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 12 December 2011 15:26, K. Peachey wrote:
> It's been a requested feature for a while, Someone finally got around
> to writing it (I believe it needed the Improved metadata handling
> backend first) and implementing it, It wasn't a sudden "oh lets write
> this and enable it in one day thing",
On 12 December 2011 16:18, Teofilo wrote:
> For some unexplained reasons, the whole contents of my message is not
> showing at
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-December/070807.html
> . Here is another copy again:
It came to the list, but the archiving bit of Mailman los
On 12 December 2011 18:18, Erik Moeller wrote:
> Technically, nothing was "messed up" by the feature. Rather, the
> software previously did not take EXIF rotation into account, and some
> images had incorrect EXIF rotation information to begin with. Those
> images are now shown in an incorrect ro
On 14 December 2011 16:46, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> You can call me an idealist -- if there are still some taking passengers at
> this late hour. I was in fact referring to the problem of our legal counsel
> expressing a view that it is to WMF favor to have laws that make it more
> difficul
On 14 December 2011 21:57, Kim Bruning wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 05:43:03PM +, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> Presumably
>> there will be a more formal process to decide whether we actually go
>> ahead with it - has that started somewhere? If not, has anyone at
>> least figured out what form
On 18 December 2011 12:38, Mike Dupont wrote:
> Ok. I understand that. Maybe I am getting upset over nothing, but when
> it comes to shutting down people who copy small clips and snippets
> from movies, it seems that the industry also shows no mercy.
It would be interesting for press coverage.
On 20 December 2011 01:16, Tom Morris wrote:
> Under your metric, in this scenario, the edits of a sysop and an
> experienced user, or later the WikiProject editors, would not be
> chosen as the high-quality stable version.
Yao did in fact mention that other factors would need consideration.
A
On 23 December 2011 15:30, John Du Hart wrote:
> This is currently on the reddit front page
> http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/nnv9l/wikipediaorg_is_with_godaddy_jimmy_if_youre/
> Why we're using GoDaddy in the first place is beyond me, surely there's
> better options available (Like o
On 23 December 2011 19:20, David Gerard wrote:
> http://twitter.com/#!/jimmy_wales/status/150287579642740736
> GoDaddy have backed down -
> http://www.godaddy.com/newscenter/release-view.aspx?news_item_id=378 -
> but it's too
... it's
On 23 December 2011 19:25, Platonides wrote:
> On 23/12/11 16:30, John Du Hart wrote:
>> This is currently on the reddit front page
>> http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/nnv9l/wikipediaorg_is_with_godaddy_jimmy_if_youre/
> Everybody there seem to know whatever evil thoughts GoDaddy said
On 24 December 2011 11:23, Oliver Keyes wrote:
> So, to reply to Liam's point first - no, that's not the "real reason",
> that's something that I, personally, think should be taken into account as
> a secondary consideration; as said, I've emailed people asking for more
> concrete information on
On 24 December 2011 11:55, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> I freely admit I was being a bit flippant. But that was just because I knew
> I was in the right. Let us put it this succintly: "Being passive aggressive
> rather than aggressive about the way things are allowed as valid contributions
> to
On 24 December 2011 17:10, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> I do not think the aims of the mechanism are wrong. But I *do* think the
> mechanism itself and any attempts to fashion such in a universe of human
> beings is totally and fundamentally disrespectful towards reality. That is the
> hard sho
On 24 December 2011 17:45, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
>> I'm quite keen on the idea of a free-form comment box accessible to
>> those wanting to edit. It's much more accessible article feedback than
>> the same from OTRS.
> I dunno, like a talk page, perhaps?
You might think so, but readers
On 24 December 2011 18:01, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 7:57 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> You might think so, but readers (pretty much) don't know those exist,
>> and never mind the tab at the top. (They pretty much don't know the
>> hi
On 31 December 2011 12:01, Fae wrote:
> Full agreement with geni here. Blinking banners are against the spirit of
> the Wikipedia Manual of Style. If this is not clear in the banner
> guidelines then this needs to be made explicit.
