Can you explain why we need this proposed process? The decision has
been made to form a committee to make recommendations to the WMF board
about funds dissemination. The only decision still to be made, as far
as I can see, is who should be on the committee.
What questions do you want to answer wit
On 5 April 2012 19:14, phoebe ayers wrote:
> Thanks, Tom. If you don't mind I'll put it on the talk page; this will
> likely require some discussion to answer.
By all means.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: ht
Thanks for posting this, Phoebe. My question about what you intend to
do over the next 3 years wasn't answered. There is no point waiting
three years and then re-evaluating the situation if you haven't made
sure you've been gathering all the right information during those 3
years and that you are c
On 5 April 2012 02:05, 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's a manager's job to
> primarily set
On 31 March 2012 22:33, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> P.s.: It's a bit weird to focus so much on the reasons to oppose; why should
> opposing be justified /more/ than supporting?
There's supposed to be a Q&A coming that will explain the supports.
___
f
On 31 March 2012 06:45, John Vandenberg wrote:
> There is no requirement to know everything. There is a requirement to
> make decisions in the best interests of the organisation, *as you see
> it*. If a trustee persistently abstains on the big decisions because
> they cant see *it* (no vision),
On 31 March 2012 06:13, John Vandenberg wrote:
> if you cant decide whether something is good or bad for the
> organisation, you are ill prepared for the vote (a procedural
> problem), or you are incompetent.
Either that, or you're honest. Nobody knows everything (except me, of course!).
___
On 31 March 2012 05:56, John Vandenberg wrote:
> An abstention is a refusal to vote. By doing this, a trustee must
> have a good reason, such as conflict of interest, and it should be
> minuted why, or they are refusing the duties of their appointment and
> should be removed.
>
> To often board m
On 31 March 2012 02:03, John Vandenberg wrote:
> I expect that the minutes will explain the varied positions of the
> board. If not, then the board should put in place procedures to
> prevent abuse of abstains.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by "abuse of abstains"?
___
On 31 March 2012 01:37, Theo10011 wrote:
> Thomas, I think 2015 is chosen because FDC is set to be evaluated at the
> end of 2014, following which, either it would act as the buffer on those
> issues or get back to the drawing board.
But evaluated against what criteria? And what data is going to
On 30 March 2012 23:17, Nathan wrote:
> Since payment processing is not contemplated as a vector for receiving
> funds, either in 2012 or beyond, it makes sense to permit processing only
> where it provides a significant advantage in raising funds and where the
> reliability and integrity of funds
I just sent this to internal-l, because I hadn't seen this thread.
This discussion should, of course, happen in public, so I'll repeat
myself here:
Thank you very much for this prompt announcement. I am glad to see the
WMF board is open to some fundraising by chapters, but I would
appreciate some
Phoebe,
As important as the ongoing discussions and debate over fundraising
and funds dissemination are, it concerns me that the WMF board is
using one of its few in-person meetings to discuss almost nothing but
fundraising and funds dissemination. Fundraising is a means to an end,
nothing more. S
On 21 March 2012 13:53, MZMcBride wrote:
> Sue Gardner wrote:
>> Everybody knows that reversing stagnating/declining participation
>> in Wikimedia's projects is our top priority.
>
> Thank you for sharing this.
>
> How much discussion has there been internally about this being the wrong
> approach
On 18 March 2012 21:18, Thomas Morton wrote:
> Some further comments, having read the related pages in more depth:
>
> - To what legal body will the "duties" be paid?
The idea is that the council will be a new legal body.
> - What is the purpose of duties exactly (there seems no obvious use for
On 14 March 2012 09:40, Joan Goma wrote:
> Unfortunatelly they still not realize that if published using a free
> licence compatible with Wikipedeia their income would be even 15 times
> larger.
Would it? Can you explain how that business model would work? There
are ways of making money by produc
I thought they had already stopped... I'm sure I remember an
announcement like this a year or two ago... does anyone know what it
is I'm remembering?
On 13 March 2012 22:49, Samuel Klein wrote:
> 2010's 32-volume set will be its last. (Now I want to get one, to
> replace my old set!) Future ver
On 11 March 2012 13:23, Nathan wrote:
> Wouldn't that be because the WMF, and the bulk of its spending, is based in
> the U.S.? It would seem logical, then, that most of its funding is needed
> there as well.
