Give me permission.
I am volunteering to head up the abuse filter team.
Thomas don't mistake my point for some other point.
I am not suggesting that admins AS EDITORS should veer away from content
creation, but rather that admins using their clubs should not be given more
clubs with which to cl
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2011 9:44 am
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by
default today
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Wjhonson wrote:
Admins should never be given powers over content. Not now, not then, not
ver.
Admins have no business being involved in
Let me rephrase in a slightly less trollish manner.
Admins should never be given powers over content. Not now, not then, not ever.
Admins have no business being involved in content of any type ever :)
In every possible universe.
Will
-Original Message-
From: Wjhonson
To
Admins are once again given even more extensive content powers ?
And that's a good thing right Captain Kirk?
It's a good thing right?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo
; around and shout "illegal illegal",
because they are trying to make some sheded point more concrete.
It's not concrete in the U.S., you have to show what specific sort of actual
injury occurred.
-Original Message-
From: Robin McCain
To: Wjhonson
Cc: foundation-l
Sent:
For plagiarism to "cause injury" you have to specify the type of injury in your
suit.
And then the case is not about laws about plagiarism per se, of which there are
none, but laws about the type of injury you are claiming.
For example unfair trade as in "I made all these designs and posted the
Litigation under the rules of plagiarism
Can you cite that law for me?
-Original Message-
From: Robin McCain
To: foundation-l
Sent: Tue, Aug 16, 2011 7:43 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] copyright issues
On 8/16/2011 2:50 PM, Wjhonson wrote:
> The year of publicat
The year of publication applies to published material. The year you make it
public, to the public, for public consumption.
Unpublished material, if it enjoys copyright protection at all, would be based
on the year of creation. That however might be a red herring if it, in fact,
does not enj
I don't believe your claim that you can take something which is PD, make an
exact image of it, slap it up in a new work of your own (enjoying copyright
protection automatically) and then claim copyright over that PD image in your
work.
Copyright applies to the presentation of your work, showin
Feedback: Approval based systems only work on a tiny subset of articles as they
disenfranchise the vast majority of contributors who don't have a multi-tiered
content approach at all.
-Original Message-
From: Tom Morris
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Mon, Aug 15, 2011
Nope, never said that.
I disagree with the idea that this is "usually done" however I have no
objections to it's being done.
Never did.
My point is, and was that the source should be quoted in its original language.
-Original Message-
From: David Gerard
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mai
at if someone
isagrees with my translation, it can be fixed (I have fixed a few
ranslations on en.wp myself).
011/7/29 Wjhonson
>
No that's not what it would mean.
It would mean that if a Spanish language source is used on an English
language page, we should quote that source in Spanish, and not qu
tions.
-Original Message-
From: David Gerard
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Fri, Jul 29, 2011 10:37 am
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
On 29 July 2011 17:39, Wjhonson wrote:
> I would agree with Ray that we should quote Latin texts
d therefore be considered OR which is
not allowed at Wikipedia.
2011/7/27 Ray Saintonge On 07/27/11 12:42 PM, Wjhonson wrote:
>> David how is an exact quote a summary or interpretation?
>> An exact quote, backed up by the actual audio track is... exact.
>> You are not summarizing
unpublished translation used as the
actual source*.
That's no good.
-Original Message-
From: Ray Saintonge
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 4:36 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
On 07/27/11 12:42 PM, Wjh
Linking the full audio allows the user to dig into the material without
trusting your selection.
Then other editors can select other pieces, or remove your selection.
I personally don't equate "Selection" with "Interpretation".
To me interpretation is modifying the original source using other wo
Mailing List
Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 12:39 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Wjhonson wrote:
For actual quotations from sources, you should quote the source exactly.
Then you will never be using original research.
You are
bhala
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 12:09 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
Hallo, (responses inline)
On Thursday 28 July 2011 12:27 AM, Wjhonson wrote:
Achal I was responding to Thomas not to you.
However yes, if you
l to do so.
-Original Message-
From: Achal Prabhala
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 11:53 am
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
Hallo, (responses inline)
On Wednesday 27 July 2011 11:57 PM, Wjhonson wrote:
For actual quota
For actual quotations from sources, you should quote the source exactly.
