On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 2:41 AM, wrote:
> But George you miss part of my point.
> IF editors know their way around somewhat, they *could* fight an undeserved
> block or reprimand or whatever.
>
> But what you're saying here is exactly what I'm pointing out that we do not
> want.
> Encyclopedist
In a message dated 11/26/2009 11:37:12 PM Pacific Standard Time,
george.herb...@gmail.com writes:
We have the Mediators, arbcom, and experienced non-admin editors
around too. Anyone who thinks admins can run roughshod over users
should watch ANI for a while. We aren't great about self-pol
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:54 AM, wrote:
> In a message dated 11/26/2009 3:39:23 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> valde...@gmail.com writes:
>
>
>> The final solution is that only people who are already expert in the
>> processes can impose their point of view and in fact en.wikipedia
>> don't assure
In a message dated 11/26/2009 3:39:23 AM Pacific Standard Time,
valde...@gmail.com writes:
> The final solution is that only people who are already expert in the
> processes can impose their point of view and in fact en.wikipedia
> don't assure a neutral point of view but the point of view of ex
--- El vie, 27/11/09, Bod Notbod escribió:
> De: Bod Notbod
> Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not bureaucracy, said bureaucrat and
> deleted article
> Para: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Fecha: viernes, 27 de noviembre, 2009 00:58
> On Thu, Nov 26
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Felipe Ortega
wrote:
> This is Andrew Dalby's quote, not mine.
>
>> I would like to hear from Felipe clarification of the claim
>> that 49,000 contributors left Wikipedia. If it is so, then en.wp
>> has around ten times more fluctuation of contributors. (Accordin
--- El jue, 26/11/09, Milos Rancic escribió:
> De: Milos Rancic
> Asunto: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not bureaucracy, said bureaucrat and
> deleted article
> Para: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Fecha: jueves, 26 de noviembre, 2009 11:36
> Read
> ht
Hoi,
Please assume good faith.. I am truly interested in good ideas.. It is
exactly because I value your opinions that I asked. The fact that there is
moderation is intended to prevent unproductive discussions. My intention is
to be to the point, clear in my statements and questions and publish as
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> Your question is not constructive because new rules of the list
> include the rule that 30 messages per month per person should be a
> limit.
http://strategy.wikimedia.org
No posting limit. Little bureaucracy. Ideas welcomed with open arms.
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> So you have an idea ... please share it and explain why you think it will
> make a difference. It does not really help to leave with a cliff hanger ...
>
> 2009/11/26 Milos Rancic
>
>> (Actually, I have a couple of
>> possible changes in m
Hoi,
So you have an idea ... please share it and explain why you think it will
make a difference. It does not really help to leave with a cliff hanger ...
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/11/26 Milos Rancic
> Read
> http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/11/25/160236/Contributors-Leaving-Wikipedia-In-Record
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> Read
> http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/11/25/160236/Contributors-Leaving-Wikipedia-In-Record-Numbers
>
> Article is based on Felipe Ortega's research. There are two claims
> from this article:
>
> 1. English-language version of Wikipedia s
Read
http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/11/25/160236/Contributors-Leaving-Wikipedia-In-Record-Numbers
Article is based on Felipe Ortega's research. There are two claims
from this article:
1. English-language version of Wikipedia suffered a net loss of 49,000
contributors, compared with a loss of
13 matches
Mail list logo