Indeed. Inspiring people to install AdBlock may not be the best
On 31 December 2011 14:58, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> I'm pretty sure I raised both these concerns last year when you ran
> similar banners and they were never addressed other than to say that
> such banners raise a lot of money (which is the point - they are
> misleading people into donating a lot o
On 7 January 2012 16:53, emijrp wrote:
> It is sure that LOC is in the top priorities for Americans, and the BNL for
> Serbians, don't you think so? Thanks for showing your patent chauvinism.
> Funding disputes can be sorted out in the same fashion SOPA disputes, if
> agents work to solve them an
On 7 January 2012 20:12, emijrp wrote:
> The Historical Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovina holds 400,000 artifacts.
> Any National Cultural Institution closing is a disaster.
Yes, it is. So what's the game plan?
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
fou
On 7 January 2012 21:13, emijrp wrote:
> I'm not sure. If the WMF goals are to collect/preserve/disseminate
> educational content, they can start with the holdings in endangered
> cultural institutions. It is not my work, but some suggestions, from low to
> high involvement:
> * blog post exposin
On 8 January 2012 09:09, Milos Rancic wrote:
> Structural help is not Wikimedia's task [yet]. There are a lot of
> other institutions which could give them money for daily operations or
> artifacts preservation and not require from them knowledge liberation.
> In other words, it's presently bette
On 8 January 2012 18:19, James Heilman wrote:
> Thanks for the clarification. Yes we at Wikmedia Canada we had
> discussed starting a Wikisource north of the border due to the
> benefits of our copyright law. I will send this out to some of our
> members to see if anyone is interested in taking i
On 10 January 2012 20:57, Bod Notbod wrote:
> It would be lovely if each of the new hires could guest post on the
> Foundation blog and/or write a page for Signpost once they've settled
> in and let us know what their average day is like and some insight
> into what they're working on. The staff
https://plus.google.com/u/0/118383351194421484817/posts/foj5A1fURGt
About a business moving from Google Maps on its site to doing their
own from the available free content.
"$200,000 to $300,000 a year is, at the very least, the same as hiring
a very good engineer for a year (and paying all the t
On 14 January 2012 10:58, Tom Morris wrote:
> I'm seeing a rough consensus for action on English Wikipedia, and
> German Wikipedians seem to be up for acting in solidarity, but, as
> I've said on the page on enwiki, I don't see how enwiki consensus for
> a SOPA action ought to bind other proejcts
On 16 January 2012 14:08, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> WMIT is interested, too, because the board has decided to move the
> semi-free and PD-Italy content hosted on biblioteca.wikimedia.it to
> wikilivres and we'd like Canada to be still able to host it...
PD-Italy is broader than PD-Canada -
On 16 January 2012 17:31, emijrp wrote:
> WMF reply to this thread
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Field_cricket_Gryllus_pennsylvanicus.ogg
> Step 1 was not taken yet.
As I noted, you want it to happen, you would be the person to write the post.
- d.
_
On 16 January 2012 19:27, Dan Collins wrote:
> http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/204167-sopa-shelved-until-consensus-is-found
> The House decided they're going to stop bothering with this bill for a
> while, so while we should continue to think about what we will do when
Not i
On 16 January 2012 18:40, emijrp wrote:
> If I write that post, I will post it on my blog. Making WMF work is not my
> interest. My interest is to remark the biased behaviour of them and post
> some suggestions.
Handy hint for the future: this is volunteer land. If you really want
something to
On 16 January 2012 20:21, emijrp wrote:
> But I know what I have to do the next time I see a dangerous cultural
> situation that need help. I won't give a damn.
If you post about it in a manner that doesn't come across like an
abusive idiot, you may get further. It's worth a try!!
- d.
_
On 17 January 2012 15:50, Minh Huy (WMF) wrote:
> Vietnamese Wikipedia community is planning to show banner on 18/1.
> Similar to ItalianWiki, GermanyWiki, and Commons.
> See
> https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Th%E1%BA%A3o_lu%E1%BA%ADn/%C4%90%E1%BB%81_xu%E1%BA%A5t_tham_gia_ph%E1%BA%A3n_%C
On 18 January 2012 05:04, Chris Lee wrote:
> The "Learn More" link at en.wp is blocked too.