Then you will never be using original research.
You are going the next step and summarizing and interpreting. Don't do that.
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Morton
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent:
You should not create your own videos and then publish them on Wikipedia.
You should create videos or audio tracks of oral interviews, and then publish
them.
Then allow others to add that material to Wikipedia where appropriate.
That's my two cents.
-Original Message-
From: Sarah
All sources can be cited without falling afoul of "original research"
Original research only covers claims without sources at all, or claims made
from yourself as the source.
Any source, including citing to a video interviews, is never original research.
I don't really get by the way, why this i
Well maybe you can point out what exactly he did to get himself banned from
this list?
When it occurred I also had the same reaction that I still have. It didn't
make sense to me.
It still doesn't. His presence here was not disruptive to me.
-Original Message-
From: Fred B
Although he reneged on his offer to buy
http://knol.google.com/k/bose-201-series-ii-direct-reflecting-bookshelf-speakers#
The Speakers Which Almost Destroyed Knol
I as well as others support welcoming Kohs back to this list by unbanning him.
I agree with the sentiment that the ban was over
Pick a spot that you think is appropriate.
But you are missing the point.
The point in not to continue forward *under the current restrictions and
requirements*, that is a dead horse.
The glamour is off the rose.
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Morton
To: Wikimedia Foundation M
Links by themselves are not copyrightable, and are not unfree.
So your argument, which you keep repeating is not germane to this point.
The point is, the copyright police have taken a fear (of something which has
never occurred in actual law), and made it a point of battle.
We are arbiters of in
If you don't see the significant value in including video content, then I would
suggest that you don't see the significant value in including photographic
content either. I would suggest that's an outdated value system.
A picture is worth a thousand words, an audio is worth ten thousand, a vid
Again you are referring to the hosting or presentation of non-free content and
I am not.
I am not referring to the DISPLAY of videos within Wikipedia.
Only the LINKING of videos from Wikipedia.
99.% of Youtube videos have no licensing information at all so there is no
way to tell if they ar
Something better than Wikipedia ?
I can think of something right off the bat.
Kill the copyright police who do nothing useful and harm the project immensely.
Go back to the more transparent rationale that copyright infringement rests
solely upon the person who uploaded the copyrighted item, not
One type of image being "Image of Muhammad" ?
-Original Message-
From: Philippe Beaudette
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Wed, Jun 29, 2011 1:35 pm
Subject: [Foundation-l] Call for referendum
*Please distribute widely*
Call for referendum*: The Wikimedia Foundat
Because Commons is to be used by the world, not just sister projects.
If the New York Times Online links a picture in from Commons (and credits it
properly) are we going to make their later-historical story useless by deleting
the picture ?
-Original Message-
From: Fred Baud
In a message dated 5/25/2011 11:01:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
midom.li...@gmail.com writes:
> You forgot to tell if all of my responses or just some, and if there's
> really no point at all, or there might be some.
> Anyway, thanks for this helpful contribution!
>
Refactoring my comments :
In a message dated 5/25/2011 3:33:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
midom.li...@gmail.com writes:
> There're lots of great ideas around the world, feeding the hungry and
> curing the cancer among them.
>
Domas your responses are not helpful at all. You are simply stirring the
pot to no point.
In a message dated 5/22/2011 10:39:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
andreeng...@gmail.com writes:
> In Chinese writing a character shows a word, irrespective of how the
> word is pronounced. So if we would use a Chinese style writing system,
> you could write [your] [dog] [is] [dead], and a Frenchma
In a message dated 5/22/2011 9:53:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
li...@caseybrown.org writes:
> Indeed, it doesn't mean that necessarily. However, your analogy
> doesn't apply in this situation and Nikola was right. Many of the
> Chinese languages share a common writing system and only differ in
In a message dated 5/22/2011 9:31:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
fredb...@fairpoint.net writes:
> Legally, Wikipedia is private property belonging to a nonprofit
> corporation. If the United States government, or some other government,
> owned it and regulated it in such a way as to guarantee publ
In a message dated 5/22/2011 4:38:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
smole...@eunet.rs writes:
> Aren't these languages written with Chinese characters and thus their
> speakers can read and write the Chinese Wikipedia?
