On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 20:15, Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2011/3/15 SlimVirgin :
>> I'd be willing to help organize the names. It's just a question of
>> coming up with some sensible criteria, so I'll restart the discussion
>> about that on the previous talk p
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 18:10, George Herbert wrote:
> I object to the GA/FA/etc requirement. There are a lot of content
> editors out there who won't go near the FA mafia.
>
> I use that term carefully, and hopefully without inciting a great
> backlash. The people involved in the GA/FA etc proc
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 15:13, Erik Moeller wrote:
=> Credo has generously offered a large number of additional accounts (up
> to 400 additional ones). The process that I used for the first batch
> was pretty clunky and time-consuming, so I've been using this as an
> opportunity to look into bette
>>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 06:32, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Could someone from the Foundation please respond to the idea of
contacting universities and content database providers and inviting them to
support Wikipedia by making a certain number of log-in IDs available, with
the
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 06:32, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>>> Could someone from the Foundation please respond to the idea of
>>> contacting universities and content database providers and inviting them to
>>> support Wikipedia by making a certain number of log-in IDs available, with
>>> the
>>> ben
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 06:32, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Could someone from the Foundation please respond to the idea of contacting
> universities and content database providers and inviting them to support
> Wikipedia by making a certain number of log-in IDs available, with the
> benefit -- to them
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 13:22, Andrew Gray wrote:
> On 14 March 2011 13:34, SlimVirgin wrote:
>
>> David, in the BLP policy we advise people to contact info-e...@wikimedia.org.
>>
>> Is i...@wikimedia.org a better address, or do they end up in the same place?
>
> B
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 10:24, FT2 wrote:
> The contradiction resolves in that "routinely" means "commonly" not
> "automatically". Your 2nd paragraph says it -- a carrot that required the
> acquisition of editorial skills that were within the reach of just about
> anyone who applied herself, and w
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 07:18, David Gerard wrote:
> The main problem I've found is that aggrieved BLP subjects don't
> understand that they can actually email i...@wikimedia.org and have
> someone seriously look at the problem.
>
David, in the BLP policy we advise people to contact info-e...@wiki
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 05:35, FT2 wrote:
> The other thing we thought was that there is benefit in recognizing editors
> whom the community agrees are competent, edit well sourced neutral good
> quality material, and act well, across the board. ... If there were some way
> to communally recogniz
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 11:50, aude wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
>> --- On Tue, 8/3/11, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> > From: Fred Bauder
>> > Fred Bauder
>> > I guess I would like editors to have access to archives and
>> > databases
>> > such as those ProQuest sell
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 22:32, Fred Bauder wrote:
> I guess I would like editors to have access to archives and databases
> such as those ProQuest sells. Not sure how that would fit into our
> budget.
That would be amazing. There was a company that offered 100 accounts
to a database, I forget whic
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 21:54, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> The point is that we seem to be
>> raising more money than we need, which is arguably unfair to donors,
>> then not spending it in ways that increase quality or help the
>> volunteers, which is arguably unfair to us. That's causing bad
>> feeling
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 18:11, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 8 March 2011 00:03, MZMcBride wrote:
>> Andrew Garrett wrote:
>>> We might be growing, but I don't think anybody in the industry would
>>> hesitate to say that we're still "small" and "running on a shoestring
>>> budget". The websites that w
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 03:05, John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Sue Gardner wrote:
>> ...
>> Ah, Sarah, I don't think that's particularly fair. Bear in mind we've
>> just published a strategic plan that 1,000+ Wikimedians helped create.
>
> I'm more than a bit disturbed to
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 03:12, David Gerard wrote:
> On 6 March 2011 04:03, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
>> On Mar 5, 2011, at 4:30 PM, SlimVirgin wrote:
>
>>> The attraction of Wikipedia -- to editors, readers, and donors -- was
>>> that it was run on a shoestring by
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 06:48, MZMcBride wrote:
> church.of.emacs.ml wrote:
>> However the main point of mail was to discuss how we're going to raise
>> funds without being annoying to readers, and I welcome any input from
>> WMF staff, chapters and volunteers :-)
>
> There's a fairly easy solution
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 18:06, Sue Gardner wrote:
> On 1 March 2011 15:54, SlimVirgin wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 16:41, Pronoein wrote:
> >
> >> Le 01/03/2011 18:31, Michael Snow a écrit :
> >> > On 3/1/2011 12:57 PM, Pronoein wrote:
> >&
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 16:41, Pronoein wrote:
> Le 01/03/2011 18:31, Michael Snow a écrit :
> > On 3/1/2011 12:57 PM, Pronoein wrote:
> >> If there is such a minority of ethical concerns, it could be one of the
> >> reasons that volunteers are leaving the boat.
> > Based on the one survey of form
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 16:04, Fred Bauder wrote:
> Which is to say that new article patrol is a task requiring more skill
> rather than less; it is not a quiet corner for people who are unable to
> edit productively and lack people skills.
