Re: [Foundation-l] "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" English Wikipedia's featured article today

On 7 February 2012 17:03, Thomas Dalton wrote: > He's been doing it for years and has never screwed up badly enough for the > community to take the job away from him. It's as simple as that. The > Wikipedia community can be uncharacteristically pragmatic at times! I note that even the front-pag

Re: [Foundation-l] Feedback tab on the English Wikipedia

On 9 February 2012 09:04, wrote: > I guess my concern is that it may encourage readers to type in suggestions > and take it no further rather than take the next step and begin editing > themselves. At present, the average reader doesn't even fix typos. > Definitely important to watch for a

Re: [Foundation-l] Movement roles letter, Feb 2012

On 13 February 2012 14:29, marcos wrote: > There is a simpler solution: to dissolve the current structure of chapters > and to leave everything in hands of the magnificent professionals of San > Francisco... This is effectively how fundraising now works. - d. __

Re: [Foundation-l] My public aplogies to Jan-Bart (was Movement roles letter, Feb 2012)

On 16 February 2012 11:27, John Du Hart wrote: > Is this really something to get upset over? It's not as if he was calling > you stupid, he simply misspelled your name (shortened it, really). People's own names are extremely important to them. - d. ___

Re: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions

On 22 February 2012 03:04, Mike Godwin wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:35 PM, George Herbert > wrote: >> The post-facto probability of 1.0 that the researcher was in fact >> professional, credible, and by all accounts right does not mean that a >> priori he should automatically have been trea

Re: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions

On 22 February 2012 13:29, Thomas Morton wrote: > However I am interested in whether you have a specific idea of what you > would change? Can you express a reason for why using the published test is > a poor signal? It produces a rich crop of both false positives and false negatives. I can't th

[Foundation-l] Wikimedia "yo mama" joke

https://twitter.com/#!/tommorris/status/173557756882722816 - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] A discussion list for Wikimedia (not "Foundation") matters

On 1 March 2012 10:23, Strainu wrote: > If names are that important for you, go ahead and rename foundation-l, > but there is really no need for yet another list. +1 Adding a new list would be largely redundant. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list

Re: [Foundation-l] A discussion list for Wikimedia (not "Foundation") matters

On 1 March 2012 16:30, Erik Moeller wrote: > The rename would likely occur by unsubscribing current members from > this list and re-subscribing them to the new one, to avoid breaking > links or accidentally corrupting archives -- meaning that list > archives pre-move would be accessible via a dif

[Foundation-l] Foursquare ditches Google Maps for OpenStreetMap

http://blog.foursquare.com/2012/02/29/foursquare-is-joining-the-openstreetmap-movement-say-hi-to-pretty-new-maps/ "When we initially began looking around for other map providers, we found some incredibly strong alternatives. And while the new Google Maps API pricing was the reason we initially sta

Re: [Foundation-l] Making Wikimedia Commons into a central repository of creative commons content

On 4 March 2012 13:11, James Heilman wrote: > Wikimedia Commons has the potential to become a central repository of > creative commons content. There are a large number of other sites running > Mediawiki software to partner with. If we could either host their images or > allow users of other site

[Foundation-l] Open Digital RFC on Hargreaves Review comment

http://blog.opendigital.org/2012/03/crowdsourcerequest-for-feedback-review.html They're trying to compile a suitable response to the Hargreaves Review of copyright in the UK. Wikimedia's name is dropped. It's clearly a draft, further ideas and detail working out will be helpful. - d. __

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

On 5 March 2012 05:03, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > I am sorry to say that unless you are prepared to put your foot down, and > represent the tens of thousands of people who expressed their views in the > (admittedly suboptimal) referendum, you risk becoming an irrelevancy – in > exactly the same way t

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

On 5 March 2012 17:07, phoebe ayers wrote: > On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 11:32 PM, David Gerard wrote: >> You do realise this has become a toxic electoral issue for the board, >> with people who voted twice for the resolution now backpedalling? > Just for the record, not sure wh

Re: [Foundation-l] Copyright and cakes...