>
All the Latin languages: Italian, French, Spanish, English, and so on are
wri
In a message dated 5/22/2011 8:23:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
morton.tho...@googlemail.com writes:
> But the idea that "I have a right to edit Wikipedia" or "You
> have no right to do that" is incorrect, because WP is a private website.
>
>
You make the word "private" have no meaning.
What w
In a message dated 5/22/2011 1:35:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
> There are many core problems that affect this issue. One of which is
> 'Verifiability not truth' which seems a laudable concept when applied to
> hearsay, and to allow articles on the paranorma
It is not up to us to decide that something is "private". If it's been
published, then it is public.
If it's been published in a reliable source, than it's useable in our project.
We routinely suppress disclosure of private information. When do the
details of an affair become public? And ho
{{fact}}
I dispute that private communications are public.
Err you are aware that the courts regard sending the information on a
postcard counts as publishing?
-Original Message-
From: geni
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Fri, May 20, 2011 3:34 pm
Subject: R
"Publish" means to make public. To make available to the public.
Telling your buddies in the locker room is not "publishing".
No it isn't. Telling one mate down the pub might but multiple people
is kinda dicey. I assume more than one person has access to the
User:Oversight feed.
Exactly wha
As you say any photograph of a person obviously living, and yet who died
before 1941 is in the Public Domain in India.? This is true regardless of any
other point raised about the source of the photograph as you again say.
The first step is to get agreement on those points for the Indian portio
In a message dated 4/26/2011 4:42:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
waihor...@yahoo.com.hk writes:
> Baidu do not translate anything copy from English Wikipedia or Japanese
> Wikipedia, but just keep the full content without attribution and changing
>
> anything. There are totally about 50 article
In a message dated 4/26/2011 12:08:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
smole...@eunet.rs writes:
> Translation is not "sweat of the brow". Copyright law of Germany, for
> example, explicitly states that translations are copyrighted:
> http://bundesrecht.juris.de/urhg/__3.html . Copyright law of Serbi
It's my understanding that "sweat of the brown" does not create a copyright
at all.
That was the entire argument behind the claim that phonebooks had no
copyright protection.
Similarly pure indexes have no copyright protection since they exhibit no
creativity at all.
Bad news for indexers.
I always thought that translations were considered "wholely derivative",
that is that a new copyright is *not* created, by translating.
In a message dated 4/25/2011 1:57:34 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
sainto...@telus.net writes:
On 04/25/11 9:33 AM, Joan Goma wrote:
> My interest in
In a message dated 4/25/2011 9:34:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
jrg...@gmail.com writes:
> My interest in a legal opinion is not to know if what they do is legal or
> not.
>
> My interest is to know for example what can they do if I copy the content
> they previously have translated from an Engl
Sarah I understand your point, but the required qualification just above the
non-English states : "Exceptional English writing is critical for this role,
including the ability to write time-sensitive, efficient, compelling, and
clearly understandable communications products for a wide range of
In a message dated 4/5/2011 6:08:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
bnewst...@wikimedia.org writes:
> Another quick note on the Movement Communications Manager posting that we
> are hoping to fill at WMF. We have a number of applicants, but very, very
> few are from the Wikimedia community. We would
While I am all about openness and journalism, I had a recent incident which
made me re-think something on these lines.
I had a few years back, started creating an open visible search-indexed index
to ArbCom proceedings.
Some editors however edit using their real names, not something I would
nece
In a message dated 3/1/2011 12:08:25 PM Pacific Standard Time,
wikipe...@frontier.com writes:
> If
> people actually understood how collaboration on a wiki works, it would
> be much easier for them to accept the projects for what they are, rather
> than creating drama about things they aren't
-Original Message-
From: Michael Snow
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tue, Mar 1, 2011 3:49 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia "Storyteller" job opening
On 3/1/2011 2:41 PM, Pronoein wrote:
> Thank you for your answer Michael. However:
> «Note that this survey was a
In a message dated 2/27/2011 12:26:22 PM Pacific Standard Time,
dger...@gmail.com writes:
> The scope was supposedly textbooks - how-to books.
