2009/3/2 Steve Smith :
> * at the very least, the WMF should clarify that its policy that no
> account is needed to edit does not preclude the default
> semi-protection of BLPs (or any similar configuration of flagged
> revisions). This has been one of several stonewalling responses at
> en-wiki
2009/3/2 Michael Bimmler :
> Well, I could think of a couple people who might be subject to
> persecutions (depending on how serious Polish prosecution authorities
> are...) :
> - Administrators who were made aware of this on-wiki but declined to
> react by removing the data
> - Polish volunteers
2009/3/2 David Gerard :
> I don't say that lightly, but I can't see any other way things could
> be. I have a pile of special superpowers on en:wp, but if I were being
> legally required to exercise them for reasons other than the good of
> the encyclopedia, I'd be fer
2009/3/2 Anthony :
> What is the current "OTRS process"? When I contacted them a couple years
> ago I was referred to arb com, and didn't hear from them again. I certainly
> wasn't satisfied.
Pray tell, what was the actual substance of your dispute?
(Note that this is speaking of a project on
2009/3/2 Anthony :
> No. In fact, a member of ArbCom had referred me to OTRS. However, I don't
> want to get into the specifics of this on a public mailing list.
As a general rule: if you've been formally penalised on a wiki for
your behaviour thereon, and want that concealed, then that's real
2009/3/2 Anthony :
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 2:16 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> As a general rule: if you've been formally penalised on a wiki for
>> your behaviour thereon, and want that concealed, then that's really
>> not in the same class as *anything* thi
2009/3/2 Chris Down :
> Ipatrol has just came on IRC claiming that he has been told that the WMF is
> hiring people to "validate" articles, and that the foundation is doing it in
> secret by using thousands of IPs and academics. He claims that the WMF has
> contracted colleges all across the US ha
2009/3/2 Nathan :
> If we're being technical, the helicopters are no longer black. They're
> invisible. And they have "Illuminati" logos written invisibly. If you
> translate Wikimedia into Aramaic, write it backwards, translate that into
> Latin, remove every other letter and translate that to Cy
2009/3/2 Para :
> The Dutch Wikipedia uses an extension to contact "Wikipedia"
> anonymously directly from the browser. See
> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15624 and
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ContactPage.
> IRC tells me that the response group is happy with the mes
2009/3/2 Joe Szilagyi :
> As an easy start for BLPs to contact us for help, why not have the
> global footer of all WMF sites include a prominent and very visible
> link to a simple mail form they can use to mail OTRS or the Foundation
> for help?
Because no-one reads the footer (or we wouldn't
2009/3/2 Joe Szilagyi :
> Since BLP is so important--and Sue is wrong, not because of the
> "coverage" of Wikimedia over it, which is distantly secondary to the
> negative effects of a bad BLP situation on a Wikimedia site--then
> let's put a big prominent "Report A Problem" link on the top of eve
2009/3/2 Thomas Dalton :
> I may be missing it due to not speaking Dutch, but it doesn't seem to
> be linked to from anywhere... Does it include the details of the
> article and revision in the default text? That's a key feature for
> what I'm suggesting.
The code:
http://svn.wikimedia.org/view
2009/3/2 Mike Godwin :
> You may imagine how weird it is for me!
Hey, you're the cure for H*tler. It's not all bad.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundat
2009/3/2 :
> As it's written now, the contact form probably wouldn't work for enwiki:
> it would condense most English-language traffic to a single address. In
> the past, a single incoming address has caused us to lose urgent BLP-ish
> messages in the larger flood of vandalism reports and refer
2009/3/2 Thomas Dalton :
> A drop down list of queues would be easy enough to implement, I can do
> that. (I may need to abuse the interface system, a la
> Mediawiki:Sidebar, though...)
Shirley that's incredibly easy to add to the extension itself?
- d.
___
2009/3/2 Wily D :
> I am happy to take over control of articles for $1000/month. I can
> suggest a list of ~500 or so. Who should I send the list to? Should
> I also forward them my P.O. Box?
Send your money to me: David Gerard c/o Ayn Landers, Wikiality,
Florida. Make cheques payab
2009/3/2 P. Birken :
> One of my reasons to develop Flagged Revs was an incident with blatant
> vandalism in an article about a well known german politician that
> persisted for several months until we got an email from his office.