On 5 March 2012 22:07, geni wrote: > On 5 March 2012 20:40, Chris Keating wrote: >> I suspect a court would hold that the set of "cakes" is disjoint from the >> set of "objects on permanent display", and thus that a photograph of cake >> can never benefit from freedom of panorama. > Well you sa

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

On 5 March 2012 18:21, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > There are people in this movement who are happy with this status quo, and > who say they will fork if anything changes. > Let them. You have that backwards. You are demanding the board enact something precisely because the overwhelming majority of t

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

On 6 March 2012 00:57, phoebe ayers wrote: > Well, in my opinion I haven't given much indication of what I > personally think on the issue at all, as I often explicitly ignored > speculation about my own personal views or motivations whether it was > right or wrong. I *have* spent a great deal of

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

2012/3/7 Juliana da Costa José : > so it would be not longer possible too, to have medical pictures f.e. from > surgeries, organs or corpses, because they could frighten people? Knowledge is an inherently frightening thing, as is the prospect of other people feeling they have a right to know thi

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

On 7 March 2012 22:41, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > WMF is looking to work together with lots of mainstream organisations, from > the British Museum to the Smithsonian. But this kind of curation of adult > content is an embarrassment for the Wikimedia Foundation, and a potential > embarrassment for all

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

On 7 March 2012 23:08, Thomas Morton wrote: > On 7 Mar 2012, at 23:03, David Gerard wrote: >> I think you have no grasp of just how far beyond merely "mainstream" >> Wikipedia is. > The answer being; Not much at all. We're beyond mainstream and are now

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

On 8 March 2012 07:13, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 3:00 AM, phoebe ayers wrote: >> So, yeah, things are on hold essentially because there are more urgent >> things to do, and because given the rather extraordinary scale of the >> debate and all of the controversy, serio

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

On 9 March 2012 13:52, Nathan wrote: > So what you're saying is, you feel confident that everyone agrees with you, > and thus perfectly comfortable speaking on behalf of the entire community? > I see. I thought he was noting the observation that when the Board and staff tried to push the issue,

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter

On 9 March 2012 14:50, Thomas Morton wrote: > Partly because it is the low hanging fruit (i.e. the thing that will have > the most impact in forwarding our goals of accessible knowledge). Citation needed. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundati

Re: [Foundation-l] Article Landing Pages - functional prototype to test and comment on

On 10 March 2012 14:18, geni wrote: > People creating articles by clicking on redlinks are not as a general > rule a significant issue. That appears to be a numerical claim. Do we have numbers? - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.

Re: [Foundation-l] Article Landing Pages - functional prototype to test and comment on

On 10 March 2012 14:54, geni wrote: > Not that I'm aware of but if you follow special:newpages for any > length of time you will notice a tendency for the problematical > articles to be orphans. After all a redlink generally means that at > least one other person has thought that the article shou

Re: [Foundation-l] Article Landing Pages - functional prototype to test and comment on

On 10 March 2012 14:58, David Gerard wrote: > On 10 March 2012 14:54, geni wrote: >> Not that I'm aware of but if you follow special:newpages for any >> length of time you will notice a tendency for the problematical >> articles to be orphans. After all a redli

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter

On 10 March 2012 22:15, Andrew Gray wrote: > The image filter may not be a good solution, but too much of the > response involves saying "we're fine, we're neutral, we don't need to > do anything" and leaving it there; this isn't the case, and we do need > to think seriously about these issues wi

Re: [Foundation-l] Why is Arbcom is actively promoting Wikipedia Review?

On 11 March 2012 11:19, Robert Alvarez wrote: > I see at least two current Arbcom members posting there quite recently and > even responding to requests of banned users to do things on their behalf on > Wikipedia (such as John Vandenberg working for Edward Buckner). Editing on behalf of banned

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status - the image filter disguised under a new label

On 12 March 2012 12:28, Richard Symonds wrote: > deepest parts of the US bible belt, and areas such as Pakistan and India, > which have sizeable English-speaking populations and a very strong religious > vein. With such a diverse worldwide readership on one language, it is only > natural that peo

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status - the image filter disguised under a new label

On 12 March 2012 13:55, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > When you consider that the current proposal is for a system where it takes > one click to see something anyway, I do think the notion that something is > not knowable is over the top. The rationale is problematic: to appease a target audience of

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status - the image filter disguised under a new label