>
The problem I see with free books is just that you really need something
that says... this is WHY you, the contributor would put in this amount of
The problem with the approach that we can let the "welcoming" and
"friendliness" be an emergent behaviour, is that we're already many years into
this
and it's simply... not.
However the admin bit is an officially sanctioned method of enforcing
rules.
This is a lop-sided approach. To counter-
In a message dated 2/26/2011 6:12:10 AM Pacific Standard Time,
dger...@gmail.com writes:
> So, for WIkibooks: what's the tuna? What's the compelling attraction
> that will keep people lured in?
>
I will go one step further.
What is Wikibooks at all?
The scope, content, purpose were really poor
In a message dated 2/25/2011 9:56:26 AM Pacific Standard Time,
smole...@eunet.rs writes:
> To my knowledge, no one has ever tried it, but why not? In reality, some
> people don't do what they know to do, but choose to become teachers. Maybe
>
> there are people who know how to edit Wikipedia
In a message dated 2/25/2011 3:12:17 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jay...@gmail.com writes:
> At the moment, we need admins who press buttons more than we need to
> welcome new users. It is unfortunate, but that is how it is.
> We need to find ways of reducing the amount of work needed, or
> radica
In a message dated 2/23/2011 11:16:00 AM Pacific Standard Time,
sgard...@wikimedia.org writes:
> To belabour the videogame analogy a little further: Zack Exley and I
> were talking about new article patrol as being a bit like a
> first-person shooter, and every now and then a nun or a tourist
>
In a message dated 2/22/2011 10:16:25 PM Pacific Standard Time,
sjkl...@hcs.harvard.edu writes:
> There's a shortage of core developers. There are quite a lot of PHP
> developers who have built some sort of MediaWiki extension, or
> otherwise hacked on it to make their own fork, however. We ha
Ral I know you'd like to give the benefit of good faith to all admins.
However, if we actually have admins who are deleting articles so quickly
that they fat-finger the *reasons* then we have a serious problem.
No thinkee is quite close to admin abuse.
As a community we should be bending over
In a message dated 2/19/2011 4:18:52 PM Pacific Standard Time,
thewub.w...@googlemail.com writes:
> Deletion log for Makmende:
> * 00:37, 24 March 2010 Flyguy649 (talk | contribs) deleted “Makmende”
> ? (CSD G3: Pure Vandalism)
> * 22:53, 23 March 2010 Malik Shabazz (talk | contribs) deleted
> “
Something must be wrong with this stat counter.
Back in 2009, Main Page was getting two million views per month, more or
less
http://knol.google.com/k/will-johnson/most-popular-wikipedia-pages/4hmquk6fx
4gu/191#view
This counter show an amazing drop off if its now only getting about 12,000
vie
You are mistaking the problem.
It's not that a piece of knowledge is not googleable.
It's that a piece of knowledge is not published whatsoever.
Never published. Anywhere. At any time. Ever.
That's quite a different animal.
-Original Message-
From: CherianTinu Abraham
T
In a message dated 1/20/2011 11:37:00 AM Pacific Standard Time,
dger...@gmail.com writes:
> There's a lot of knowledge in fields which
> everyone assumes, and which are transmitted academically, but not in a
> format that teenage en:wp admins can grasp in five seconds.
>
Knowledge transmitte
One fix that developers could do, and which would address 93.6% of the
problem is to move the template editing out-of-normal-editing-space.
Disentangle the template code, from the editable text.
W
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikime
Most of the templates in our project, imho are just more clutter.
The number of people who know how to use any particular template, can
probably be counted with a box of marbles. However when others see the
templates, they just shy away, they don't bother to try to learn them.
If we want to ma
In a message dated 12/16/2010 2:14:01 AM Pacific Standard Time,
z...@mzmcbride.com writes:
> Erik Zachte wrote:
> > On 12/16/2010 0:12, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> >> Why are these tables so out of date?
