> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Steven Walling
> wrote:
>> I don't think that was constructive criticism. Personally I think that
>> Foundation staff should be applauded for trying to be more transparent
>> about
>> hiring, even if you disagree with what they might be experimenting with.
>>
>> S
K. Peachey wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 7:33 AM, Daniel Phelps
> [...]
>> I invite you all to see these data streams -
>> http://identi.ca/wikimediaatwork/all or
>> http://twitter.com/wikimediaatwork. Eventually we also hope to find
>> more ways to use this feed for recruiting and reaching out
On 08/07/2010 01:30 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote:
> So your peer reviewed experience iiis. the co-authoring of a single paper
> published in a supplement? Less than say, a particularly good management
> undergrad. Forgive me; a director of marketing at that level does exactly
> how much direct marketin
On 07/04/2010 11:06 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> So I hereby admit to being wrong both
> in what I asked and how I asked it, and beg your forgiveness. And I
> bet you don't see people do that much on the Internet ;-)
>
No, which makes it especially worth appreciating, on three levels.
First, i
On 07/03/2010 06:11 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> That's phrased in terms of dominance. It's in effect asking who's the
>> bigger monkey. I think that's a conversation worth avoiding where possible.
>>
>
> The dominance element was brought in, as you well know, by Trevor
> Parscal's preremptory
On 07/03/2010 04:47 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> Well. not really. He's asking the same question Greg Maxwell and I
> asked last month about the language list defaulting to open rather
> than closed: If a wiki voted for it, would that override the usability
> team's dictates? That was a straight "yes
On 06/27/2010 12:45 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 27 June 2010 20:42, William Pietri wrote:
>
>> > Given that this is recurring drama-creating behavior, perhaps we can
>> > move on to the "ignore" stage of WP:RBI.
>>
> On enwiki, we did that
On 06/27/2010 12:10 PM, quiddity wrote:
>> According to Ottava, he is in charge of Wikiversity - sort of its
>> equivalent of Jimmy. He says the position was created through all of
>> his hard work and dedication.
>>
> Huh? How so?
> http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=Ottav
Hi, Jeffery. You are obviously upset about this, and it's coming across
strongly enough in your writing that it undermines the effectiveness of
the point you are trying to make. I see it's pretty hot in DC today.
Perhaps now would be a good time for a cold drink and a break? We'll all
still be
On 06/16/2010 05:44 AM, Mike.lifeguard wrote:
> On 37-01--10 03:59 PM, William Pietri wrote:
>
>> >
>> > http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/wikipedia_to_loosen_controls_tonight.php
>>
> Wow, they used the right title! :D
>
> So did the BBC
From: William Pietri
To: announc...@lists.wikimedia.org
As scheduled, Pending Changes went live on the English Wikipedia just
after 4 pm Pacific (23:00 UTC) this afternoon!
The details of the trial are still being worked out by the English
Wikipedia community, but it looks like they (or "y
I thought these lists were subscribed to the announcements list, but
apparently not. Apologies if a duplicate turns up later.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foun
Just wanted to give everybody a quick update on Pending Changes.
Basically, it looks like we're in good shape for going live on the
English Wikipedia shortly.
We rolled the new code yesterday afternoon Pacific time. We've had a few
hiccups, but everything seems well in hand. The biggest issue
On 06/14/2010 04:44 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> For your
> information, and for the somanyth time, top posting comes easy when you use
> a modern tool like GMAIL. It automatically hides whatever came before. This
> whole notion has no relevance to me as a consequence. I get hundreds of
> mails an
On 06/12/2010 08:10 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> [...] for instance, so far the
> only recognition I got for uploading the complete set of images of Beijing
> Subway (I have all 147 stations and uploaded so far about 50, more than the
> number of the station images existed on Commons a month ag
As requested, here's the weekly Pending Changes update.
We proceed boldly toward launch. The main update is that we have pushed
the English Wikipedia launch back one day to Tuesday, June 15. That will
let us avoid stepping on the WP Academy Israel event, and it means Jimmy
Wales will be availab
As requested, here's the weekly Pending Changes update.