On 12 March 2012 14:35, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > That is beside the point. You are against the proposal that is on the > table. It is a compromise. Now the fact that some want much more and you > want much less makes it a compromise. Erm, I'm addressing Richard's stated rationale. - d. _

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status - the image filter disguised under a new label

On 12 March 2012 20:24, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: > I'm tired to reply to this kind of comments since I said anything important >  multiple times already. So I will keep it as that and only write the > following: > Sorry, but your comments are total bullshit¹ and you know it. >  ¹ includes strong la

Re: [Foundation-l] UK Parliament Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions

On 12 March 2012 02:52, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > There are a number of sections touching on Wikimedia, notably those > beginning on the following pages: > http://www.parliament.uk/documents/joint-committees/Privacy_and_Injunctions/JCPIWrittenEvWeb.pdf#page=425 Written by you and ... Edward Buckne

Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Stopping the presses: Britannica to stop printing books

On 14 March 2012 00:22, phoebe ayers wrote: > I've been asked to write a short editorial about this development from > a Wikipedian's perspective and am curious about (and would love to > include) other Wikimedian experiences -- did you use print > encyclopedias as a kid? Was a love of print ency

Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Stopping the presses: Britannica to stop printing books

On 14 March 2012 07:33, rupert THURNER wrote: > I did use a very old "konversationslexikon" as a child, mainly for the > pictures. With our children this got replaced now by online resources. And > no, not by wikipedia, but by YouTube. And every time I spend 15 minutes to > find a video to illust

Re: [Foundation-l] [WikiEN-l] Stopping the presses: Britannica to stop printing books

On 14 March 2012 05:16, Béria Lima wrote: > I will actually look for a copy of the 15th edition (for sentimental > reasons) to buy before they get too rare and too expensive :D Of course I > will miss it! If Britannica is gone we will need to start printing > Wikipedia ;-) I see old sets of Bri

Re: [Foundation-l] Stopping the presses: Britannica to stop printing books

On 14 March 2012 12:50, Michael Peel wrote: > On 14 Mar 2012, at 12:21, Russavia wrote: >> Interesting news indeed. >> Lead's one to wonder when WMF will launch it's first printed >> encyclopaedia. Perhaps a 2013 Citation Needed edition is in the works? > Something like this: > http://www.labnol

[Foundation-l] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] Video codecs and mobile

This is a drastic policy change that affects all projects, and so needs wider discussion than just wikitech-l. -- Forwarded message -- From: Brion Vibber Date: 20 March 2012 01:24 Subject: [Wikitech-l] Video codecs and mobile To: Wikimedia developers As some may know, we've re

Re: [Foundation-l] Does google favour WIkipedia?

On 20 March 2012 18:39, Tom Morris wrote: > On 20 March 2012 18:24, Andrew Gray wrote: >> (The SEO people are correct that Wikipedia has a high Google ranking, >> and correct that this is something of an odd skew on Google's part. >> What always amuses me is the recurrent belief that Wikipedia >

Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikitech-l] Video codecs and mobile

On 20 March 2012 20:02, Lars Aronsson wrote: > I'm not opposed to trying H.264, but I doubt it will solve our problem, > which is that we have too few videos. > The category:Videos from Sweden (an early adopter market) is now at > 110 files, which is a ridiculously small number. It has doubled ea

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] Video codecs and mobile

On 21 March 2012 08:17, Jürgen Fenn wrote: > I wonder whether we should rather use our strength in users' demand in > order to make pressure on manufacturers to support free-software > codecs than adopting the costly and patented codecs. I mean, it's not > only about content. MediaWiki and Wikime

Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Fwd: Announcement: New editor engagement experiments team!

On 21 March 2012 22:32, Zack Exley wrote: > Today those kinds of communications happen much more rarely. My hunch is > that templates caused that. Now, we just leave template messages instead of > writing a personal note about a specific edit. And it turns out the new editors often assume the t

Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Fwd: Announcement: New editor engagement experiments team!