Works fine for me (and I can read about SOPA and PIPA too), but I've
seen a couple of reports of it not working.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundati
On 18 January 2012 08:03, Peter Gervai wrote:
> Just a foreigner sidenote: we got the notice about SOPA and PIPA which
> does not start by defining, or even linking to what "SOPA" and "PIPA"
> is, what they are shorthand for, and background if anoone wants. It
> could be (should be) links on the
On 18 January 2012 08:26, John Vandenberg wrote:
> Why is the mobile site operational for English Wikipedia?
The herd of cats wanted it that way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action
"Provisions for emergency access to the site should be included in the
blackout softw
On 18 January 2012 08:58, John Vandenberg wrote:
> the emergency access should be at a different location.
> mobile users should not be privileged.
Yeah, I thought it was a bit silly too. But I think we can live with it.
- d.
___
foundation-l maili
On 18 January 2012 09:05, Huib Laurens wrote:
> So lets say that Wikipedia doesn't have a active anti vandal crew today,
> but people can still edit within the English Wikipedia by mobile phone.
> So we will find in a year all kind of vandal edits done today?
Only bots (I think) and some WMF pe
On 18 January 2012 09:16, Zugravu Gheorghe wrote:
> apparently if you disable java in your browser - you have normal access
> to en:wp!
JavaScript, not Java :-)
It's not a hard, secure block. Basically it's a black, full-page ad
banner. Think of "Wikipedia Blackout" as the event's name, a prop
On 18 January 2012 13:46, Bod Notbod wrote:
> Anyway, sorry, I've made rather a pig's ear of what was meant to be
> some light coverage of UK Twitter responses to the blackout. I shall
> post no more on the subject.
Heck no, this is useful :-)
- d.
___
On 18 January 2012 23:08, Marc Riddell wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/technology/web-protests-piracy-bill-and-2-
> key-senators-change-course.html?_r=1&nl=afternoonupdate&emc=aua2
Call me churlish, but I find it difficult to assume good faith in
Orrin Hatch having changed his mind o
On 19 January 2012 02:27, George Herbert wrote:
> It sounds like the Foundation was more organized about it than the
> community, and didn't reach out to push early enough. I understand
> the desire not to be seen to be leading the community around, but it
> seems to have led to a counterproduct
On 19 January 2012 02:27, George Herbert wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 6:02 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
>> The community en.wp decision is separate, but it was also nuanced, and
>> so I don't think it's true that all these issues were bulldozed,
>> within Wikipedia or the WMF. (I don't know about
On 19 January 2012 17:15, FT2 wrote:
> The question is, do you plan to migrate the major search engines and DNS
> servers? If so, then migration might help.
Come the SOPAcalypse, the DNS root will fragment. I wonder if Google
will break itself up for the purpose.
- d.
___
On 19 January 2012 17:26, FT2 wrote:
> Point of information: - are proposals mooted for an alternative DNS root?
> Presumably, since satellite proposals exist and those are even more radical.
There are many existing alternate roots. I suspect it would break into
national or continental roots wh
On 20 January 2012 22:19, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
> Would it make sense to create some kind of a local mirror of Wikimedia
> Projects to facilitate participate in such areas? Creating a data
> center in every such place would probably not be cost-effective, but
> maybe there's some clever networki
On 21 January 2012 22:50, Steven Walling wrote:
> If a policy makes good sense, we clearly need it, and feedback about the
> text is mostly positive, then we should adopt it. Rejecting a good idea
> because of process wonkery is stupid.
+1
- d.
___
On 21 January 2012 22:57, MZMcBride wrote:
> David, I'm a bit surprised that you think a policy that includes the
> language "Sexual language and imagery is not appropriate for any conference
> venue or talks." is a good idea. I think it'd be difficult to have a
> discussion about Wikimedia Commo
On 22 January 2012 21:43, Yao Ziyuan wrote:
> Hello All,
> I just filed a feature request which I think is of strategic interest
> to Wikipedia:
> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33889
Similar to the "Opinions" tab on Wikinews. Could be interesting. Would
need to be plausibly use
On 22 January 2012 23:39, Svip wrote:
> The name 'talk page' is also a terrible name and very ambiguous as to
> what it is. A far more appropriate candidate for such a page's name
> would be 'collaboration page', 'work page', 'improvement page' and so
> on.
