It's a matter of perspective, as always: the universities see the
addition of their logos as added value for Wikipedia/WMF. For instance,
such a usage of logos is strictly prohibited by my university (unimi.it)
and is authorised only if there's a partnership framework about some
research and a
Dario Taraborelli, 10/12/2011 04:51:
> • Is the Foundation running ads?
> No, this banner is a recruitment campaign for a research project that has
> been thoroughly reviewed by the Research Committee. We have a long tradition
> of supporting recruitment for research about our communities via var
(I originally sent this to WikiEn-l - but intended to send it here to
foundation-l... my email reader got confused..)
Hi Dario,
This proposal went through a long review process, involving community
> forums, the Research Committee and various WMF departments since early 2010.
>
> The Berkman rese
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 10:10, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> Dario Taraborelli, 10/12/2011 04:51:
>> • Is the Foundation running ads?
>> No, this banner is a recruitment campaign for a research project that has
>> been thoroughly reviewed by the Research Committee. We have a long tradition
>> of
I'm not a fan of me-too posting, but I am breaking that rule to reinforce
the point that there are those who, like Gregory and me, did not see any
problem with the survey. Those who don't like it are, naturally, posting
to comment; those who found no issues with it are probably not. I would
not l
Speaking personally, now that it has been more explained and developed, I have
no problem with the survey in principle, I understand the value that could be
obtained though it and the work and effort that was clearly put in behind the
scenes and I have no desire to be a Groucho Marx
(http://www
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Mike Christie wrote:
> I'm not a fan of me-too posting, but I am breaking that rule to reinforce
> the point that there are those who, like Gregory and me, did not see any
> problem with the survey. Those who don't like it are, naturally, posting
> to comment; tho
On 10 December 2011 14:53, Alasdair wrote:
> Speaking personally, now that it has been more explained and developed, I
> have no problem with the survey in principle,
Agreed, it's a proper survey by proper researchers and good in
substance, it's just been realised in a clunky manner. Everyone
On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 07:51:06PM -0800, Dario Taraborelli wrote:
> So what went wrong?
Local consensus does not override global consensus.
* The research committee failed to adhere to applicable consensus. [1]
* In lieu of consensus, the research committee failed to adhere to or point to
any a
The only documentation from the research team that I have seen so far with
respect to the target participation is in the initial proposal on enwp back
in 2010, when it was proposed to leave 40,000 talk page messages; there was
no indication that 30,000 of them would be newly registered users at tha
Me too. I thought the survey was very nice and interesting. And this
"controversy" is actually upsetting me. Somebody comes in and tries to do a
nice thing ($ to WMF, interesting exercise for volunteers, knowledge for
the world). You think people would be happy. No! Never! Analyze and nitpick
tinie
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 10:11:35PM -0500, Renata St wrote:
>
> When did the community turned into this old grumpy bunch being unhappy
> about everything?
Eh? Not in the least. I think Jerome is a nice guy; and so does
practically everyone else who has gotten up to speed on what's going on.
The
12 matches
Mail list logo