On 22 March 2012 00:11, MZMcBride wrote: > Can you show an example of a user making his or her 10th, 100th, or 1000th > high quality edit who's being blanketed with impersonal warnings? I don't > understand this phenomenon, though it sounds fascinating. I'm around the hundred thousands and I st

Re: [Foundation-l] User talk templates

On 22 March 2012 08:37, En Pine wrote: > First, has anyone thought about automatically adding a welcome message to the > user’s talk page when they first register, not only for EN but also for > Commons, Simple, and other projects? Is there any evidence anyone reads the template and doesn't j

Re: [Foundation-l] User talk templates

On 22 March 2012 10:47, En Pine wrote: > Your tone comes across as harsh. I believe this is actually an objection to the content of my post rather than its formatting. > Do you have any positive suggestions about how to improve editor retention? This is evidence you haven't been reading com

Re: [Foundation-l] User talk templates

On 22 March 2012 10:56, En Pine wrote: > Why would you not want to provide people guidance before they've made their > first edit, and why not provide them some encouragement to edit in a welcome > message? Because in practice, new editors don't read them - they think the messages are just bo

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] Video codecs and mobile

On 22 March 2012 15:39, Bod Notbod wrote: > I can't say I find that a particularly exciting prospect. Especially > not, as perhaps I wrongly conjure from context given by this > discussion, video shot on mobile phones. > I'm picturing wonky-cam, shakey footage that someone has taken walking > dow

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: [Wikitech-l] Video codecs and mobile

On 23 March 2012 20:13, geni wrote: > Every article on a non extinct animal species is a somewhat viable and > useful goal (and it keeps us one step ahead of web of life) Goodness yes. My 4yo loves videos of animals, and there's e.g. just about no fish that can be filmed that someone hasn't fil

Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Fwd: Announcement: New editor engagement experiments team!

On 24 March 2012 23:16, Sarah wrote: > Does anyone know what kind of experiments we're talking about? Only those who read to the top of the thread. (Article feedback tool, new article wizard, etc.) - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@li

Re: [Foundation-l] Wiktionary App, beta release (Android v1.0.1b)

On 27 March 2012 23:43, Patrick Hayes wrote: > The first beta release of the Wiktionary mobile app for Android has been > released! You can download the .apk file here > (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4187555/WiktionaryActivity-v101b.apk) and load it > onto your device. This ... is fantastic! Mobi

Re: [Foundation-l] resolution on voting transparency

On 30 March 2012 13:56, WereSpielChequers wrote: > That's a very welcome move, and I hope it helps build bridges back to the > community. From time to time we will have very divisive issues to discuss, > and in such situations it is much easier for the "losing" side in the > community if they can

[Foundation-l] Why our privacy policy is a big public win

This is about what happens when someone does the *bloody simple and obvious* with all the data that Facebook, FourSquare, etc. live of getting people to give out: http://www.cultofmac.com/157641/this-creepy-app-isnt-just-stalking-women-without-their-knowledge-its-a-wake-up-call-about-facebook-priv

[Foundation-l] Conservapedia announce exciting new linked data project

"America’s most trusted encyclopedia, Conservapedia, have decided to launch a new wiki-based semantic data project named Conservadata. The new project will make right-wing soundbites available in machine readable form." http://blog.tommorris.org/post/20277406012/conservadata - d. __

Re: [Foundation-l] New Project Process

On 3 April 2012 07:47, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: > We had started a stub table about this: > https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_things_that_need_to_be_free This is brilliant! I've been after something like this for a while. - d. ___ foun

[Foundation-l] Creative Commons licenses v4 drafts available

https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/32157 The fussy buggers of Wikimedia need to get nitpicking ... - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?

On 10 June 2011 21:05, Ryan Kaldari wrote: > This doesn't have to be complicated. How about 3 strikes, you're out? Get > banned from 3 projects and you automatically qualify for a global ban. > There's no sense in wasting hundreds of manhours trying to coordinate > information and responses acros

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikis and the direction hardware is taking

On 11 June 2011 00:27, wrote: > You are third person to respond as if my email was about me personally > looking for help editing. And the second to snip my writing out of all > context.  Steven seemed to actually get what my concern was.  You can hate > whatever you like, or dislike as the c

Re: [Foundation-l] NPG still violating copyright

On 13 June 2011 09:23, Ziko van Dijk wrote: >> Thanks. I mean all they need to add is "text taken from Wikipedia" - it >> shouldn't be too hard. > Hm, I'm afraid that is not sufficient. :-) It's CC-BY-SA. *Surely* the NPG should be able to figure out that by doing this, they're leaving themsel