>
>
Let's not be too quick to criticize recent-change pat
>> On 20 February 2011 14:24, Marc Riddell wrote:
>>
>>> Sue, as you know, this is the area of my greatest concern regarding the
>>> future of the Wikipedia Project. The gender gap is a part of the larger
>>> problem you described above: That of a combative, hostile and defensive
>>> culture that
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:48, David Gerard wrote:
> On 28 January 2011 18:44, geni wrote:
>
> > I suspect that all we have to do is wait. Someone has effectively
> > worked out how to spam Amazon. What one person can do so can others.
> > Eventually the level of spam will rise to the point wher
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 06:40, David Gerard wrote:
> Just spoke to a researcher, Charlotte something, for BBC 5 Live
> Investigates, Sunday 9pm, this item likely to go out 9:45pm or so.
> This was just for her research, it wasn't a recorded piece.
>
> The piece is on Books LLC and similar operati
A few editors on the English Wikipedia have been noticing a problem since
around January 15 of "connection timed out" messages, very slow performance,
and being logged out.
Preview is getting hard to use because so slow, or failing entirely, and
some edits are not being saved.
Some discussion here
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 15:10, Michael Snow wrote:
> Let me ask this question. Suppose the Wikimedia Foundation were to buy
> PediaPress from Brainbot, including whatever intellectual property is
> associated with its service such as the LaTeX export. If Wikimedia did
> this and brought the servic
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 13:59, Ting Chen wrote:
> I know that also this example is not without flaw, as comparisons always
> are. What I want to say is, if a company can provide us a service that
> we really desperately need and we cannot get elsewhere, and it shares
> the same value as we are, I
gic
> editor we had talked about for long time and never realized until now,
> and it is open source, I would certainly consider a button in the
> toolbox like "Use the wizard to start an article".
>
> On 12.11.2010 07:44, wrote SlimVirgin:
>> If I were to set up Vi
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 00:07, Liam Wyatt wrote:
> There are several examples of commercial services being used in Wikimedia
> projects that are integrated in a way that is acceptable because they
> further our mission of sharing free-cultural resources effectively:
>
Liam, none of the examples yo
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 21:20, John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 2:12 PM, SlimVirgin wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 20:23, MZMcBride wrote:
>>> I've read Wikimedia's PediaPress press release[1] a few times now and I
>>> still can'
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 20:23, MZMcBride wrote:
> I've read Wikimedia's PediaPress press release[1] a few times now and I
> still can't figure out if PediaPress is a non-profit organization or a
> for-profit company.
PediaPress is a limited company (GmbH) and seems to be part of
Brainbot Technolo
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 13:38, David Gerard wrote:
> On 26 October 2010 20:30, Michael Snow wrote:
>> David Gerard wrote:
>
>>> I *facepalm*ed. ENGINEER HUBRIS IS NOT WHAT WIKIPEDIA IS FOR!
>
>> No, but it's what much of Wikipedia was written with.
>
This is the kind of test of our accuracy we re
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 safe, or on whether we all ought to be
>> drinking it. But when it com
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 03:05, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> I'm sure you noticed that this 2008 study
>
> http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050095
>
> criticises media reports for citing studies and experts with financial ties
> to manufacturers, w
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 around.
>>
>> Can you address the issue of vested interests
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 around.
Can you address the issue of vested interests? If a drug company has
financed all or most of the peer-review
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 13:57, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>> The pro-scientific-point-of-view editors have rewritten NPOV to make
>> it easier for them to exclude non-scholarly sources. They cite the
>> UNDUE section, arguing that non-scholarly perspectives represent undue
>> emphasis. Some of the same
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 12:26, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:25, wrote:
>>> On 24/10/2010 17:01, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Stick to what's actually occurring.
What sources would be deemed reliable for an article on Statin or Flu
Virus
or Joan of Arc ?
>>>
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:25, wrote:
> On 24/10/2010 17:01, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>> Stick to what's actually occurring.
>> What sources would be deemed reliable for an article on Statin or Flu Virus
>> or Joan of Arc ?
>>
>
> One should use accredited independent sources, which in the cas
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 08:20, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> --- On Sun, 24/10/10, SlimVirgin wrote:
>> How do we handle articles about drugs if we're not allowed to use the
>> mainstream media? Removing them leaves those articles almost entirely
>> reflecting the posi
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 06:35, David Gerard wrote:
> On 24 October 2010 12:40, SlimVirgin wrote:
>
>> By excluding high-quality media sources you're elevating the lowliest
>> scientist as a source, and the vested interests that finance the
>> research, above the m
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 05:17, wrote:
> On 24/10/2010 08:55, SlimVirgin wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 08:15, wrote:
>>> See I took Atorvastatin and you wouldn't let the project report that the
>>> Stanford Medical Journal reported that it causes more dama
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 19:43, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> --- On Sat, 23/10/10, SlimVirgin wrote:
>>> Someone working for the company that makes Lipitor would try to stop
>>> mainstream media sources being used in the article, because it's the
>>> media that has
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 08:15, wrote:
> See I took Atorvastatin and you wouldn't let the project report that the
> Stanford Medical Journal reported that it causes more damage to the heart than
> is acceptable. You want us only to report things once the controversy is
> over, in other words once
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 00:02, Fred Bauder wrote:
> So, to take a random example that I have not looked at, what would a
> public relations firm hired by the maker of Lipitor be trying to
> accomplish?
