcBride
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
me a form letter about how hard they're working for me.
> It's harmless enough though, I just choose to ignore it.
A user preference or some other way of disabling the use of WikiLove on a
per-user basis might be nice. Similar to an e-mail's "unsubscribe" feature.
I'
ated to controversial content:
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Timeline>. I strongly
urge you and others to add information (with cites, as necessary and
appropriate). :-)
MZMcBride
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
MZMcBride wrote:
> Sue Gardner wrote:
>> Oh. I can speak to this, at least a little. The Wikimedia Foundation has a
>> policy of publishing our grant applications when the grantmaking institution
>> is okay with it. We don't do a lot of grant applications, and
with the community starts and ends on-wiki.
If only there were some sort of meta-wiki where people from the Wikimedia
projects could come together and discuss brainstorming ideas for a workable
filter...
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming
MZMcBride
___
om
> above.
I don't have a link, but the autofellatio discussion is mentioned at
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Timeline>. If anyone
finds a link, please post it there.
MZMcBride
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
spired its founding fathers. And mothers - many of the
> founding editors of Wikipedia were women, I don't know how many people know
> that.
What license(s) will the book be released under?
MZMcBride
___
foundation-l mailin
an often have the gravest consequences. As a PHP
developer, I would've thought you would know this better than anyone.
MZMcBride
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
(There also doesn't seem to be too much about the grants process on
wikimediafoundation.org currently, so I'll look into improving that next
week. Even a primer on the difference between grants Wikimedia
solicits/receives and the grants Wikimedia administers/doles out would be
cool.)
MZMcBride
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
r?
I was talking about Stanton-type grants. Sorry for the confusion.
MZMcBride
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hi.
I asked about this a few days ago, but I don't think anyone ever responded.
Are the grant agreements that the Wikimedia Foundation enters into posted
anywhere? If so, where? If not, could someone post them, please?
MZMcBride
___
foundat
buse by a particular project, which
> I haven't observed).
Not inexplicably: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14281#c10
MZMcBride
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
gmatic question. Users should be able to tailor
> their user experience to their needs.
Brainstorming for a workable solution, now ongoing:
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming>.
MZMcBride
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
ich images
belong to which broad category?
Not trying to be provocative, I've just never understood how the
category-based system is supposed to work in practice. In (abstract) theory,
it seems magical.
MZMcBride
___
foundation-l
Hi.
With nudging from Kim, I've started a subpage at
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content/Brainstorming> to
brainstorm ideas for a workable solution to dealing with controversial
content on Wikimedia wikis.
MZMcBride
___
to get banners or banner ideas from outside the
Wikimedia (editing) community would be great. There are a lot of creative
people who love Wikimedia projects. A few tweets or status updates calling
for banner submissions might go a long way... assuming people c
readers who actually switch the filter ON, and decide they
> have better things to do than to edit-war over whether such a user will need
> to click on the image to see it, or not.
Yes, because rational thought like that is a hallmark of wi
phoebe ayers wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 9:10 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
>> David Gerard wrote:
>>> On 9 October 2011 14:18, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>>> On 9 October 2011 13:55, Ting Chen wrote:
>>>>> The majority of editors who responded to the re
d to look
like in order to get anything other than a rambling "we march forward,
unabated!" letter from the Board.
MZMcBride
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
ar>. That
particular link is generally controlled by this message:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Sitesupport-url>.
Hope that helps,
MZMcBride
P.S. Your e-mail client is wrapping lines at rather odd spots, BTW.
___
foundation-l mailing list
ia a friendlier and more understandable environment
> for new editors, and an improved mobile experience for readers and editors.
Is the grant restricted or unrestricted? (Is there a copy of the agreement
somewhere?)
Apologies if this is obvious or already stated elsew
s it serve Wikimedia's
mission? Does diverting resources from other projects and activities in
favor of this one do more harm than good?
I think it makes more sense to focus on these questions, rather than
inventing silly tales.