Re: [Foundation-l] NPG still violating copyright

On 13 June 2011 10:34, Fae wrote: > Personally, I would rather see this as an opportunity for friendly dialogue > to help improve our working relationship. Absolutely, a non-apocalyptic response is desirable. However, they're still being blitheringly stupid and obnoxious, and leaving themselve

Re: [Foundation-l] NPG still violating copyright

On 16 June 2011 09:06, Scott MacDonald wrote: > Well, they appear to have re-written their blurb to make it far enough away > from Wikipedia text to keep them safe. > http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person/mp07767/john-michael-wright > What an effort, just to prevent them having to ackno

Re: [Foundation-l] content ownership in different projects

On 17 June 2011 12:29, Amir E. Aharoni wrote: > That could be a good > use case for a project like Knol, which was advertised as "Wikipedia > killer" once, but didn't grow much. Minor note: as far as I know, *no-one* from Knol/Google ever claimed it had anything to do with WIkipedia. The entir

Re: [Foundation-l] Election results?

On 17 June 2011 16:19, Alec Conroy wrote: > I suspect the board will recruit, formally or informally, the top n > runners-up to help provide the usual "new blood"ish infusion that a > normal election result provides.    The global community wants to keep > the keys in the current hands, but it di

Re: [Foundation-l] content ownership in different projects

On 17 June 2011 16:08, Marco Chiesa wrote: > To be honest, when you release your work under cc-by-sa you grant a > third party the right to reuse a (small or large) part of your work to > make a derivative work. The license in itself is not what determines > that the live version of a Wikipedia a

Re: [Foundation-l] Projects in simple languages

WIk On 20 June 2011 15:29, Milos Rancic wrote: > *: Yes, in principle. But two special criteria would need to be met: the > language should be a "world language" with many L2 users, and there must > be a reliable, published specification of the controlled language to be > used. Examples are [[w:

Re: [Foundation-l] Plethora of overlapping Categories

On 21 June 2011 10:50, Rui Correia wrote: > I edit the WP in English, Portuguese, French, Afrikaans, German, Spanish ... > This is happenning in all languages - it is not a WP-E issue. Categories work a bit like a hierarchy, a bit like tags. There's a perennial proposal[1] for categories to wo

Re: [Foundation-l] EFF & Bitcoins

On 21 June 2011 15:13, Mono mium wrote: > Supposedly the Bitcoins system was just hacked. The biggest Bitcoin exchange was apparently hacked, both machines and socially. This is the part of the system that is not immaculately cryptographically sound, i.e. the humans. - d. ___

Re: [Foundation-l] Plethora of overlapping Categories

On 21 June 2011 17:05, MZMcBride wrote: > David Gerard wrote: >> There's a perennial proposal[1] for categories to work like a tag >> system (with efficient Boolean searches) to be incorporated into >> MediaWiki. > If MediaWiki switched to a tags system, w

Re: [Foundation-l] EFF & Bitcoins

On 21 June 2011 17:52, robert_horn...@netzero.net wrote: >  I'd be far more worried about the stability of currencies like the U.S. > Dollar and the Euro as their basis in reality is even shakier than Bitcoins, > yet the collapse of either or both currencies could substantially impact the > WM

Re: [Foundation-l] Amicus Brief Filed in Golan v. Holder: Fighting for the Public Domain

On 22 June 2011 20:15, George Herbert wrote: > I would like to personally thank the WMF staff and board for having > pursued this. Seconded. This is something important enough we need to stand up about it. Is there anything we can do, in practical terms, to support this? - d. __

Re: [Foundation-l] Amicus Brief Filed in Golan v. Holder: Fighting for the Public Domain

On 22 June 2011 21:14, Lodewijk wrote: > Is this something the WMF will do more often in the future (or has done in > the past) or is this an extreme exception due to its importance? I was talkiing to someone today, describing WMF as an 800lb gorilla that tries very hard not to have people noti

Re: [Foundation-l] EFF & Bitcoins

On 23 June 2011 01:18, Alec Conroy wrote: > why.   It's not that we're 'novel currency enthusiasts', it's not that > we're trying to undermine the US federal reserve or anything crazy or > overtly political. I've looked at the forums. The above doesn't appear to hold. Random programmers in my