English Wikinews calls it "collabora
On 22 January 2012 23:50, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> So we will put a few fallback datacenters elsewhere, just so our
> various communities and chapters realize we aren't going to be
> bullied by US jurisdiction.
AIUI setting up the new Virginia datacentre took considerable effort
and plann
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/01/23/1725231/carl-malamud-answers-goading-the-government-to-make-public-data-public
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundati
"Under SOPN, all copyrighted material which is not licensed under
creative commons or public domain or an equally free and liberal
license (collectively called "public") should be banned from the
Internet. By removing all such material which is not publicly
licensed, SOPN will kill piracy with one
On 24 January 2012 14:47, Béria Lima wrote:
> Maybe is a stupid question, but who is this guy?
No-one in particular. I just thought it amusing and apposite :-)
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https:/
On 24 January 2012 15:31, David Richfield wrote:
> Maybe implement a subreddit schema and some way to create a subreddit
> for each article? I don't know what Conde Nast's nastiness level is,
> though.
The Reddit code is open source. Apparently takes more than a little
work to do useful things
2009/1/8 Anthony :
> No, the requirement for me to inform you of the violation was just
> introduced in GFDL 1.3.
Presumably the legally safe thing to do would be to (b) remove all
edits contributed by Anthony to any Wikimedia project, but firstly (a)
ban him in perpetuity from all Wikimedia pro
2009/1/9 Thomas Dalton :
> But they aren't violating GFDL 1.3, since they aren't using it, so
> what was you complaint about?
Being querulous?
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.o
2009/1/9 Brian :
> I am skeptical of the current development process. That is because it has
> led to the current parser, which is not a proper parser at all, and includes
> horrifying syntax.
Er, that would be a direct descendant of UseModWiki. That this has
been a hair-tearing nightmare ever s
2009/1/9 Marc Riddell :
> Erik, there are some truly terrific, bright and creative people within the
> greater Wikipedia Community. We really need to have a culture that makes
> room for them all.
I note that I have asked you before if you've actually attempted to
work directly with the communit
2009/1/10 Marc Riddell :
> on 1/10/09 6:59 AM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I note that I have asked you before if you've actually attempted to
>> work directly with the community on-wiki, and you demurred:
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-
2009/1/10 James Rigg :
> So, to put it crudely, the talk of full transparency and lack of
> hierarchy is now viewed as just naive idealism that existed at the
> start of the project, and which has now been abandoned?
Suggested reading:
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/hist_texts/structurelessne
2009/1/10 Anthony :
> I care to prevent the relicensing *of my content* to CC-BY-SA. Remove my
> content, and you won't hear from me on the license issue again (unless you
> choose to read my blog or the blog of the non-profit Internet Review
> Corporation).
If you licensed it under "or later,"
2009/1/10 Anthony :
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> 2009/1/10 Anthony :
>> > I care to prevent the relicensing *of my content* to CC-BY-SA. Remove my
>> > content, and you won't hear from me on the license issue again (unless
>>
2009/1/10 Anthony :
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:17 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> 2009/1/10 Anthony :
>> > On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> >> 2009/1/10 Anthony :
>> >> > I care to prevent the relicensing *of my content* to CC-
2009/1/10 James Rigg :
> I'm not questioning here whether or not there are good reasons for
> sometimes being non-transparent and hierarchical, I'm just saying that
> it's interesting that, contrary to its founding ideals, and probably
> also to how many people think, or like to think, Wikipedia i
2009/1/10 Muhammad Alsebaey :
> - Gerard has been the *only* person from LangCom that I have seen reply
> to any of the issues, his replies are selective, he refuses to answer
> whatever he doesnt think is relevant to his argument and is in general very
> aggressive, If the guys at LangCom
2009/1/11 Brian :
> Keep in mind regarding my Semantic drum beating that I am not a developer of
> Semantic Mediawiki or Semantic Forms. I am just a user, and as Erik put it,
> an advocate.