MZMcBride
___
or the timeline.
I'm not thrilled with the current page title, but it's a start:
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Controversial_content_timeline>.
I'd forgotten all about Toby. That was largely a joke, wasn't it?
MZMcBride
This resolution was an act in bad faith.
MZMcBride
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
it sound as though it was an
organization other than Wikimedia that proposed specific design plans,
created by one of its employees. People have been discussing a particular
implementation because Wikimedia put one forward. Why does your post make it
sound as though this is surprising or unexpected?
of harm. I think it's fairly shameful on the part of the Board, a very small
body of individuals whose primary objective is to protect the projects.
Instead, they chose this?
MZMcBride
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.o
Philippe Beaudette wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 8:47 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
>
>> Is there a single staffer who's even thinking about any of them as
>> part of their work? I don't know of any. And, back to the original thought:
>> are there any Wikimed
king on Wikisource? What about Wikiversity?
Wikinews? Is there a single staffer who's even thinking about any of them as
part of their work? I don't know of any. And, back to the original thought:
are there any Wikimedia initiatives to spec
to the communities and a question of how long
either side is willing to wait.
MZMcBride
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
g on what you're talking about. Thumbnails, current
images, older versions of images, deleted images, math renderings, etc. The
sanest solution probably involves mailing a hard drive to someone and then
having them mail it back.
MZMcBride
__
page serves to document these instances.
[/quote]
If anyone knows of any other bugs/requests, please feel free to list them.
As the page notes, these rejections are rare, but in my opinion they offer a
fascinating look into the "Wikipedia power structure."[1]
MZMcBride
have commented on this list
and on the talk page, but most of that is negligible cost and/or volunteer
cost. There are grey areas to consider as well. For example, would you
consider the time and resources that went into the mock-ups as part of the
referendum costs?
I agree that a pr
thing
that's knowable at this point. It's going to take X hours of development and
Y hours of testing in order to produce Z. Not knowing any of the three
variables makes accurate predicting fairly difficult, I think. :-) Plus you
have to factor in (or factor out, maybe) volunteer resou
Erik Moeller wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 3:24 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
>> The current reality is that nearly any
>> project besides the English Wikipedia has almost no technical support.
>
> That's a misunderstanding of what's happening.
>
> I would chara
hat resources have been devoted to
Wikinews in particular?
Thanks for volunteering to clarify some of my confusion. :-)
MZMcBride
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
for. Some of the Wikinews interviews have been
impressive, but beyond those, there isn't much to speak of after seven years
online.
MZMcBride
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
David Gerard wrote:
> On 12 September 2011 22:57, MZMcBride wrote:
>> From Wikimedia's perspective, I think this is "one down, several hundred to
>> go." Wikimedia has made it clear that its singular focus is the English
>> Wikipedia. All other Wikipedias are
; in a handful of
publications), but it's indisputably the reality. A classic example of this
reality, incidentally, is the GoogleNewsSitemap extension fiasco on the
English Wikinews.
I'll echo others in wishing you all the best of luck going forward. I
sincerely hope whoever administer
one will make it. But it's
not Wikimedia's place to say who should and shouldn't have access to the sum
of all human knowledge and what particular pieces of it constitute (graphic
violence, pornography, etc.).
MZMcBride
___
foundation-l
ually true there. A cursory look at the Wikimedia Board resolutions is
pretty damning.
When the Wikimedia Foundation places the English Wikipedia on a pedestal and
treats all other wiki projects/families as peripheral, it's not at all
unexp
clopedia, most rating agencies would
> decide that the content is appropriate for all ages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_in_PRC
Is this a trick question?
MZMcBride
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedi
rity with the
tangled mess that is MediaWiki/Wikipedia. Have you done much work on
MediaWiki or worked with the replicated databases at all (particularly the
databases of the larger sites)? An outside voice is great, but yours comes
off as rather naïve.
MZMcBride
___
1 - 100 of 342 matches
Mail list logo