> That is plain unacceptable. Flagged revisions work very well in
2009/3/3 Birgitte SB :
> I there is simpler way to solicit these reports this without all the false
> positives that might come from a "report a problem" link. I imagine that
> all these people who have issues must click on the "Help" link in the sidebar
> while looking contact information. W
2009/3/3 Ting Chen :
> yes I think the english and the german wikipedias are two models and
> examples that are often used for the other language versions. I remember
> the talk from Harel in Taipei about the Hebrew Wikipedia and had the
> impression that they orient themselves more on the german
2009/3/3 Michael Snow :
> I've made this observation before, but I think it bears repeating. At
> least on the English Wikipedia, a frequent practice is to start a
> section called "Criticism and controversy" or some variation thereof.
> This indicates to me an utter failure to write an actual bio
2009/3/3 Sue Gardner :
> Can I ask: does anyone reading this thread 1) think raising the notability
> threshold is a bad idea, 2) believe defaulting to deletion upon request is a
> bad idea, or 3) disagree with the notion that other Wikipedias should shift
> closer to the German Wikipedia's genera
2009/3/3 Sue Gardner :
> Can I ask: does anyone reading this thread 1) think raising the notability
> threshold is a bad idea, 2) believe defaulting to deletion upon request is a
> bad idea, or 3) disagree with the notion that other Wikipedias should shift
> closer to the German Wikipedia's genera
2009/3/3 Aude :
> Inclusion criteria, such as the "one news event" is helpful. If we could
> make the inclusion criteria for BLP more stringent in other such ways to
> weed out some of the garbage or tabloidy BLPs, that would be welcome in my
> opinion.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NO
2009/3/2 Mike Godwin :
> I'm unclear as to how it seems inconsistent to you. Can you explain what you
> think is unreconciled? I assume you recognize that NPOV has been adopted by
> the Wikipedia community and is enforced by it (and not by the Foundation).
That statement is actually false - Wiki
2009/3/3 David Gerard :
> 2009/3/3 Birgitte SB :
>> I there is simpler way to solicit these reports this without all the false
>> positives that might come from a "report a problem" link. I imagine that
>> all these people who have issues must click on the "
2009/3/3 Thomas Dalton :
> A sub-cabal within the board? Now, what colour would *their* helicopters be?
We're a charity. They flap their arms really hard.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists
2009/3/3 Fred Bauder :
> With respect to biographies of living persons, unless there is sufficient
> reliable published information about a person to flesh out a well
> balanced article we shouldn't have one.
The question them becomes "reliable." "Reliable sources" usually print
whatever the sub
2009/3/3 Anthony :
> Really? You think Wikia's lawyers told Wikia's management that their
> "strong belief is that [Wikia] can make *suggestions* to the community about
> what content policy should be, but that *it must remain up to the community
> whether to adopt such policies and how to enforc
2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
> Sure, the persons themselves can not be harmed, but our
> deep understanding of the forces of history, and what force
> personality, heredity, cultural context and up-bringing play
> within it, is immeasurably impoverished by getting a view that
> is faulty.
In
2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
> Bear with me. I started with that, because that is something
> at the periphery, easily overlooked. I will focus on the meat
> of the issue in due time.
Then I ask you to get to the point and stay on it, because this needs
to be a thread focused on this specifi
2009/3/3 Matthew Brown :
> I see no reason why having an article on someone need include
> information not published in reliable sources. If they're well-known
> for something in the public eye but details of their life elsewhere
> are not prevalent, then that's how our article should be as well.
2009/3/4 Fred Bauder :
> How about something a little more helpful?
Uh, I think pointing out obvious problems counts, particularly when
the solution offered is to do the same things that are already
problematic twice as hard.
The hard part is to lead the community to a standard of living bio
th
2009/3/4 Andrew Gray :
> 2009/3/2 David Gerard :
>> (My usual answer: "Email info at wikimedia dot org, that's wikimedia
>> with an M. It'll get funneled to the right place. All other ways of
>> contacting us end up there anyway." This seems to w
2009/3/4 Anthony :
> Order of difficulty is not the same as order of happiness. I would be
> happier with "no credit" than "credit to Wikipedia".