Someone working for the company that makes Lipitor would try to stop
mainstream media sources b
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 13:56, David Gerard wrote:
> On 12 October 2010 20:54, Peter Damian wrote:
>
>> Otherwise the article irritated me in that once again it cited the badly
>> flawed 'Nature' study.
>
>
> And it didn't irritate you that this is a vice-chancellor saying these
> things, with an
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 17:14, Phil Nash wrote:
> Jonathan Swift was at least plausible in that regard (although satire rather
> than irony), because his writing was so obviously pointed that the clever
> people got the message and the stupids didn't. Damian failed in being
> inadequately excessiv
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 16:51, David Gerard wrote:
> If, on the other hand, Peter is actually saying people banned from
> Wikipedia should have their organs harvested and is volunteering, that
> is of course a different matter.
We could start with his brain cells, as there seems to be something of
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 16:11, Phil Nash wrote:
> I expect you might have an apology and weakly-argued defence tomorrow, when
> you might have sobered up, but right now you are on thin ice in
> epistemological terms and are closer to a 17-year old newly-"radicalised"
> student than a considered sch
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 02:04, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> On 10/05/2010 08:28 AM, SlimVirgin wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 18:17, wrote:
>>> Have you looked at the current version of that page? Every sentence has
>>> at least one ref, it looks like a spider has
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 18:17, wrote:
> On 04/10/2010 19:43, geni wrote:
>>
>> The Wikipedia that went from nothing to top ten site was never built
>> on verifiable knowledge. It was built on what people happened to have
>> in their heads. The whole citation thing outside the more
>> controversia
> On 04.10.2010 20:43, geni wrote:
>> The Wikipedia that went from nothing to top ten site was never built
>> on verifiable knowledge. It was built on what people happened to have
>> in their heads. The whole citation thing outside the more
>> controversial areas came later. Don't believe me? This
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 10:47, Noein wrote:
>Teach a mind to be
> critical and it can learn everything. Teach a mind what you believe and
> you just shaped a sheep.
Exactly. Hence the importance of philosophy. When I argue in favour of
philosophy, I'm not arguing in favour of expertise directly, b
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 09:34, Nathan wrote:
> Perhaps because of some popular caricatures of the subject of
> philosophy, even those who choose to edit philosophy articles may not
> appreciate the actual expertise involved in being a trained
> philosopher. Philosophers, and philosophy in general,
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 10:58, David Gerard wrote:
> No, "built by the masses" was not the intent. The goal was to build an
> encyclopedia. It turns out the masses are fantastically useful in
> this, but claiming that was a goal is simply factually inaccurate. So
> I must say, in response to this r
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 09:47, Peter Damian wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "SlimVirgin"
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 4:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
>
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 09:14, Peter Damian wrote:
> 1. Is there a quality problem in certain areas. Yes or no?
>
> 2. If there is a problem, are there any underlying or systematic reasons?
>
> 3. If there are any underlying or systematic reasons, can they easily be
> addressed?
>
There was an a
On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 07:15, David Gerard wrote:
> On 3 October 2010 14:09, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
>> I have a hard time believing that it should be impossible to find a source
>> which states something that "everyone knows". If it's assumed prior
>> knowledge in journal articles, it should st
On 2 October 2010 22:44, David Gerard wrote:
> The problem is how to avoid making rules against stupidity. Because
> you can't actually outlaw stupid. Experts already complain about
> uncitability. I suppose we could advise experts on how to use citation
> as a debating tactic.
Unless we all sti
> From: "David Gerard"
>> That [...] doesn't answer the question I asked:
>> *what* about the approach in this paper wouldn't work for philosophy,
>> in your opinion? Please be specific.
David, I think one of the reasons that biologists and others may be
happier than philosophers to edit Wikipedi
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 15:23, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> German Wikipedia has had pending changes implemented *globally*, in all
> articles, for several years now. Unlike en:WP, where numbers of active
> editors have dropped significantly since 2007, numbers of active editors in
> de:WP have remai
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 16:37, James Heilman wrote:
> I support PC for a number of reasons including.
>
> 1) Concerns are voiced both by academia and our readership regarding
> Wikipedia's reliability. Pending changes addresses some of these
> concerns.
James, we don't want to cater to the academ
2010/5/21 Delphine Ménard
> ...we should not forget, that there are on Commons some of the most
> beautiful images I've ever seen in my entire life.
>
> Free. As in Speech.
>
> Thanks for that reminder, Delphine.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation
62 matches
Mail list logo