Semantic MediaWiki's syntax is disastrously horrible and intended for
ontology geeks, not the mere humans
2009/1/11 Anthony :
> It's also misleading if one considers that the term "transparency" and the
> term "freedom of speech" are not comparable in this way. Absolute and
> complete freedom of speech is a good thing. Absolute and complete
> transparency isn't. But then, I think we've had this con
2009/1/12 Anthony :
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 2:15 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> 2009/1/11 Anthony :
>> > It's also misleading if one considers that the term "transparency" and
>> the
>> > term "freedom of speech" are not comparable in th
2009/1/13 Tim Starling :
> The template equivalent to refactoring is the introduction of
> meta-templates, such as {{infobox}}.
The other useful thing that can be done with templates is to
standardise the field names in them as much as possible per wiki.
The reason? To enhance machine readabili
2009/1/22 Andrew Whitworth :
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Anthony wrote:
>> As Thomas said, it requires Internet access, which might not be available.
>> I think it's a bit more than that, though. The credit should be part of the
>> work itself, not external to the work. When you're talki
2009/1/22 Anthony :
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
>> The attribution issue is so divisive, however, that I increasingly
>> wonder whether it wouldn't be sensible to add at least a set of
>> preferences to the licensing vote to better understand what people's
>> preferred
2009/1/24 geni :
> 2009/1/24 Sue Gardner :
>> I would also say that I am happy we're talking about this, and I hope
>> the people asking questions are finding the answers reasonably
>> reassuring :-)
> Depends. The wikia is a large user therefor we should work with them
> argument is somewhat wor
2009/1/24 Gregory Kohs :
> Please, in your rush to judgment about the character of my "attacks"
> here, take some time to actually explore and learn about United States
> law. The Foundation could be in serious trouble here, and you're
> spending an awful lot of energy railing against the messeng
2009/1/24 The Cunctator :
> I'm not sure why we're so stressed out about getting things exactly legally
> right, since once edit histories for anything created before 2002 / late
> 2001 were wiped out, any of those articles don't have an accurate author
> list.
If you take out the subthreads of
2009/1/25 Dan Rosenthal :
> Yeah, agreed. While on-topic for the list, it's off-topic for this
> thread. U.S. intelligence agency involvement in the development of
> open source products, especially media wiki, however *IS* a topic I am
> very much interested in seeing further discussion about; to
2009/1/25 geni :
> 2009/1/25 David Gerard :
>> Has anyone actually asked the CIA for MediaWiki extensions and
>> enhancements? It'd be worth asking.
> We don't know much about what they have done but most of their
> developments are more likely to be of i
2009/1/28 Brian :
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
>> If you haven't seen it yet, Ubuntu is running an interesting
>> brainstorming software called IdeaTorrent to think collectively about
>> common problems and solutions:
>> http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/
>> The software:
>>
2009/1/30 Sam Johnston :
> I'm sure it's not the first time this subject has been raised, but now the
> French chapter has dragged us into the world of commercial publishing it's
> probably worth [re]considering. Perhaps it is enough initially to tag images
> lacking releases accordingly, with a v
2009/1/30 Peter Jacobi :
> David Gerard wrote:
>> At the moment pictures with people in are tagged with a warning that a
>> reuser may have to consider model release and personality rights, and
>> Commons guarantees nothing. It's not clear from your message why this
&g
2009/1/31 Peter Jacobi :
> David Gerard wrote:
>> I didn't add "(or are supposed to be)". Now I'm wondering if I was
>> thinking of the personality rights tag.
> Can you please give an example link to the tag you are talking about?
This
Kosovo-based organisation forming for free/open source software and
"Wikimedia." Have they been in touch with us at all?
- d.