> >>
> >> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesArticlesNewPerDay.htm
> >
> > Technical proble
In a message dated 12/15/2010 9:57:31 PM Pacific Standard Time,
ezac...@wikimedia.org writes:
> Technical problems:
> First the dump server needed fixing , now the wikistats server is
> broken: power unit is no longer.
> Replacement is on order.
>
> Erik Zachte
>
Is there any other way to ge
Why are these tables so out of date?
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesArticlesNewPerDay.htm
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
In a message dated 12/14/2010 2:55:59 PM Pacific Standard Time,
v...@fct.unl.pt writes:
> The Wikimedia projects power structure is definitely a serious
> candidate for such analysis.
>
What is this?
Link ?
Will
___
foundation-l mailing list
foun
In a message dated 12/14/2010 5:14:43 PM Pacific Standard Time,
tstarl...@wikimedia.org writes:
> I've long suspected that the early FAQs and history pages gave Larry
> Sanger an exaggerated role because he wrote them himself. It will be
> interesting to see if any such conclusion can be drawn f
Is the current CC license retroactive to all of the old versions from the
beginning to now?
W
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
In a message dated 12/14/2010 8:21:09 AM Pacific Standard Time,
steven.wall...@gmail.com writes:
> This is fantastic, and the timing could not be better.
>
> If anyone finds anything noteworthy, please add it to the timeline of
> Wikipedia that we're building at the 10th anniversary wiki,[1] as
In a message dated 12/10/2010 2:58:08 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes:
> my idea was that you will want to search pages that are referenced by
> wikipedia already, in my work on kosovo, it would be very helpful
> because there are lots of bad results on google, a
In a message dated 12/10/2010 1:10:26 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes:
> My point is we should index them ourselves. We should have the pages
> used as references first listed in an easy to use manner and if
> possible we should cache them. If they are not cacheab
In a message dated 12/10/2010 1:31:20 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes:
> If we prefer pages that can be cached and translated, and mark the
> others that cannot, then by natural selection we will in long term
> replaces the pages that are not allowed to be cached
In a message dated 12/10/2010 2:12:44 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes:
> Well, lets backtrack.
> The original question was, how can we exclude wikipedia clones from the
> search.
> my idea was to create a search engine that includes only refs from
> wikipedia in
In a message dated 12/10/2010 12:08:37 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jayen...@yahoo.com writes:
> Suggest you read the draft policy, rather than the votes.
>
You're suggesting that all the no votes are simply trolls then?
That's a lot of no votes to just cast them off as people who didn't read
th
In a message dated 12/10/2010 6:52:05 AM Pacific Standard Time,
zvand...@googlemail.com writes:
> It is difficult to say how many people refuse to donate to Wikimedia
> because they want to donate to Wikipedia. People should know that you
> can't donate to a website itself but only to the instit
In a message dated 12/10/2010 12:45:46 AM Pacific Standard Time,
jayen...@yahoo.com writes:
> Apart from summarising COM:PORN*, all that the draft sexual content
> policy
> was meant to do, actually, was to address two cases:
>
> * Material that is illegal to host for the Foundation under Flo
In a message dated 12/9/2010 11:06:30 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes:
> Google does it, archive.org (wayback machine) does it, we can copy
> them for caching and searching i assume. we are not changing the
> license, but just preventing the information from disap
In a message dated 12/9/2010 2:51:39 AM Pacific Standard Time,
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes:
> yes it would be great. As i said, it could just include all pages
> listed as REF pages and that would allow people to review the results
> and find pages that should not belong.
>
> We also
What is the perceived limitation(s) on mirroring this email list ?
That is, making copies of it, on other sites.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
In a message dated 12/7/2010 9:38:23 AM Pacific Standard Time,
przyk...@o2.pl writes:
> "The more mentions you have in the press, and the more visibility you
> have in social media and blogs, the more likely you are to seem legitimate
> and
> “notable” -- a precondition for inclusion."