The big news is that we have picked a date for releasing the new version
of Flagged Revisions and launching the trial of Pending Changes on the
English Wikipedia: June 14.
I'd like to stress that this will be a trial. The goal is to learn,
As requested, here's the weekly Flagged Protection update.
The loose-end tidying and rollout prep proceeds apace. This week's
rollout prep includes preparing for an emergency rollback, something
that we don't expect will be necessary but for which we nonetheless need
to be ready.
We've been wo
On 05/26/2010 07:05 PM, Aphaia wrote:
> Personally I support "Hyperion Frobnosticating Endoswitch" so your
> direction saddened me a bit, anyway
>
I think the only solution is to make that a user-selectable preference.
William
___
foundation-l mai
On 05/24/2010 07:34 AM, David Levy wrote:
> I disagree. I think that it should be as clear as possible that this
> process exists to counter inappropriate edits, not as an Orwellian
> measure intended to be used indiscriminately throughout the
> encyclopedia (because we want to "double check" good
On 05/24/2010 08:31 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> We could use a name which expresses_nothing_
> about what is going on, thus making it clear that you can't figure it
> out simply from the name.
>
That did cross my mind, and it was tempting. But practically, many busy
journalists, causal rea
On 05/24/2010 08:49 AM, Nathan wrote:
> Edit check, review gap, review delay, check delay, wait approval,
> content pause, review pause, second check, second approval, etc. There
> are lots of possible names for this feature. Sometimes I worry that
> the Foundation staff work for a company built up
On 05/24/2010 07:34 AM, David Levy wrote:
> Rob has explicitly asked us to comment on these names and set up a
> forum in which to do so (and propose alternatives). You've vigorously
> defended the name drawing the most opposition and declined to comment
> on the name drawing the most support, and
On 05/23/2010 07:51 PM, David Levy wrote:
> William Pietri wrote:
>
>
>> I think insiders will adjust to any name we choose, as some of our
>> existing names attest. So I think as long as the name isn't hideous or
>> actively misleading, then my main cri
On 05/23/2010 07:56 PM, Alex wrote:
>> I think that fits in nicely with James Alexander's view: we can and
>> should assume that most editors have already checked their work. Not
>> against the minutiae of our rules, but against their own intent, and
>> their understanding of what constitutes an im
On 05/24/2010 01:41 AM, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> In German Wikipedia, our word "gesichtet" is a little bit strange.
> "Sichten" is like spotting a rare animal in the wilderness.
>
That's funny. Internally, especially in technical discussions, "sighted"
gets used a fair bit. All this time I'd be
On 05/23/2010 06:37 PM, David Levy wrote:
> And again, the main problem is ambiguity. "Double Check" can easily
> be interpreted to mean that two separate post-submission checks are
> occurring. It also is a chess term (and could be mistaken for a a
> reference to that concept).
>
I think in
On 05/23/2010 02:13 PM, David Levy wrote:
> James Alexander wrote:
>
>> That is basically exactly how I see it, most times you "double check"
>> something you are only the 2nd person because the first check is done by the
>> original author. We assume good faith, we assume that they are putting
On 05/22/2010 09:25 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
> If I were a betting man, I'd say the next
> "deadline" will be "before Wikimania!" When that passes, everyone can get
> distracted spending six months focusing on the annual fundraiser and we'll
> see you in 2011. Think I'm wrong? Prove it.
>
Would
On 05/21/2010 07:03 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Rob Lanphier wrote:
>
>> implementation, and there's no "flagging" in the proposed configuration.
>> Additionally, "protection" in our world implies "no editing" whereas this
>>
> [snip]
>
>>- Must
On 05/21/2010 05:54 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> Stop, take a deep breath, and look at the big picture: nobody cares.
>
> Most users don't edit. Most users who do edit won't care what the feature is
> called. Nobody cares. And I think you're a pretty smart guy who already
> realizes this, so I'm curious
On 05/21/2010 08:51 AM, Chad wrote:
> There are two things wrong here.
>
> The first is attempting to reuse messages for different purposes. If
> the workflow and ideas behind the UI are different, then there need
> to be different messages, not changing of ones that work just fine
> and make plent
On 05/21/2010 07:16 AM, Chad wrote:
> All aspects of the interface are indeed configurable, like you said.