-- Forwarded message --
From: jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com
Date: 2009/2/1
Subject: Please review our new charter
To: discuss...@fsfeurope.org
Dear
2009/2/2 Andrew Gray :
> It would be helpful to figure out some way of (automatically) being
> able to have a given username "translate" into a different name when a
> list of credits is generated - we would have a list which better
> reflects the attribution wishes of our users, and one which loo
2009/2/5 Marc Riddell :
> I have been trying for over two years to bring this issue to the serious
> attention of the "powers that be" in the English Wikipedia. My messages are
> met either with a "there he goes again" attitude, or are not acknowledged at
> all. Where does one go from there if not
2009/2/5 George Herbert :
> Civility, or more properly abusive editors, is not a petty problem. If I
> had Jimbo's God-Emperor powers several existing WP users would be walked out
> the door and invited to not come back, on the grounds that they are
> persistently abusive and disruptive to other
2009/2/4 Anthony :
> Add in the legal questions over the very relicensing itself, and a reuser
> really isn't in any better of a position than they were when things were
> GFDL.
There is no legal question over the very relicensing itself. You
trying to spread FUD here doesn't count.
- d.
2009/2/7 Thomas Dalton :
> 2009/2/7 David Gerard :
>> There is no legal question over the very relicensing itself. You
>> trying to spread FUD here doesn't count.
> There's no question in the US. I'm not convinced by "We believe that
> licensing updates t
I've proposed something that may help in this matter on en:wp:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#How_to_raise_the_tone_of_the_wiki
Comments and suggestions there are likely to be read by the en:wp arbcom.
- d.
2009/2/8 Marc Riddell :
> on 2/8/09 2:41 PM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I've proposed something that may help in this matter on en:wp:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#
>> How_to_raise_the_tone_o
2009/2/9 Delirium :
> At the very least, it seems to empirically not be a problem. The GPL has
> included the "or later" language since it was first published in 1989,
> and has since gone through two updates (the first in 1991), without, as
> far as I can find, a single ruling invalidating that l
Why one small project changed from CC-by-nc-sa to CC-by-sa:
http://zak.greant.com/free-culture-vs-fear-culture-vs-fee-culture
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo
2009/2/19 Michael Snow :
> I'm likely going to put the general issue of biographies on the board's
> next agenda, for what that's worth. Though as I say, there's no simple
> blanket solution, and I don't know if we can promise anything beyond
> more discussion and more awareness of the issues.
W
2009/2/19 Jimmy Wales :
> I think a deeper point is that there are a lot of very problematic BLP's
> on Wikipedia, and this is an ongoing problem that we all have to be very
> serious about.
In my anecdotal experience (as a UK phone contact), BLPs are our
biggest public relations problem. I'm re
2009/2/23 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) :
> However, one question that I have is whether the dump includes, or should
> conclude, all namespaces, or only articles. In the past, there have
> allegedly been instances in which database dumps have been utilized for
> purposes such as harvesting oversighted
http://xkcd.com/547/
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2009/3/2 Tomasz Ganicz :
> Two recent examples from Polish Wikipedia:
> *A sportsmen had anitdoping case around 5 years ago, when he was 18.
> There is good source of this information (his own interwiev in sport's
> magazine in which he appologises for taking an illegal drug). Now the
> guy is sa
2009/3/2 Thomas Dalton :
> From what I can tell, a lot of subjects of BLPs that have problems
> with their articles don't complain at all. The accounts I've heard
> (or, at least, my interpretation thereof) of Wikimedians being
> approached at events by people with bad articles have all been along
2009/3/2 Thomas Dalton :
> 2009/3/2 David Gerard :
>> I would guess it's mostly (2), in my experience. People have no idea
>> who to contact. The "Contact Wikipedia" link on en:wp's sidebar
>> doesn't seem to catch their eye - though it gets you
2009/3/2 Nathan :
> I would like to see Mike's opinion, though, on how deeply the Foundation can
> be involved in establishing Wikimedia-wide policies on content like BLPs. It
> would seem to challenge the notion that the Foundation itself hosts but does
> not control project content. Tomasz' sugg
2009/3/2 Lars Aronsson :
> What you could do is to ask Polish journalists how they operate
> newspaper websites under this law, and how they (as guardians of
> the freedom of the press) would react if the Polish Wikipedia was
> censored in this way. Perhaps they should write a newspaper
> article
2009/3/2 Michael Bimmler :
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
>> They have no recourse. We are not subject to Polish law.
> Individual Polish editors are, however, likely to be and they might
> apparentely be in danger of prosecution.
If there is serious danger of them b
501 - 600 of 1151 matches
Mail list logo