>
> l
Is this like the difference between "colour" in Great Britain and "color"
in the U.S. ?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
In a message dated 12/4/2010 6:50:38 AM Pacific Standard Time,
geni...@gmail.com writes:
> Actually we have at least 3.
>
> Editor, admin bureaucrat, steward, dev.
>
> everyone, arbcom
>
> Everyone, foundation, foundation board.
>
Not three Geni, one.
Has anyone become Arbcom without being
In a message dated 11/30/2010 11:47:48 PM Pacific Standard Time,
aph...@gmail.com writes:
> After I mentioned Wikimedia troll, Will thought it meant him and sent
> me some mails. I told him it was an in-joke (Bostonian Maniacs may
> remember that) but not further. Besides annotation to a joke is
In a message dated 11/30/2010 4:46:02 PM Pacific Standard Time,
z...@mzmcbride.com writes:
> The phrase you're looking for is, "An ounce of prevention is a pound of
> cure." Either be an active part of this mailing list and moderate as
> appropriate or give up the damn post already. The current
In a message dated 11/30/2010 11:58:07 AM Pacific Standard Time,
birgitte...@yahoo.com writes:
> Your recent postings have definitely been foolish. You seem to be going
> out of
> the way to misinterpret everyone's words in the worst possible light. Why
> should
> you assume the phrase dono
In a message dated 11/30/2010 11:11:10 AM Pacific Standard Time,
birgitte...@yahoo.com writes:
> And like everyone who contributes to this list, they also send other
> messages to the list that are useful or contribute a perspective that
> would
> otherwise be absent from the list. They shoul
In a message dated 11/29/2010 10:00:38 PM Pacific Standard Time,
pbeaude...@wikimedia.org writes:
> To suggest that the WMF (which means what, exactly, in this context?
> Staff? Mailing list participants?) does not feel accountable to anyone but
> donors is to make a careless generalization
In a message dated 11/29/2010 9:34:40 PM Pacific Standard Time,
russnel...@gmail.com writes:
> Huh?? Editors are donors as well, as are people who contribute to mailing
> lists, as are you.
>
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 12:13 AM, wrote:
>
> > In a message dated 11/29/2010 8:48:40 PM Pacific Sta
In a message dated 11/29/2010 8:48:40 PM Pacific Standard Time,
russnel...@gmail.com writes:
> Those with the passwords are accountable to the foundation, which is
> accountable to the donors. The foundation needs to make sure that the
> money
> donated to it is spent wisely, and not frittered
In a message dated 11/29/2010 11:33:05 AM Pacific Standard Time,
midom.li...@gmail.com writes:
> Hi!
>
> > Go on record, then I'll cite you.
> > An email list is not a citable source, per our policy.
>
> Why would I care about your policy? Which policy is 'our' policy? Why does
> it apply to
If that's the case, I would suggest, if it does not do so already, that the
server also grab details about "How did you get here?" such as keywords
used, or page-come-from and so on.
Also I would want it to grab geographic location (where known), which would
help us to know, for example, if we'
In a message dated 11/29/2010 2:14:38 AM Pacific Standard Time,
midom.li...@gmail.com writes:
> This isn't Wikipedia, this is Wikimedia. You can cite me, if you want.
>
Go on record, then I'll cite you.
An email list is not a citable source, per our policy.
However a page on the server is cita
In a message dated 11/28/2010 9:06:36 PM Pacific Standard Time,
russnel...@gmail.com writes:
> The policy is very explicit. It says that logs may be kept. If you know
> anything about operational requirements, you will understand that that
> means
> that logs are not routinely kept, but may be
In a message dated 11/28/2010 8:09:28 PM Pacific Standard Time,
nawr...@gmail.com writes:
> There's a joke in here somewhere, maybe about applying en.wp talkpage
> style argumentation to "real life", but maybe we can just call this a
> dead issue and move on rather than argue in circles forever
Again Aude, this is your statement only. This is not an official
statement of what the policy is or isn't, nor what is or isn't done under any
policy which may or may not exist. You may be satisfied that you are right,
but
I would rather have a citable source. Humans are not citable sour
1 - 100 of 263 matches
Mail list logo