> And this is useful when projects want to tweak the wording or add
> additional information. They should not be used to illustrate different
> concepts across the different languages though.
As requested, here's the weekly Flagged Protection update.
The quick summary is that we are continuing with pre-rollout activities,
including UI polish, text and naming cleanup, and rollout planning.
One important milestone passed is that Tim Starling has looked over the
code and done some prof
On 05/15/2010 02:27 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> But we do have serious competition, and it is scary and thrilling - it
> also happens to be published entirely in Chinese (hudong, baike). But
> even if you don't know how to read Chinese, you can see how they
> display portals and amin pages; images,
On 05/15/2010 06:22 AM, Klaus Graf wrote:
> So there we are: OA's biggest canard and nemesis, being daily,
> cumulatively, canonized and amplified by Wikipedia, riding the recursive
> tide of its own notability and notoriety (as an infectious virus,
> cheerfully propagated by the denizens of Wikipe
As requested, here's the weekly Flagged Protection update.
As I mentioned last week, we are starting pre-rollout activities while
we finish up the last bits of development. Now that the successful
launch of the new enwiki UI is out of the way, we will be getting
together with Rob H. and the re
On 05/13/2010 09:36 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> During the
> Golden Age of Islam it was much more eclectic and
> permissively pluralistic than the Christian or Jewish
> cultures of the time [...]
Which reminds me of another interesting historical tidbit.
I was rummaging for story about
On 05/09/2010 05:36 AM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
>> At least by local community standards, the event depicted was indeed not
>> pornographic. San Francisco's long history as a home to both artists and
>> people with different takes on sex and gender means that a lot of local
>> art works with sex an
On 05/08/2010 10:23 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Editors are saying, with a straight face, that there is "no implied sexual
> activity" in BDSM images like
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Angel_BDSM.png and that images like
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BDSM_Preparation.png are
On 05/06/2010 11:03 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 6 May 2010 19:00, Milos Rancic wrote:
>
>> The point is that this is an engine for virtual reality, while it is
>> MMORPG, too. And unlike Second Life, the platform is free software
>> which anyone would be able to install. Integrating Wikimedi
As requested, here's the weekly Flagged Protection update.
The main news is that the team had a meeting this week with Danese and
Erik to discuss rollout plans. Everybody concurs that we're close enough
to launch to start a few release-related activities:
1) Starting a discussion with the enwik
Thanks for bringing this up, David.
On 05/05/2010 07:31 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> No matter how much work is put into flagged revisions on en:wp, it is
> 100% certain that it will be greeted with deafening whinging.
>
> This is not a reason not to make it as good as possible, but the
> complaint i
These are great questions, and we're actually having a big meeting about
the project this afternoon, so I'll be sure to raise them to make sure
we all have the same notion. That said, a few of quick responses from my
perspective:
On 05/03/2010 08:15 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
> Since it does seem ve
On 04/30/2010 05:37 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 1 May 2010 01:32, William Pietri wrote:
>
>> You should keep in mind that it definitely takes me more time and more
>> energy to deal with non-nice requests.
>>
> Really? How does me adding more words
On 04/30/2010 05:19 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> I'm intrigued by the notion that you don't have to be nice to people
>> > that are paid to deal with you. Since I gave the foundation a 70%
>> > discount from my normal rates, perhaps you can shoot for a mix of 70%
>> > courtesy and 30% head-biting
On 04/30/2010 04:55 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> You thanked Thomas three times in that e-mail. If I may say so, such
>> courtesy is unwarranted, in light of the terseness of his most recent
>> post. We're all volunteers, so colour me confused as to why people
>> think head-biting will achieve anyth
On 04/30/2010 03:28 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 29 April 2010 22:24, William Pietri wrote:
>
>> As requested, here's the weekly Flagged Protection update.
>>
>>
>> We continue to work on UI display issues and on getting up a Labs
>> version of th
On 04/29/2010 06:32 PM, Tim Starling wrote:
> William Pietri wrote:
>
>> As requested, here's the weekly Flagged Protection update.
