On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Peter Coombe wrote:
> Using a geotargeted CentralNotice would be clever, but I believe it
> would be trivial to get around by disabling Javascript. Currently
> it.wikipedia is using JS to redirect to their message, but beyond that
> all page contents are also being
Using a geotargeted CentralNotice would be clever, but I believe it
would be trivial to get around by disabling Javascript. Currently
it.wikipedia is using JS to redirect to their message, but beyond that
all page contents are also being hidden with CSS (yes, you can bypass
that too, but it's proba
This may have been answered by Kaldari already but...
Wouldn't it have been a better solution to block ALL wikimedia projects in
any language, if the user geolocates to Italy? It's my understanding that
this law does not differentiate (so, the English wikipedia faces the same
risks as Italian wiki
2011/10/5 M. Williamson :
> Editors aren't the only people who use Wikipedia.
About that point it's worth noting that in Facebook several autonomous
supporting groups have appeared, the most numerous has > 215.000
followers and it's now still growing with a 1000 likes/hour rate.
Cristian
___
This is a reminder. Not a direct comment on any words on this thread.
We are all on the same side here. We want information to be free. We
are arguing about the details, not the big picture. Just keep that in
mind.
--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
Editors aren't the only people who use Wikipedia.
2011/10/4 Jalo
> >
> > Is the Kiribati based community (or a part of it) of Wikipedians allowed
> > to block en.wikipedia.org for x hours because a new Kiribatian (sp?)
> > media law might come?
> >
> > Mathias
> >
>
> You're right, 2-3% of it.wi
On 10/04/2011 10:38 PM, Mathias Schindler wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 22:32, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>> No, it is a very good idea. The public needs to know what is at stake. It
>> would be nice if it were otherwise, but most people only learn by
>> experience.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
On 10/4/11 11:20 PM, Jalo wrote:
>> the de facto threshold is whatever allows them to get consensus and have an
>> admin make the
>> necessary changes and not be reverted
>
> You can see the consensus in
> http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Comma_29_e_Wikipedia
>
> I know, it's
2011/10/4 emijrp
>
> Hi all;
>
> The events regarding Italian Wikipedia blanking[1][2] of all its content are
> a serious precedent IMHO. They can make a lot of noise using other
> procedures, like a big blinking site notice, but giving no choice to read
> the content is against the main goal of W
>
> FWIW because of the way this has been implemented, it is not (at least
> obviously) possible to rollback/reverse via the web interface (it appears
> to
> be a change in common.js - and even that page redirects to the message).
>
> Tom
>
You can disable javascripts and css in your browser. For
>
> the de facto threshold is whatever allows them to get consensus and have an
> admin make the
> necessary changes and not be reverted
You can see the consensus in
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Comma_29_e_Wikipedia
I know, it's in italian and google translate sucks, bu
On 4 October 2011 22:15, Benjamin Lees wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Mathias Schindler
> wrote:
> > Then can you specify the threshold for the community-ratio that is in
> > your opinion required for some Wikipedians to vandalize a language
> > edition of Wikipedia in such way?
>
> Un
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 23:08, Jalo wrote:
>
>> You're right, 2-3% of it.wikip users live outside of Italy, but this
>> new law
>> will affect every page in which a user that live in Italy save a single
>> page
>> version (that is 100% of articles).
>
> Then can you specify the threshold for the
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Mathias Schindler
wrote:
> Then can you specify the threshold for the community-ratio that is in
> your opinion required for some Wikipedians to vandalize a language
> edition of Wikipedia in such way?
Unless the WMF decides it should intervene, the de facto thresh
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 22:55, M. Williamson wrote:
>> Another important point here is that Wikipedia is an international
>> project;
>
> No, this is not another important point, this is exactly my point. Is
> the Kiribati based community (or a part of it) of Wikipedians allowed
> to block en.wik
They should be enough, to convice the rest of the community. And when
Kiribati users are actually able to convince all the others on en, then: Go
Kiribati! Go!
southpark
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:10 PM, Mathias Schindler <
mathias.schind...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 23:08, Jalo
>
> Then can you specify the threshold for the community-ratio that is in
> your opinion required for some Wikipedians to vandalize a language
> edition of Wikipedia in such way?
>
I've already told that: 100% of articles. Do you need a larger threshold?
___
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 23:08, Jalo wrote:
> You're right, 2-3% of it.wikip users live outside of Italy, but this new law
> will affect every page in which a user that live in Italy save a single page
> version (that is 100% of articles).
Then can you specify the threshold for the community-ratio
>
> Is the Kiribati based community (or a part of it) of Wikipedians allowed
> to block en.wikipedia.org for x hours because a new Kiribatian (sp?)
> media law might come?
>
> Mathias
>
You're right, 2-3% of it.wikip users live outside of Italy, but this new law
will affect every page in which a u
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 22:58, Mathias Schindler
wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 22:55, M. Williamson wrote:
>> Another important point here is that Wikipedia is an international project;
>
> No, this is not another important point, this is exactly my point. Is
> the Kiribati based community (or a
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 22:55, M. Williamson wrote:
> Another important point here is that Wikipedia is an international project;
No, this is not another important point, this is exactly my point. Is
the Kiribati based community (or a part of it) of Wikipedians allowed
to block en.wikipedia.org fo
Another important point here is that Wikipedia is an international project;
there are speakers of Italian in Switzerland, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, and
in smaller numbers in lots of other countries who may not care so much what
happens in Italian politics. If the UK proposed a new law to shut down
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 22:32, Fred Bauder wrote:
> No, it is a very good idea. The public needs to know what is at stake. It
> would be nice if it were otherwise, but most people only learn by
> experience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_where_English_is_an_official_language
make
> Hi all;
>
> The events regarding Italian Wikipedia blanking[1][2] of all its content
> are
> a serious precedent IMHO. They can make a lot of noise using other
> procedures, like a big blinking site notice, but giving no choice to read
> the content is against the main goal of Wikipedia.[3]
>
> I
Hi all;
The events regarding Italian Wikipedia blanking[1][2] of all its content are
a serious precedent IMHO. They can make a lot of noise using other
procedures, like a big blinking site notice, but giving no choice to read
the content is against the main goal of Wikipedia.[3]
Italian Wikipedia
25 matches
Mail list logo