You have declared previously on this list that you do not contribute
and in fact have tried to repudiate all your past contributions. As
such, it's e
2009/3/4 Andrew Gray :
> I did a headcount the other week of all the OTRS simple vandalism and
> "uncomplicated" BLP tickets I handled - ie, all the ones not needing
> digging and arguing with people and so on. 80-90% of them would have
> been avoided by flagged revisions.
Please say this REALLY
2009/3/4 quiddity :
> http://www.onelook.com/?w=encomium "a formal expression of praise"
> http://www.onelook.com/?w=hagiography "a biography that idealizes or
> idolizes the person (especially a person who is a saint)"
> http://www.onelook.com/?w=saccharine "overly sweet"
*cough* you mean, of c
2009/3/3 Birgitte SB :
> I there is simpler way to solicit these reports this without all the false
> positives that might come from a "report a problem" link. I imagine that
> all these people who have issues must click on the "Help" link in the sidebar
> while looking contact information. W
2009/3/4 David Gerard :
> The final page for people who have a crappy article about themselves
> still needs severe tightening and organisation, though with a mind to
> not causing trouble for OTRS volunteers, who after all are the ones
> getting the crapflood. Could an OTRS BLP q
2009/3/4 KillerChihuahua :
> I cannot stress enough how strongly I agree with this assessment. If
> NPOV, V, and RS were followed - as they should be by normally
> intelligent adults wishing to write good articles - BLP isn't even
> needed at all. I support BLP existing, although I've seen it misu
2009/3/4 Jim Redmond :
> I'm working on that now. I've half a mind to increase the point size on the
> phrase "Wikipedia has no editorial board" and put it in blink tags; if
> people could actually grok that, then much of the rest of that text could
> become unnecessary.
I just put tags around
2009/3/5 Gerard Meijssen :
> It is not that I am not able to look up words in a dictionary.. When an
> excess of dificult word is used, the message is lost.
None of these were excessively difficult, and now you know more English words.
- d.
___
foun
2009/3/5 Gerard Meijssen :
> My English is considered to be quite good. I have not learned any new words
> and I do not mind to have an occassional word. For me this was excessive and
> it stopped my reading and my interest.
You didn't notice your original response was to someone whose first
lan
Politicians get quite annoyed at this stuff. In my experience they
mostly take a certain level of rubbish in their stride, but that
doesn't mean we shouldn't work to improve the situation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7921985.stm
- d.
___
fo
2009/3/6 Thomas Dalton :
> 2009/3/6 Gerard Meijssen :
>> When the English Wikipedia is the only Wikipedia with BLP issues, I
>> completely agree.
> It's the only Wikipedia where BLP issues significantly affect UK
> politicians, which are the subject of the article.
Note that en:wp is more Briti
2009/3/8 Aphaia :
> I would like to encourage Simple English Wikipedia fans to blog about
> it ... particularly if you are non-English native speakers. The wiki
> is just not known. They might know their mother tongue Wikipedia and
> English one but not Simplewiki.
I find it surprising how often
2009/3/8 Sue Gardner :
> Second, there is also a fear ---represented here probably most
> strongly by David Gerard, but I believe lots of other people think the
> same thing--- that if we tackle BLPs clumsily, we could make things
> worse not better, or at least might introduce
2009/3/9 Milos Rancic :
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 9:28 PM, geni wrote:
>> 2009/3/9 Milos Rancic :
>>> Should we treat such persons systematically or it is better to add
>>> some exceptional rules? Something like to give a mandate to WMF to
>>> solve problems of types like giving a formal permissio
[I've changed the subject line.]
2009/3/11 Lars Aronsson :
> If the content is free, people don't need to drink from our
> watertap. It's the water that's important, not the tap. We could
> have a minimal webserver to receive new edits. Serving replication
> feeds to a handful of media corporat
2009/3/14 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
> The only thing *on* wikimedia websites that does
> satisfy that currently is the history of articles; a direct
> link into the history is sadly the only option available. I
> think it is way cool that people are thinking of innovative
> ways of formatting that i
2009/3/14 geni :
> 2009/3/14 David Gerard :
>> Here's an idea: nice URLs for the history. So we don't end up with
>> stupid things peppered with ? and & and = printed on mugs, travel
>> guides, etc.
> If the people producing the mugs want that they are free
2009/3/14 David Gerard :
> 2009/3/14 geni :
>> 2009/3/14 David Gerard :
>>> Here's an idea: nice URLs for the history. So we don't end up with
>>> stupid things peppered with ? and & and = printed on mugs, travel
>>> guides, etc.
>> If
2009/3/15 Charlotte Webb :
> This would still give the wrong data if the page has been moved to
> [[Xenu (Scientology)]] and the [[Xenu (disambiguation)]] is moved to
> [[Xenu]], which isn't a totally unreasonable outcome.
> You'd have to use something like:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/authors/46634
2009/3/15 geni :
> Wikimedia is not a party to the license therefor it's FAQ is of no
> relevance. The answer again goes to the license text. "You must...keep
> intact all copyright notices for the Work and provide ,reasonable to
> the medium or means You are utilizing: (i) the name of the Origina
2009/3/16 Michael Snow :
> Anthony wrote:
>> For offline copies, that would likewise be no attribution at all.
> Can we please drop the nonsense that a URL is "no attribution at all" in
> an offline context? I've made this point before, but URLs do not
> suddenly become devoid of meaning just bec
2009/3/16 Andre Engels :
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 1:59 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> Indeed. The claim is meaningless and querulous noise. Printed objects
>> commonly have a URL on them these days. Listing a source or history
>> short URL would do the job it's intended
2009/3/16 Anthony :
> In the context of an encyclopedia or encyclopedia article, what attribution
> means seems clear, listing the names or the pseudonyms of the authors. That
> I'm apt to not raise a fuss over a reuser who fails to do this in certain
> situations (e.g. where that list is just a
2009/3/16 Anthony :
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:01 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> WMF advice can't actually construct new terms for the CC by-sa 3.0.
> It can't even release my contributions under CC by-sa 3.0, for that matter.
No, but you did with the "or
2009/3/16 Anthony :
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:09 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> 2009/3/16 Anthony :
>> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:01 AM, David Gerard
>> wrote:
>> >> WMF advice can't actually construct new terms for the CC by-sa 3.0.
>> > It
2009/3/16 Anthony :
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>> 2009/3/16 Anthony :
>> > I've never pressed "submit" on a button which read "GFDL 1.2 or later".
>> Try
>> > again.
>> The edit page has said "or later" as long as I can remember. Are you
>> claiming that it didn'
2009/3/16 Anthony :
> I don't think that's clear at all. In fact, I think what's clear is that if
> someone is releasing a work under a license, they are not releasing it under
> a license that doesn't yet exist.
Yes, because Eben Moglen (who would have cleared the "or later"
provision) knows s
2009/3/16 Anthony :
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:57 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> 2009/3/16 Anthony :
>> > I don't think that's clear at all. In fact, I think what's clear is that
>> if
>> > someone is releasing a work under a license, they are not r
2009/3/16 Geoffrey Plourde :
> 1.3 allows for the transfer to CC by SA, please stop playing semantics
Michael, could you please moderate Anthony? He's only here to spread FUD.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsub
2009/3/20 Ray Saintonge :
> A copy of Wikipedia text is frequently used in eBay descriptions of
> books. The attribution is simply to Wikipedia, and does not progress so
> far as to say "[...] et al." That's about as much as anyone could
> reasonably expect, no matter what the licence says.
Th
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/23/protect_our_access_to_medical_research/
Can the Foundation officially put in any words towards openness?
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
U
2009/3/29 KillerChihuahua :
> This is a lovely article, by a reporter who actually doesn't seem to be
> on a smear campaign or completely misunderstand how Wikipedia works -
> altho its unclear how much of that is due to reading "The Wikipedia
> Revolution".
> Wikipedia: Exploring Fact City
> http
2009/3/29 The Cunctator :
> A lovely article. The only pity is it doesn't note how much of this social
> theory of wikis owes to Sunir Shah's pioneering work on MeatballWiki.
MeatballWiki is all but unknown to most Wikipedians, let alone the
outside world. That's not good. I recommend it to all
2009/3/2 David Gerard :
> I just went to get some actual data. Here's the stats.grok.se hit
> count for [[:en:Wikipedia:Contact us]] and its subpages:
> 232227 Wikipedia:Contact us
> - ranked #366 page on Wikipedia for Feb 2009
> 2230 Wikipedia:Contact us/acco
http://www.openrightsgroup.org/2009/03/22/open-letter-call-for-major-websites-to-opt-out-of-phorm/
Should we say "er, no, not our data either" or ignore them?
(This has been discussed on internal lists as well, with all
commenting saying "HELL YES." The question then is whether, by some
obscure l
2009/4/9 Milos Rancic :
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 7:49 PM, Jaska Zedlik wrote:
>> So, does an all-Wikipedias rules list exist, or if not, what are there
>> global rules which all the Wikipedias must follow?
> No.
NPOV. Wikipedias which refuse it have been shut down.
- d.
2009/4/9 Milos Rancic :
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 8:01 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> 2009/4/9 Milos Rancic :
>>> On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 7:49 PM, Jaska Zedlik wrote:
>>>> So, does an all-Wikipedias rules list exist, or if not, what are there
>>>> global
2009/4/10 RYU Cheol :
> Here we have, http://ko.wikipedia.org/User:Ryuch/realname
> I qouted the names in the announcement of Communication Commission.
> It includes Yahoo and Microsoft as well as Google.
> Yahoo and Microsoft submitted to the law.
And YouTube said "what? ahahaha no."
http://www
2009/4/20 Birgitte SB :
> I second this. Does anyone really believe it is even possible to set one
> standard of what it means to be 'collegial' and 'collaborative' for all
> cultures? These things are not absolute values and each community needs to
> work out what standards are most pragmatic
2009/4/21 :
> PM's mail included a bit on an attempt at an appeal to authority by way of
> Jimbo.
Indeed - precisely because this has been turned down (including being
voted down by a huge margin a few years ago) repeatedly on en:wp. It's
a perennial proposal.
- d.
_
2009/4/21 Yaroslav M. Blanter :
> I can not agree with this. Many templates are hidden because they are too
> bulky to be shown in the body of the atricle, so what? Everyone who wants
> to get to the template can click on "show" link. Same with the pictures:
> as one solution, one hides the pictur
2009/4/22 Ting Chen :
> NPOV is mainly a principle of Wikipedia, later also used by Wikibooks
> and Wikinews. There is at least one project (Wikiversity) which
> explicitely allow participants not to follow NPOV, but the Disclosure of
> Point of Views in Wikiversity follow in principle the ideal o
2009/4/22 Milos Rancic :
> NPOV transformation to general neutrality will work in the most of the
> cases. A clear example for such transformation is Wikinews. Even
> called as "NPOV", Wikinews neutrality is a different kind of approach
> because it is a journalistic one.
And even then, some of
2009/4/22 Milos Rancic :
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 5:20 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>>> And if you want to force any kind of neutrality there, you would get
>>> the same kind of scientific production which existed in East European
>>> countries during 50s and 60s: A
2009/4/22 Gregory Kohs :
> Am I on moderation?
Not that I can see. Your previous email came through OK. However, note
that even if you tell it to, Gmail will *not* show you a copy of
messages you sent to a list. This is, apparently, for your comfort and
convenience.
If you're not sure if a mess
2009/4/22 Samuel Klein :
> Science is not yet neutral. The 'scientific method' we currently use
> as a meterstick is a fairly casual method, often producing biased or
> context-free results, which would be improved by a bit of the same
> self-reflection required to describe something with NPOV.
2009/4/23 Kul Takanao Wadhwa :
> I am spreading the news around (I just posted to the internal list)
> about a new announcement going out in a couple hours. For the past few
> months I have been working on a deal with Orange (France Telecom) on a
> new kind of multi-platform (web, mobile, IPTV) pa
2009/4/23 geni :
> Will any of the orange products support wikipedia's video format and
> by what mechanism?
(hypothesising here) I expect that would require a converter from Ogg
Theora to 3GP and Ogg Vorbis to MP3 in the first instance.
Gently pressuring phone manufacturers to support Ogg form
http://newteevee.com/2009/04/20/achtung-youtube-germany-proposes-federal-id-checks-for-online-video-sites/
German readers - how much of a danger is this? Is Commons enough of a
"video site"?
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikime
2009/4/23 Paul Williams :
> On 4/22/09, David Gerard wrote:
>> Gmail will *not* show you a copy of
>> messages you sent to a list. This is, apparently, for your comfort and
>> convenience.
> I have never noticed this one before... my messages always appear!
Yeah, they
2009/4/23 Thomas Dalton :
> Commons isn't a German site, so I don't see a problem. The WMF has
> always said that it intends to follow US law only and not try and
> cater to the laws of every country in the world - that includes
> Germany. The article mentions a plan to force German ISPs to block
2009/4/23 Thomas Dalton :
> Very true. You have to balance starting high enough that you have room
> to come down with not appearing unreasonable. It's a difficult
> balancing act, and I'm not sure you got it quite right this time.
> Perhaps you could have requested they make wikipediaart.org into
2009/4/23 Sebastian Moleski :
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
>> ... The WMF has
>> always said that it intends to follow US law only and not try and
>> cater to the laws of every country in the world - that includes
>> Germany
> {{citation needed}}
The same reason w
2009/4/23 Michael Snow :
> It's basically proven by the notable lack of other art appearing on
> their site in the meantime. I was mildly amused that one of the
> "sources" on their wiki page drew a comparison between the project and
> Andrew Keen, which I suppose fits in with the performance art
2009/4/24 Michael Snow :
> David Gerard wrote:
>> 2009/4/23 Michael Snow :
>>> It's basically proven by the notable lack of other art appearing on
>>> their site in the meantime. I was mildly amused that one of the
>>> "sources" on their
2009/5/5 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen :
> Heh, that reminds me of a fresh Finnish patented method of
> "printing" on concrete, and the freshly built archival building
> in Hämeenlinna. Here is a bit of detail of the wall of the building.
> see if it reminds you of anything familiar to us all?
> http://4.
2009/5/5 Aryeh Gregor :
> Of course, since all of Wikimedia's data is freely available, anyone
> else who'd like to store it in some durable form for any sum of money
> is absolutely free to do so. Or they could give Wikimedia a directed
> grant. But it would be a waste of Wikimedia's money.
T
2009/5/5 Thomas Dalton :
> However, most information isn't lost because of disaster, it is lost
> because people don't think they need it any more and delete/destroy
> it. Can we trust whoever is around in the future to continue to
> preserve the history dumps they've backed up?
As I said, the I
2009/5/5 Chad :
> In 3000 years, nobody will give a rat's ass about Britney Spears'
> discography (again, to pick a random example of "pop culture").
> That's a bet I'm willing to make.
Depends if they rediscover "publish or perish". The academic rat race
is a study in squeezing blood from whate
2009/5/7 Dedalus :
> Congratulations to the Poland team for winning the Wikimania 2010 bid!
Danzig!
/me runs away v. fast
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/may/07/rupert-murdoch-charging-websites
Time for Wikinews to get recruiting ...
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundati
2009/5/7 Charlotte Webb :
> I think David Gerard said human postings generally do not score above
> 2.0 unless their vocabulary suggests a background in SEO, then it's
> higher.
I don't remember saying the second part, but yeah, most human-written
emails score below 2.0. Ho
2009/5/7 Samuel Klein :
> I think that the "cheatsheet / overview / bootstrapping" version of
> information about a topic is quite valuable and useful, and that few
> people create such materials today [we don't have a good noun for that
> kind of work, for instance].
The rough guide? The Cliff'
2009/5/7 Samuel Klein :
> * Of course this could be boiled down to "part of a good comprehensive
> article on Wikipedia" in the same way that all wikiprojects could be
> merged into WP if one were so inclined...
No, no. All wikiprojects could be merged into *Wikibooks* if one were
so inclined. T
2009/5/8 Brian :
> You went from 2,500 subjects to just 10?
For a software test, which this mostly was, 5 is enough for excellent
results in most cases.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.w
2009/5/10 Michael Peel :
> I don't want to restart this rather long (but very interesting)
> topic, but I'd like to point out / remind people that a couple of
> well-placed fires could wipe out most of wikipedia et al. as we
> currently know it - surely the first priority, before thinking about
>
There was a "Wikipedians" group which was apparently started for
"networking" (which in practice seemed to mean spam blasts), per
http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2009/04/16/wikipedians-on-linkedin/
But there's at least a couple more groups which are sincere and were
just put together by Wikipedian
601 - 700 of 1151 matches
Mail list logo