>>
>>
>> We continue to work on UI display issues and on getting up a Labs
>> version of the German Wikipedia. We'
As requested, here's the weekly Flagged Protection update.
We continue to work on UI display issues and on getting up a Labs
version of the German Wikipedia. We're pretty close to release, and we
believe only minor UI issues remain.
If you'd like to verify that for yourself, start here:
http:
As requested, here's the weekly Flagged Protection update.
Now recovered from the developer meeting, we have made further progress,
and have only a few known issues between us and release.
If you'd like to verify that for yourself, start here:
http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Pag
As requested, here's the weekly Flagged Protection update.
Thanks to the developer meetup in Germany and mid-term exams for Aaron,
there has been no significant change since last week. However, the lack
of new requests suggests we're pretty close to something releasable.
If you'd like to verify
As requested, here's the weekly Flagged Protection update.
More progress has been made, and new requests have tapered off
substantially, which suggests that a release is within reach.
If you'd like to verify that for yourself, start here:
http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
T
On 04/01/2010 09:09 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> Thank you for the weekly reports, both on this list and on the labs wiki.
> They're very helpful in a number of ways.
>
You're very welcome.
>> Feedback from users has dropped off, which we are taking as a sign that
>> people are relatively happy wi
As requested, here's the weekly Flagged Protection update.
Feedback from users has dropped off, which we are taking as a sign that
people are relatively happy with things.
If that's not the case, or if you'd like to test it for yourself, start
here:
http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/M
As requested, here's the weekly Flagged Protection update.
This week we've seen a lot of helpful testing from at least 15 people,
and we'd love to see more before launch.
To participate, start here:
http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
To see what we've changed this week, ther
On 03/22/2010 08:59 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> For those not reading WikiEN-l that actually want the forwarded
> message to be included. ;)
>
Thanks Cary and Thomas!
Per David's suggestion, I'll be posting weekly updates on WikiEN-L and
the Village Pump. It seemed to noisy to post those here
On 03/19/2010 08:06 AM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> I must respectfully disagree with your belief that we need stronger global
> blocking. Each community should set its own behavior standards, not have them
> imposed from above. Just because we consider a person a troll on one project
> does not a
On 03/04/2010 01:45 PM, Mike.lifeguard wrote:
> Why did it take this request from enwiki to have the UX aspect of
> flagged revisions taken seriously?
>
> This has been one of the main complaints about the implementation since
> day zero. All other complaints I've heard have been regarding the idea
On 03/04/2010 10:57 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Purely as a point of fact it is simply inaccurate that the
> 20 implementations of flagged revs and patrolled edits
> across the other wikies than English Wikipedia are
> monolithically identical. I know this firsthand.
>
Sorry if I gave t
On 03/04/2010 09:59 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> William has mentioned there are software checkins, etc. in progress.
> Even a list of those would be excellent stuff.
>
This appears to be the best source:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:Code/MediaWiki/author/aaron
William
___
On 03/04/2010 09:20 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
> William Pietri wrote:
>
>> Instead, I think the right approach is to put new software out there
>> frequently, so people can try it out for themselves and form their own
>> opinions of how close we are. Eventually, b
On 03/03/2010 06:41 PM, Veronique Kessler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The question of what is the right reserve amount is a common one. I've
> hear of ranges from 0 to 3 months to 3 years. I agree that one year is
> a good measure and that could be increased or decreased depending on a
> variety of circumst
Hi, Stephen. Thanks for making your point in a polite, low-drama way.
On 03/04/2010 05:58 AM, Stephen Bain wrote:
>> The answer is already given ... When it is done. You have been informed with
>> > the latest developments.. so you know the existing issues.