The bulk of its spending might be in the US, but a large minority
isn't. There are grant
There is really no point posting something like this without giving a
link to the images and discussions in question. The best posting here
is going to do is attract more attention to the question and get a
more vigorous discussion about it, but it can't do that if you don't
give a link.
I don't t
On 11 March 2012 11:49, David Gerard wrote:
> On 11 March 2012 11:19, Robert Alvarez wrote:
>
>> I see at least two current Arbcom members posting there quite recently and
>> even responding to requests of banned users to do things on their behalf on
>> Wikipedia (such as John Vandenberg working
On 5 March 2012 23:14, Lodewijk wrote:
> eating the cake would damage the moral rights of the logo author. Since he
> cannot give general permission to violate moral rights, eating the cake
> would be illegal.
If you take a slice out of the cake, that could be an issue since you
have created a ne
On 5 March 2012 20:22, geni wrote:
> On 5 March 2012 14:54, Richard Symonds
> wrote:
>> Silly question for you all:
>>
>> Is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikimedia_cake.jpg actually
>> copyrighted to the WMF as a WMF logo? The cake was made for Wikimedia UK, so
>> it's technically a de
On Mar 1, 2012 10:55 AM, "Ilario Valdelli" wrote:
>
> I would correct that not *all* chapters board members have access in
internal.
>
> The number of subscriptions were limited to three per chapter, as I know.
It was five per chapter, but that limit was removed a while back.
On 27 February 2012 20:18, Nathan wrote:
> It looks like it's just a promotion for Wikinews. It doesn't refer to or
> link anywhere else. It's not totally accurate, from what I understand of
> Wikinews, but I'm not sure how it's a threat?
Yes, it is clearly talking about our Wikinews. It's very o
On 19 February 2012 20:13, Fred Bauder wrote:
> How can we remove ten thousand comments and signatures using the users
> real name or well-known handle?
With a bot (or AWB) going through the What Links Here list for your
user page. People have done that before (although maybe not if they
had ten
On 19 February 2012 18:06, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
> wrote:
>> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, 19/02/2012 08:12:
>>
>>> Do the people at MeatballWiki know?
>>
>>
>> Why should they care?
>>
>
> This is where it all started,
>
> http://meatballwi
On 18 February 2012 14:48, CherianTinu Abraham wrote:
> Am I the one person feeling that the way this debate is going in a stupid
> direction that is totally irrelevant to the scope of this list ?
> I thought we were to discuss " Movement roles letter, Feb 2012 ". Just a
> gentle reminder ! :P
I'
On 18 February 2012 06:40, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
>> As Sue said, oe is an accepted way of saying ö if you can't easily get the
>> umlaut. Using o is just wrong (it would be pronounced completely
>> differently).
>
> I would beg to disagree. And remind people that in the computer world
> a k
On Feb 16, 2012 3:47 PM, "Thomas Morton"
wrote:
>
> I used to be really antsy over my name; to the point where, at school, I
> refused to be taught by one teach for a time because she kept calling me
> "Tom". Nowadays even I call myself that.
>
> Surely normal social convention applies; if someone
On Feb 16, 2012 3:22 PM, "Theo10011" wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Sue Gardner
wrote:
>
> > While we're on the topic, here's a public service announcement. It's
> > Bishakha Datta, not Bishaka Datta. The single most-frequently
> > misspelled name on our lists, AFAICT. Also, Erik Moe
I find "oi, you" works pretty well! ;)
On Feb 16, 2012 3:09 PM, "Sue Gardner" wrote:
> On 16 February 2012 12:32, David Gerard wrote:
> > On 16 February 2012 11:27, John Du Hart wrote:
> >
> >> Is this really something to get upset over? It's not as if he was
> calling
> >> you stupid, he simpl
Thank you for sharing this, Ting. I think this is an excellent set of
proposals with which to start a more structured discussion than we've
currently had on this topic.
I fail to see the attack on chapters that other people are talking
about. There is a distinct difference between Chapters and Par
On 9 February 2012 20:01, Emmanuel Engelhart wrote:
> Without any financial autonomy (that means the ability to raise and invest
> funds), a chapter can only beg for money. I do not share your vision of the
> chapter's future - neither for the "old" nor for the "young" ones.
Plenty of charities a
Ting,
Thank you for this. I'm confused, though. You say you want to have another
month of discussions, but I don't see any questions in your letter. What is
it you want to discuss?