Re: [Foundation-l] Amicus Brief Filed in Golan v. Holder: Fighting for the Public Domain

On 23 June 2011 15:39, geni wrote: > Arcane legal arguments about what the law is falls outside the > foundation's remit. We are not a lawyers benefit foundation. No the > foundation has taken a very practical real world campaigning position > which probably sounds great to a limited number of pe

Re: [Foundation-l] Amicus Brief Filed in Golan v. Holder: Fighting for the Public Domain

On 23 June 2011 16:17, geni wrote: > If you think the foundation's involvement will have no wider impact > feel free to make that case. Considering that that's precisely the point - that if the US starts re-enclosing the public domain, it will use its influence to get other countries to do the

[Foundation-l] Black market science

http://chronicle.com/article/Academic-Publisher-Steps-Up/128031/ People are exchanging and selling access to the databases to get the damn science. This is why we need to keep pushing the free content and open access message. You cannot do science in a system with these effects. - d. _

Re: [Foundation-l] Call for referendum

On 30 June 2011 10:55, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: > Tom Morris, 30/06/2011 11:28: >> I'd have a problem if people started making overwrought >> comparison to Nazi book burnings too. > Wow, a reductio ad reductionem ad Hitlerum argument. Trained professional philosophers can get away with that

Re: [Foundation-l] Call for referendum

On 30 June 2011 12:31, Alec Conroy wrote: > The further we can get away from the model of elementary schools and > towards the model of the global universities, the better. +1 (This entire post is gold.) One *big* problem we have now is: Wikipedia has won. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone

[Foundation-l] No tail-lights. What do we do now? (was Call for referendum)

On 30 June 2011 17:00, Alec Conroy wrote: [a git-like distributed wikisphere] > It's not my idea,  I believe it's been independently suggested at > least five different times that I know of.   But it's a HUGE step that > would require a big, bold push from developers and thus potentially a > lar

Re: [Foundation-l] No tail-lights. What do we do now? (was Call for referendum)

On 30 June 2011 19:49, HaeB wrote: > I have added your postings to > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HaeB/Timeline_of_distributed_Wikipedia_proposals :-D Do you have an index of this sort of perennial proposal? Apart from, of course, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals

Re: [Foundation-l] No tail-lights. What do we do now? (was Call for referendum)

On 1 July 2011 07:58, Nikola Smolenski wrote: > On 06/30/2011 07:35 PM, David Gerard wrote: >> Further to your idea: people developing little specialist wikis along >> these lines, and said wikis being mergeable. This makes such wikis > Some things I believe could be easily

Re: [Foundation-l] No tail-lights. What do we do now? (was Call for referendum)

On 1 July 2011 09:27, Alec Conroy wrote: > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 12:21 AM, Nikola Smolenski wrote: >> On 07/01/2011 09:15 AM, David Gerard wrote: >>> Per HaeB's link, this is a perennial proposal. People like the idea, >>> but in eighteen years - back as far as

Re: [Foundation-l] Black market science

On 6 July 2011 20:58, Alec Conroy wrote: > We need a Wikijournal project, where scientists can do all the > functions of a journal without any prior approval--  collectively form > groups, review, and publish. > Free content is going to capture science eventually-- scientists want > open content

Re: [Foundation-l] Black market science

On 6 July 2011 21:29, Arlen Beiler wrote: > Once it is published, can't it just go to Wikisource? Or would it have to be > CC-By or something like that. If so, Wikisource would still be the best > suited for that, we would just have to put it in a journal namespace or > something along that line.

Re: [Foundation-l] largest free content website

On 8 July 2011 09:20, M. Williamson wrote: > Yes, and I'm sure Wikipedia also has lots of copyrighted and dubious > content, as hard as we try... We're reaching the stage of arguing category membership. This suggests stepping back: John, what do you anticipate as the useful purpose for the ans

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy concerns

On 9 July 2011 11:02, Béria Lima wrote: > The WMF is not responsible for private mails you send to anyone. The only > people who "officialy" can receive a copy of any ID you may have are > Philippe , > Christine

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy concerns

On 10 July 2011 10:55, Huib Laurens wrote: > Is mentioned in a offiical policy on the Dutch Wikipedia here: > http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sokpopmisbruik The relevant paragraph appears to be http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sokpop#Ontsnappingsclausule The Google translation is

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy concerns

On 10 July 2011 11:50, Thomas Morton wrote: >> Just to be clear: the alternative situation was, and would probably be, >> that >> people who currently can choose to use this clause, would simply be blocked >> forever without a way of getting unblocked. > That's the approach most projects take...