>>
> That's normally the perfect
On 02/28/2010 10:24 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 28 February 2010 22:17, Brian J Mingus wrote:
>
>> I run a mediawiki farm with mediawiki trunk installed. I've got the process
>> of setting up new wikis scripted and can set one up in 30 seconds. If you
>> just need a place to install a wiki y
On 02/28/2010 09:36 PM, Mike.lifeguard wrote:
> On 37-01--10 03:59 PM, William Pietri wrote:
>
>> I've reported when I thought I had something to report
>>
> I think the problem here is that you haven't reported any
> accomplishments because there haven
On 02/28/2010 09:27 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 28 February 2010 21:05, William Pietri wrote:
>
>> As to who I'm responsible to, that was Erik Moeller and is becoming
>> Danese Cooper. We of course have a plan, which is publicly posted, and
>> which I&
On 02/28/2010 08:59 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> I finally figured out that the "view history" button in Pivotal Tracker is
> where all the relevant details are. For each of the items I'm looking at,
> Aaron appears to have completed them "2 months ago." But they're not marked
> as finished because you a
On 02/28/2010 08:43 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 28 February 2010 20:24, William Pietri wrote:
>
>> Menacing people like that with "consequences" mainly serves to destroy
>> motivation, not create it, so if you're truly interested in getting this
>&g
Hi, Alex. Good questions.
On 02/28/2010 08:10 PM, Alex wrote:
>> > When might that be? Is there a specific deadline? If not, why? And if
>> > there
>> > is a deadline and it slips by yet again, what's the consequence to those
>> > running the project?
>> >
>>
> I second this. Are Willi
On 02/28/2010 07:32 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> When it's your biography that reads you once were convicted of murder or
> pedophilia or whatever else, then you can start talking about people being
> wound too tight. When it's only been a delay of a few weeks, then you can
> talk about which forum shoul
On 02/28/2010 03:26 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> It's a simple question: what the fuck is the hold-up for FlaggedRevisions on
> the English Wikipedia?
>
If people have questions like this, I'd encourage them to drop me a note
before they get to the swearing-in-frustration stage. I try to check my
On 02/16/2010 02:12 AM, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> In general: "Never before people knew so little about something they
> use so often", as a German journalist said about Wikipedia.
In a strange way, that pleases me; as Danny Hillis says, "What people
mean by the word technology is the stuff that doe
On 02/16/2010 03:09 AM, Domas Mituzas wrote:
> Hey Philippe,
>
>
>> That's pretty snarky, Domas. There was a legitimate question there.
>>
>
> :-) Did community strategy members come up with this conclusion, or you had
> to involve external consultants?!
>
Domas, I am disappointed
On 01/25/2010 10:26 AM, Cary Bass wrote:
>> "M" before the abbreviation of a unit means 1,000, but on its own
>> > it is far more commonly used to mean 1,000,000. "m" never means
>> > 1,000 - it means 1/1,000 when used with the abbreviation of a unit,
>> > but on its own it usually means 1,000,0
On 01/23/2010 02:59 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> William Pietri wrote:
>> I note that just last night I was browsing EBay to see what a set of the
>> 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica goes for. For $10, I could get it on DVD.
>> Or I could pay hundreds for a physical set.
On 01/21/2010 12:20 AM, Huib Laurens wrote:
> Why would anybody want to buy it if it is possible to download it for free?
>
This is a topic that's getting a lot of attention. For example, Kevin
Kelly lists 8 things that are better than free:
http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/01/bet
On 01/18/2010 09:29 AM, Joan Goma wrote:
> There are 3 phenomena acting simultaneously against the number of visits to
> small projects: The bilingual effect, the size effect, and the Google
> effect. For Catalan case we estimate a penalization factor of 8.3 (that
> means that visits are 8.3 times
On 01/08/2010 09:02 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> http://www.boingboing.net/2010/01/07/wikibumps.html
>
And the poster, who is a Boing Boing guest editor, is one of our own, an
English Wikipedia contributor since 2004:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jokestress
William
_
On 12/19/2009 10:36 PM, David Goodman wrote:
> I did not write that, except for the final sentence [...]
>
Sorry; that was my editing error. I was trying to reply while providing
more of the context; specifically the part of my message I thought you
were replying to. That clearly didn't work
On 12/19/2009 10:54 AM, David Goodman wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 1:17 PM, William Pietri wrote:
>
>> As a software developer, I'm perfectly comfortable dealing with its dark
>> mysteries. I've spent tens of thousands of hours typing mysterious codes
>&g
On 12/19/2009 09:25 AM, Teofilo wrote:
> Wiki talk pages as they are now are good. Don't kill them.
>
Having not used LiquidThreads yet, I can't speak to your experience with
it. But the existing discussion system is a usability nightmare.
As a software developer, I'm perfectly comfortable d
On 12/16/2009 05:05 AM, geni wrote:
> There is one point left. We can't measure the change in traffic to
> Craigslist but we can measure this:
>
> http://stats.grok.se/en/200912/Craigslist
>
Interesting! If I read that right, the Craigslist page on Wikipedia got
an extra 15k pageviews or so.
On 12/15/2009 11:20 AM, Bryan Tong Minh wrote:
> I for one have never heart of Craigslist before and I don't think I have heart
> anybody talking about it before in real life.
>
This may be a regional thing.
According to Alexa, Craiglist is the 11th most popular US web site,
while Wikipedia
On 12/14/2009 05:50 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
> In terms of the ethics, there's a big difference between inaction on
> an issue, say poverty in Africa, and taking direct action in order to
> make things worse. Wikimedia is not paying people to take food from
> children's mouths, but it is paying peop
On 12/12/2009 08:32 AM, Teofilo wrote:
> Do we have an idea of the energy consumption related to the online
> access to a Wikipedia article ? Some people say that a few minutes
> long search on a search engine costs as much energy as boiling water
> for a cup of tea : is that story true in the case
Ryan Lomonaco wrote:
> My reading of it was X replies per person per day in each thread. I agree
> with you that there should not be a set limit per thread as a whole.
It might be interesting to combine that with a throttled number of
replies from one individual to another. At least for me, the
Hi, Laura. I'll stay out of the main discussion here, but I just wanted
to address one point as a bystander who has spent a lot of years
involved with Internet startups:
Laura Hale wrote:
> [...] There are other places we would like to approach.
> (And if you have ideas for who would be a good f
Samuel Klein wrote:
> I've been working with swahili-speaking students over the past week
> introducing them to Wikipedia (as part of an article-writing contest sw:wp
> is running this winter). They're net-savvy, many maintain a blog, but
> they're not geeks. And they tend to be totally baffled b
altally wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:57 PM, William Pietri wrote
>> A reporter pal points out to me that the Wall Street Journal has a
>> front page story on Wikipedia: "Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages".
>> Alas, it's subscriber-only:
A reporter pal points out to me that the Wall Street Journal has a
front page story on Wikipedia: "Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages".
Alas, it's subscriber-only:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125893981183759969.html
There's also a publicly viewable blog article "Is Wikipedia Too
Unfrien
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> So people would rather I decided what they are and aren't interested
> in? Surprising... most people I know like to make their own decisions
> about things like that...
My guess is that people here want what pretty much anybody in a shared
context wants: consideration and r
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/11/7 William Pietri :
>
>> Well, you perceive the burden as negligible for them. Have you asked
>> them? My impression was that you imagined it would be easy for them
>> because it would be easy for you. Personally, I'd imagine otherwise
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> Yes, I am placing the burden on other people and I've explained why:
> The burden is negligible for other people. It is significant for me.
>
Well, you perceive the burden as negligible for them. Have you asked
them? My impression was that you imagined it would be easy f
Hi, Thomas.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> Indeed. My standard advice for people on how to interpret my
> text-based messages is this: If in doubt, I don't mean any offence. If
> I want to offend you, I will leave you in no doubt.
>
I think there's a common element in this and your "just ignore" propo
Robert Rohde wrote:
> What resources? With only ~1.5M hits per month, EN Wikinews' share of
> the tech / internet services budget probably only comes to a couple
> thousand dollars per year, in other words basically a rounding error
> in the budget.
I'd guess it's less than that. I just calculate
David Gerard wrote:
> http://www.externaute.net/la-globe-en-puzzle-de-wikipedia-en-realite-3d/1071
>
English-speakers may wish to consult the original source, the blog of
the globe-makers, here:
http://www.becausewecan.org/Wiki_globe
There are more photos and some explanatory text.
Those i
97 matches
Mail list logo