Everyone that wants to has expressed their views. The numerous debates on
meta and elsewhere have reached their natu
On Feb 7, 2012 1:50 PM, "emijrp" wrote:
> Why are not that decissions taken under community consensus?
>
>
> > that some articles will not be featured on the main page
> > (although he prefers to keep that list short and it currently consists
> > only of the article "Jenna Jameson"):
> >
> >
> >
h
On 4 February 2012 13:57, Teofilo wrote:
> Strike against the collection of personal data through edit links
>
> I have started a strike to protest against the collection of personal
> information through edit links. I won't edit articles with
> articleFeedbackv5_ct_token= ids in their URLs, as ha
On 3 February 2012 14:13, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> Not that I disagree, but I think this invites us to think what actual role
> the chapters have. Indeed, my impression (which might be wrong since I have
> never performed any statistical analysis) is that the majority of the
> chapter board me
On Feb 2, 2012 8:22 AM, "Yaroslav M. Blanter" wrote:
> Would you please also comment on Russia which has a chapter consisting of
> I believe seven (or nine?) members, which does not accept new members and
> maintains an invitation-only mailing list (which is open not only to
> chapter members, but
On 2 February 2012 01:53, cyrano wrote:
>
> Excuse my ignorance, I haven't read the 50 mails yet, but how should the
> candidate be chosen? By community vote? By chapter's members ? (do you
> need registering ?). Will the WMF chose among them? Sorry if I missed
> the relevant docs, I'm new to this
On 2 February 2012 00:06, Cristian Consonni wrote:
> Anyway, from the results of the least chapter and community seats
> election my opinion is that the former are *wyyy* more
> en.wiki-centered than the first.
Really? How do you work that out? The current occupants of the chapter
seats are o
On 1 February 2012 23:44, Béria Lima wrote:
> Wikimedia Portugal held votes between their members to 2008 and 2010
> elections. I know WMFR, WMUK and WMAR do the same, and the list can go on...
Really? If I had known WMPT had breached confidentiality like that at
the time, I would have voided you
On 1 February 2012 22:38, John Vandenberg wrote:
> In the 2011 community board election, less than 3400 "users" voted.[1]
>
> In the 2012 chapter board election, 39 chapters consisting of more
> than 4000 identified people will be voting.[2]
Those 4000 people won't be voting, though. The chapter
On 1 February 2012 22:36, Risker wrote:
> In what way do chapter-selected seats improve the running of the WMF,
> Thomas? The Board has no say in who is being selected, and there is no
> basis in fact to say that those appointed by the chapters are any more
> effective or helpful in meeting the B
On 1 February 2012 22:17, Risker wrote:
> This is well and good, but it gives the impression that the current three
> elected members of the board are somehow considered not representative of
> the movement, and that the opaque selection and appointment process for the
> "chapter" seats is somehow
On 1 February 2012 11:59, Ilario Valdelli wrote:
> Really strange because the title of president and that of
> vice-president belong to the board.
The title "President" is sometimes used by the chair of the board, but
"Vice President" is usually an executive, non-board, position. Large
banks, for
On 1 February 2012 03:43, Béria Lima wrote:
>> * Will the names of the candidates be published for the entire Wikimedia
>> community to see? *
>
>
> The real names, obviously not. The usernames may be published - IF the
> candidate has no problem with that.
Last time, the chapters decided to kee
On 23 January 2012 18:09, Yao Ziyuan wrote:
> Since it's unlikely the foundation mailing list will agree to enable
> such a comment section on every Wikipedia article (although enabling
> it is quite easy: just choose a "comment" extension from
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension_Matrix/AllE
On 23 January 2012 14:53, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> On the surface this is a very frivolous post. Funnily enough I have
> a serious point I have been nursing along for a while. Any
> list moderators listening? There are times when the mailing
> list itself can be a source of infighting and in
On 22 January 2012 23:25, Yao Ziyuan wrote:
> This comment section idea can be an experiment. If it does more good
> than bad, we can keep it. Otherwise we can remove it. It's just as
> simple as enabling/disabling a MediaWiki extension.
How would you measure how much good and bad it did? There i
On 22 January 2012 23:08, Yao Ziyuan wrote:
>> They can do what academics have always done: read each other's
>> published works and go to conferences. If a subject is so obscure that
>> only a handle of researchers are involved in it, then it probably
>> isn't sufficiently notable to have a Wikip
On 22 January 2012 23:09, Mike Godwin wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>
>> I disagree - the null hypothesis is that the gain from lobbying isn't
>> worth the cost, not that the gain is zero. (Cost includes far more
>> than just m
On 22 January 2012 22:56, Lodewijk wrote:
> Hi Ziko,
>
> I appreciate your email, but it seems you forgot the link. Also, I
> personally strongly prefer it if you could include the actual reports in
> the email. It makes searching & finding much easier, as well as offline
> reading.
I agree - ple
On 22 January 2012 22:54, Yao Ziyuan wrote:
> So this can mean very much for scientific research. For example,
> imagine if there are two mathematicians in the world interested in the
> same, very deep math concept, but they don't know each other. How do
> we let them meet and collaborate with eac
On 22 January 2012 22:54, Mike Godwin wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>
>> There's a massive selection bias there! Of course the NGOs that do
>> lots of lobbying think lobbying is a great idea, otherwise they
>> wouldn't b
On 22 January 2012 22:31, Yao Ziyuan wrote:
> Besides this, another disadvantage of the current "Talk" tab is it
> uses the wiki way to talk, not the typical "comment section" we see
> under every YouTube video, Flickr image, Facebook status update, etc.
> The wiki way to talk may be favored by th
On 22 January 2012 22:26, Mike Godwin wrote:
> At this point, I'll understand if you hit me with a [citation needed]
> here, and I confess that what I'm telling probably is best classified
> as "original research." But don't take my word for it -- talk to other
> NGOs that work in the Washington p
There is already a discussion page attached to every article. It's for
discussing the article, though, rather than its topic.
While we are more than a conventional encyclopedia, we are still an
encyclopaedia and I don't think we should add job and product adverts to
our articles.
If people want t
People can subscribe and set their preferences to not receive any emails,
then they can email the list with no problems.
On Jan 22, 2012 6:44 PM, "keisuke koyanagi" wrote:
> Due to a large amount of spam, emails from non-members of this list
> are now automatically rejected. If you have a valuabl
On 22 January 2012 19:24, Gregory Varnum wrote:
> Basically a charity in the USA can spend up to 20% of its expenses on "direct
> lobbying" of related issues. Basically that means they can say "this is good
> and that's good" - but they can't actually endorse a party or individual.
> They can
Just seen the datestamp... why did that email just come through now?!
On 18 January 2012 13:42, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> I advise you delay it again - we need the mailing lists at the moment
> to coordinate the blackout.
>
> On 13 January 2012 13:54, Mark Bergsma wrote:
>> (res
I advise you delay it again - we need the mailing lists at the moment
to coordinate the blackout.
On 13 January 2012 13:54, Mark Bergsma wrote:
> (rescheduled after the cancelled maintenance of last Friday)
>
> Hi,
>
> Today I will be migrating the mailing lists from a very old server (lily) in
On 18 January 2012 11:48, Pronoein wrote:
> Le 18/01/2012 05:25, Ting Chen a écrit :
>> * Minimal cost and minimal disruption. All Wikimedia fundraising
>> activities must aim to raise the maximum possible amount of money from
>> donors while minimizing administrative costs as much as possible (in
On 12 January 2012 19:52, James Forrester wrote:
> To re-iterate my comment in November, I'm sure the whole Wikimedia
> community would love to see as many good bids as possible. There are
> already a few bids[2] on Meta, but if you or your local community are
> thinking about putting one in, you
On 4 January 2012 16:24, Oliver Keyes wrote:
> Check the IP history; Jan-Bart added them ;p
Now I'm on an actual computer and not trying to go through page
histories on my phone, I've taken a closer look. The bit about being
truthful was in the initial version. The other bit is the result of
edit
Check the page history - I don't think those bits were added by the
foundation.
On Jan 4, 2012 3:26 PM, "WereSpielChequers"
wrote:
> Re Tom's suggestion that we have an RFC on meta to discuss what we are and
> aren't prepared to do when fundraising; We already have a discussion at
> Meta
>
> http
On Jan 4, 2012 12:44 AM, "Theo10011" wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 9:45 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> > The WMF's conclusions about what banners work best are based on
> > extensive testing. What are yours based on?
>
>
> My guts.
>
> BTW How hav
On 3 January 2012 22:36, Theo10011 wrote:
> WMF started the email campaign last year for the first time I'm assuming,
> we used it this year as well. We had a period of several months before the
> fundraiser, that fundraising team conducted tests to replace Jimmy, the
> fundraiser started and look
On 1 January 2012 02:42, Risker wrote:
> I have, Thomas - which is exactly why I commented as I did. It is you who
> have raised the issue of spending in this thread, which was initially about
> how annoyed some people were by a certain fundraising banner. It seems to
> me that it is your straw
On 1 January 2012 02:38, Risker wrote:
> Perhaps, Thomas, you might want to reflect that your point of view is not
> the only one worthy of consideration. If you have concerns about the
> spending priorities of the WMF, I'd suggest you start a separate thread.
Please read http://en.wikipedia.or
On 1 January 2012 02:23, Risker wrote:
> Enough, Thomas. After a reasonable explanation of the actions taken today,
> you are now dredging up complaints about *last year's* fundraiser. The
> actions you're complaining about above were not repeated this year. This
> is called "learning from expe
On 1 January 2012 00:24, David Levy wrote:
> And when it was pointed out that a reference to Sue Gardner as
> "Wikipedia Executive Director" was inaccurate, Zack's initial response
> was "We're going to test Wikimedia against Wikipedia in the banner
> right now." (In other words, "We'll test the
Phoebe,
Thank you for your thoughtful response. Do you have any more details
on the contingency plan? Really, we need to know what spending would
get cut. To make these decisions you need to, as economists say,
"think at the margins". You need to compare marginal utility and
marginal cost.
That i
On 31 December 2011 19:28, Zack Exley wrote:
> Geni - You're being mean. On New Years Eve! Happy New Years!
Neither Geni's meanness or the date are relevant to the point he was
making. It certainly seems to be the case that the WMF doesn't
consider reducing expenditure, rather than more aggress
On 31 December 2011 17:31, Mono mium wrote:
> Seriously, get over it.
That's your attitude to the WMF misleading donors? Being honest when
raising funds in incredibly important.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe
On 31 December 2011 15:36, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> Thomas Dalton, 31/12/2011 15:58:
>> On 31 December 2011 14:42, Zack Exley wrote:
>>> Hi everyone -
>>>
>>> It's a trade off between doing things that might annoy some people in the
>>> bann
On 31 December 2011 14:42, Zack Exley wrote:
> Hi everyone -
>
> It's a trade off between doing things that might annoy some people in the
> banners vs. reducing the number of days we need to run banners at all. It's
> hard to find the right balance.
This banner isn't just annoying, it is untrue.
On 31 December 2011 00:52, 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. That'
On 27 December 2011 21:01, Yao Ziyuan wrote:
> Remember there was MSN Explorer (desktop software) that let you browse MSN
> and use MSN services such as Hotmail?
>
> Remember Google Earth (desktop software) that lets you browse the Earth and
> provides additional services based on the Earth?
>
> W
On Dec 24, 2011 12:02 PM, "Jussi-Ville Heiskanen"
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Oliver Keyes
wrote:
> > Not...really. I'm not interested in getting more information on your
> > opinion *on* the AFT - we've got six emails on that so far in this
thread -
> > but instead your opinion *
On Dec 24, 2011 8:55 AM, "Jussi-Ville Heiskanen"
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Liam Wyatt wrote:
> > On 24/12/2011, at 17:38, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
wrote:
> >
> >> I hope you will forgive me for being a bit terse and blunt. It is the
> > season
> >> for unpalatable truths, and not
On Dec 15, 2011 3:20 AM, "Kim Bruning" wrote:
> That, and remember that it is preferable to stage a protest BEFORE
passage of
> the bill. :-P
I'm not sure about that. If we strike before they pass the bill then we are
assuming they will pass it. Shouldn't we give them a chance to do the right
thi
I would say that "technically" Jimmy's statement that it was just an
informal poll to decide whether it is worth discussing further is binding.
Someone acting on that poll alone might get away with it, but it would
"technically" be out-of-process.
On Dec 15, 2011 12:53 AM, "Kim Bruning" wrote:
>
Can someone summarise for me the current status of this strike idea?
Jimmy held an informal strawpoll on his talk page to see if there was
any support for such action, which there was (to my regret - as bad as
this act sounds, I really don't think it's a good idea). Presumably
there will be a more
On 12 December 2011 20:05, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> On 12/12/2011 3:02 PM, Andre Engels wrote:
>> I think what he means is that under most European copyright regimes,
>> an author has far-reaching personality rights, which include the right
>> to have the work accredited to them whenever it is r
On 12 December 2011 18:18, Erik Moeller wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 7:55 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> * How many existing uploads, used on the wikis, were previously
>> wrongly rotated and were fixed by the feature?
>> * How many existing uploads, used on the wikis, were previously
>> correctl
On 12 December 2011 15:26, K. Peachey wrote:
> Nothing much went wrong in the planning of this feature,
Really?!
How is not having realised that this new feature would break 1000's of
images and preventing it not something going wrong in the planning?
(And yes, I mean "break" - they displayed co
On 9 December 2011 11:37, Bod Notbod wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 7:05 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> Not really. The Foundation has plenty of reserves.
>
> I believe the figure is that they have 6 months of operating costs in reserve.
>
> Whether you regard that as &
On 7 December 2011 18:08, Thomas Morton wrote:
> Well you know; at the start of the drive the foundation is short of cash.
Not really. The Foundation has plenty of reserves. The fundraising
drives aren't a desparate attempt to avoid going bankrupt. They are a
routine, planned way of generating re
On 7 December 2011 15:28, Woojin Kim wrote:
> Wikimedia Foundation fundraising is now making a misunderstanding about
> Wikipedia. Some mass media report that WMF and WP is now encountering
> financial difficulties so WMF urges public donation.[1][2][3] Well, I don't
> know that is what WMF intend
On 6 December 2011 11:45, Thomas Morton wrote:
>>
>> +1 to Fae
>>
>> This is outrageous. I would say COI notices + Disputed Neutrality notices.
>>
>
> Lets not get too dramatic.
>
> And anyway; if the purpose of doing such tagging is to punish them for
> their actions, well, then it's probably not
On 4 December 2011 17:49, Edward Buckner wrote:
> Interesting that Theology is not a 'vital article'. As for philosophy, none
> of the main philosophical schools (nominalism, realism, scepticism,
> empiricism, rationalism, existentialism etc) are mentioned. Why is this?
There are always going to
On 3 December 2011 22:27, Abbas Mahmood wrote:
>
> Hello,
> Last month I was in Qatar and introduced some people to Wikipedia. While they
> were creating their accounts, some of them had their initial suggested
> username taken, so they had to repeat it a couple of times until they finally
> fo
On 3 December 2011 21:57, Alasdair wrote:
> Hi Megan, it is interesting to see the new fundraising banners as they are
> being launched - but it would be good aswell to get more detailed information
> about how they are performing. Particularly as the fundraising statistics
> page is down at th
On 29 November 2011 22:19, emijrp wrote:
> 2011/11/29 Thomas Dalton
>
>> On 29 November 2011 21:51, emijrp wrote:
>> > Dear all;
>> >
>> > We have heard many times that most Wikipedians are male, but have you
>> heard
>> > about gender and
On 29 November 2011 21:51, emijrp wrote:
> Dear all;
>
> We have heard many times that most Wikipedians are male, but have you heard
> about gender and fundraising? Some data from a 2010 study[1] and a 2011
> German study[2] (question 20th of 22). People have said that Wikipedia is a
> sexist plac
On 28 November 2011 07:38, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
> 2011/11/28 Dirk Franke :
>> Seriously: Could we please create something like the Twitter Fail Whale?
>> Maybe a Sad Jimbo? Could help fundraising as well..
>
> Scattered pieces of the puzzle globe.
I don't tend to do "+1" emails, but I'll make a
It's too late for this year, since a lot of bids have already started, but
in future I would suggest formalising the currently unofficial rotation
policy.
If everyone knew in advance what continent it was going to be in, you won't
have bids that are disadvantaged from the outset because they're on
On 20 November 2011 06:22, Yao Ziyuan wrote:
> Step 1: Initially, the wiki's category system takes you to a broad
> problem type "My air conditioner doesn't work".
> Step 2: On that page, the wiki will say: "Check if the air conditioner
> is plugged in. Does this solve your problem? [Yes] [No]"
>
On 11 November 2011 18:39, 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 NO need
On 30 October 2011 17:44, Brandon Harris wrote:
> (One of my favorite things about talk pages is that, for most people,
> *there is no talk page button*. There's a "Discussion" tab. So when
> someone says "Hey, just leave me a message on my talk page and I'll help
> you out!" that means.
1 - 100 of 1059 matches
Mail list logo