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy concerns

On 10 July 2011 11:48, Andre Engels wrote: > On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 12:03 PM, David Gerard wrote: >> http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blokkeringsmeldingen#Ontsnappingsclausule >> The Google translation for this one appears to quite definitely be >> trying to imply

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy concerns

On 10 July 2011 21:28, Peter Gervai wrote: > Well I don't know about your EU but in ours we have a method called > "collecting private data by agreement for a given purpose" and it is > completely legal. If I say to you that you have to provide this and > that private data if you want me to do th

Re: [Foundation-l] List of Wikimedia projects and languages

On 11 July 2011 13:57, emijrp wrote: > If Wikimedia projects and WMF leave to die 90% (or 80%, or 70%, or 60%) of > current languages in the next 40 years (we will be alive to see it, > probably), then both are failures. First thing would be a Wikisource or similar then. Just gather up as much

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia as seen through 1964 acoustic, 300 baud modem

On 15 July 2011 02:11, Liam Wyatt wrote: > Three cheers for open standards and and backwards compatibility! > I would like to know if it is technically possible to edit a WP article > through that system. I found it almost unusable on a 56k modem. So have fun! - d. __

Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation

On 15 July 2011 01:03, Alec Conroy wrote: > Agreed.  They're a very very special tool, but software not a > reasonable definition for a movement.   The Unnamed Movement should be > software-neutral, if not in name then CERTAINLY in practice. It's a thing and it exists and it's a concept that ne

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia as seen through 1964 acoustic, 300 baud modem

On 15 July 2011 08:31, WereSpielChequers wrote: > Congratulations Liam, you've just made the case for micro stubs. http://twitter.com/#!/qikipedia - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikime

Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation

On 15 July 2011 20:07, Nathan wrote: > Anyway, I think debating the name is a bit cart before horse - > the idea is that these organizations seem to share common ideals, and > could cooperative in mutually beneficial ways with some sort of formal > vehicle. I don't entirely agree. A good name f

[Foundation-l] Manypedia: comparing Linguistic Point of View

Although we supposedly don't do POV forks, we effectively *have* with the different language versions. So - http://manypedia.com "On Manypedia you can compare the same Wikipedia page as it appears on 2 different language Wikipedias, both translated in your language. For example you can search for

Re: [Foundation-l] Black market science

On 19 July 2011 21:07, Nathan wrote: > Vaguely related: > http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/reddit-co-founder-charged-with-data-theft > Aaron Swartz charged by federal prosecutors with illegally downloading > over 4 million journal articles from JSTOR, with the intent to > redistribute the

Re: [Foundation-l] Black market science

On 20 July 2011 17:54, Andrew Gray wrote: > But in more general terms, why do you specifically feel JSTOR are a > problem needing dealt with? They do a lot of things right with their Game-theoretic considerations: 1. to discourage others (this is quite important) 2. to discourage JSTOR, because

Re: [Foundation-l] Black market science

On the subject of organisations that attempt to enclose the public domain: Do we have the proceedings of the Royal Society 1600-1923 on Wikimedia servers, as we quite definitely should? What's in progress along these lines? - d. ___ foundation-l mailin

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

The great thing about an oral history citations project is that it is a first and active method to remedy one of the big problems with English Wikipedia: the epistemology - how we decide we know what we know - really is completely and utterly broken at the edges. (I realise this is foundation-l, b

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

On 29 July 2011 11:25, Ray Saintonge wrote: > At times I wonder if some Wikipedians have ever heard of epistemology. Larry Sanger was no great shakes as a philosopher, but at least he'd heard of the stuff. Here's essays from Tom Morris (another philosopher): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

On 29 July 2011 10:50, David Gerard wrote: > Thus we end up with blithering insanity like the phrase "reliable > sources" being used unironically, as if being listed on WP:RS > *actually makes a source humanly reliable*. This is particularly > hilarious when applied to n

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >