Re: [Foundation-l] It is vital to stamp out citizen journalism. Or claim to.

2009/8/14 Fred Bauder : >> When you're competing with your own fans, you're ... in trouble. >> http://www.tampabay.com/news/article1027680.ece > Heh, but is there any basis whatever that the events occurring a football > game are of social or education value? Historical, frequently. I believe o

Re: [Foundation-l] Lack of research on Wikipedia

2009/8/16 Gerard Meijssen : > For me while interesting, it is hardly new and therefore not that > interesting what people like Ed H Chi write about Wikipedia. They do not > write about Wikipedia, they write about the English language Wikipedia. > Invariably news written about Wikipedia concentrate

Re: [Foundation-l] Lack of research on Wikipedia

2009/8/16 John at Darkstar : > I would guess that the most important reason why english wikipedia is > slowing down is because of the other language projects gets the > attention of the editors. perhaps it would be possible to get some > numbers on the total influx of content and how it is distrib

Re: [Foundation-l] Missing audio of WMF Board candidates

2009/8/19 Gregory Maxwell : > On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Nathan wrote: >> certainly see why it would be frustrating for him: he's much more reasonable >> in voice chat than over text, and if the audio were widely circulated it's >> possible he would have come in a few places higher in the e

Re: [Foundation-l] Lack of research on Wikipedia

2009/8/20 Lars Aronsson : > David Gerard wrote: >> Yes, completely. Do other Wikipedias show the same S-curve of growth? > I don't think it's an S-curve. I think we are seeing linear > growth, with a few exceptions in the very early days (years). > But hey, th

Re: [Foundation-l] New projects opened

2009/8/21 Michael Snow : > I can speak from a bit of personal experience here. Between the Dutch > chapter, Jan-Bart, and people on the technical team like Mark and Roan, > the Dutch were well represented at the meetings in Berlin in April. At > one point I decided to invade a table full of Dutch

Re: [Foundation-l] Lack of research on Wikipedia

2009/8/21 Thomas Dalton : > Milestones are important, especially for PR purposes. We just need to > work out which milestones should be emphasised. For small Wikipedias > number of articles is probably a good choice, for larger ones, > particularly the English Wikipedia, it probably isn't. I'd l

[Foundation-l] Leaked UK Ordnance Survey report on freeing map data

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/New_Digital_Master_Map_for_Great_Britian:_Confidential_Advice_to_Ministers%2C_2009 This is a survey that they didn't want made public, about the costs and benefits of releasing map data. They've clearly fiddled the cost numbers. Now to try to get accountability for the cl

Re: [Foundation-l] New projects opened

2009/8/23 Mark Williamson : > Getting "involved overseas" isn't the same as colonization. > There has been buzz about American colonialism and whatnot but the US > has few true colonies and none of any substantial size or population. However, people learning English frequently demand the America

Re: [Foundation-l] New board members and officers

2009/8/25 geni : > Omidyar Network? They were involved with a 4 million funding round for > wikia back in 2006 no? > http://web.archive.org/web/20060422054638/http://www.americanventuremagazine.com/news.php?newsid=941 > Appointing yet another person with wikia links looks kinda dicey no? Oh come

Re: [Foundation-l] Omidyar network press release and QA / Board Announcement

2009/8/25 Jay Walsh : > This was also somewhat compounded by the considerable media interest > in coverage of some flagged revisions stories (it's important to > respond to every request we get - we want to get the story right). Particularly the flagged revisions story, which has basically start

Re: [Foundation-l] Frequency of Seeing Bad Versions - now with traffic data

2009/8/28 Robert Rohde : > On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 3:55 AM, Anthony wrote: >> Once we have the list, anyone is free to examine it any way they want, and >> show their results.  But we're talking about probably less than 200 >> instances of vandalism here, so it'll be quite easy (and fun) to lambas

Re: [Foundation-l] 31 august, 20 years of our national holiday "Our romanian language" in Moldova, mo.wikipedia still in cyrillic !

2009/8/31 Cetateanu Moldovanu : > I said OUR, OUR country, OUR language, OUR latin script and alphabet. Please > respect us. If by "respect" you mean "agree" and "do what I say" ... then I'm not surprised you have no insight as to why no-one cares about your request. - d. ___

Re: [Foundation-l] WMF seeking to sub-lease office space?

2009/9/4 Erik Moeller : > Yes, as noted in our 09-10 plan, we are relocating to a new space, as > a consequence of which the current satellite office will be re-merged > into the new HQ. We're hoping to sublet the Stillman space, once we've > covered up the entrance to our secret underground lair

Re: [Foundation-l] Partecipation in Wikimania 2011

On 11 August 2010 19:27, wrote: > One has to decide where one stands on such issues, does one not? I suggest ignoring the troll henceforth - this poster has only ever joined threads on this list in order to try to derail them. - d. ___ foundation-

Re: [Foundation-l] Partecipation in Wikimania 2011

On 12 August 2010 11:10, Osama Khalid wrote: > Poland, Germany, Egypt, United States, Argentina and even Taiwan were > easy for the vast majority of the Wikimedia community to come into and > I don't think anyone had serious issue like the one we, Muslims and > Arabs, are have here. Just to be cl

[Foundation-l] $20 TV-based en:wp reader

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/humane-reader-wikipedia-console,news-7706.html Just a tiny gadget that hooks to your TV to display stuff and holds a copy of en:wp. Nice reuse :-) - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscr

Re: [Foundation-l] Push translation

On 17 August 2010 03:22, Samuel Klein wrote: > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Michael Galvez wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 5:56 PM, David Gerard wrote: >>> And the data that GTTK gathers from its use in Wikipedia translations? >>> What would need to happen fo

Re: [Foundation-l] Yesha Council prapares to war on Wikipedia?

On 19 August 2010 10:10, Tomasz Ganicz wrote: > Yesha Council prapares to war on Wikipedia? > See: > http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/the-right-s-latest-weapon-zionist-editing-on-wikipedia-1.308667 > any comments? It made the Guardian as well. Despite the media attention, I don't thin

Re: [Foundation-l] data centralization for the benefit of small (and also bigger) projects

On 23 August 2010 17:23, Marcus Buck wrote: >  Am 23.08.2010 18:20, schrieb Ole Palnatoke Andersen: >> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Marcus Buck  wrote: >>> In view of the potential usefulness I cannot think of any argument that >>> speaks against this in general. The prospect of providing at

Re: [Foundation-l] data centralization for the benefit of small (and also bigger) projects

On 23 August 2010 17:43, Marcus Buck wrote: > Although I'm sure they will establish sub-communities on the new wiki > like they did on Commons. E.g. German speakers meet at the Forum > () instead of the > Village pump. That will happen on a datawik

Re: [Foundation-l] A proposal of partnership between Wikimedia Foundation and Internet Archive

On 24 August 2010 14:57, emijrp wrote: > I want to make a proposal about external links preservation. Many times, > when you check an external link or a link reference, the website is dead or > offline. This websites are important, because they are the sources for the > facts showed in the articl

Re: [Foundation-l] A proposal of partnership between Wikimedia Foundation and Internet Archive

On 24 August 2010 17:32, emijrp wrote: > Internet Archive is a nonprofit foundation, and it is running since 1996, so > I think that it is a stable project and they are going to create mirrors in > more countries (now there is a mirror in Alexandria). But, of course, > Webcite or Wikiwix can help

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

On 25 August 2010 23:34, Marcus Buck wrote: > Gerard Meijssen keeps his contributions to > the discussions secret Is this true? If so, what is the rationale? Described like that, that sounds ridiculous and unacceptable. - d. ___ foundation-l mailin

Re: [Foundation-l] A proposal of partnership between Wikimedia Foundation and Internet Archive

On 25 August 2010 17:49, Gregory Kohs wrote: > I would want to see the Internet Archive behave in a more ethically > accountable manner before any strong alliance is built with them on any > Wikimedia function.  Namely, for the past 3 months, I have been working with > an attorney to appeal to th

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

On 26 August 2010 00:39, Marcus Buck wrote: >  An'n 26.08.2010 00:41, hett David Gerard schreven: >> On 25 August 2010 23:34, Marcus Buck  wrote: >>> Gerard Meijssen keeps his contributions to >>> the discussions secret >> Is this true? If so, what is th

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

On 26 August 2010 04:54, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > I am not the only one that keep my contributions confidential. There is > another member of the LC who has good personal reasons to have the > contributions not publicly available. The reason is that there may be > repercussions in the professiona

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

On 26 August 2010 14:50, Marcus Buck wrote: > What has a limited remit to do with transparency? The things you do in > your limited remit are extremely relevant to some groups. Our mailing > lists should be public whenever possible so people have the chance to > object to wrong or bad decisions,

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

On 26 August 2010 19:13, Gerard Meijssen wrote: >> I think this has already been answered. Quoting Marcus below: >> You try to make it appear like an attack on a single person. It's not >> about removing any person from the committee, we just want them to be >> transparent and stand to their word

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

I've just been chatting with Gerard about this issue. He explained in some detail the concerns for confidentiality - the situation is far from ideal, but is the present workable solution to getting accurate quality information without possible retribution drected at those giving the information fro

Re: [Foundation-l] Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

On 26 August 2010 22:48, Muhammad Yahia wrote: > I personally don't agree with this. I believe a person with such problematic > employment situation is not a good fit for a supposedly community committee. > And even if there is a great need for this person's expertise, other > arrangements could

Re: [Foundation-l] Organization on Wikipedia that deals with content issues.

On 29 August 2010 15:38, Peter Damian wrote: > The problem is that until someone sits up and notices the serious errors that > are propagated through Wikipedia (and which are now becoming part of the > folk wisdom of the internet), no one will be bothered. The problem is that no > one > *knows*

Re: [Foundation-l] Organization on Wikipedia that deals with content issues.

On 29 August 2010 16:45, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: > These issues have been discussed at length at the Strategy wiki and made > to the five-how year strategic plan. The question is how they would be > implemented now. But it is not really correct that nobody bothers. Awareness of our systemic

Re: [Foundation-l] Organization on Wikipedia that deals withcontent issues.

On 29 August 2010 17:18, Peter Damian wrote: > In the case of newspapers probably yes.  In the case of encyclopedias, > I think not.   There are severe problems with the Wikipedia coverage of > philosophy which you wouldn't find here, for instance.  And so for the > humanities generally. When I m

Re: [Foundation-l] Organization on Wikipedia that deals with content issues.

On 29 August 2010 17:19, David Moran wrote: > I think my problem with suggestions like this is that the assumption at the > heart of all of them--that "experts" with degrees are preferable as > information authorities to nonexperts without--is deeply problematic, and > I'm not convinced it won't

Re: [Foundation-l] Organization on Wikipedia that deals with content issues.

On 29 August 2010 17:52, David Moran wrote: > Well, right.  That's kind of what I mean.  These things happened to > Citizendium because credentialism is the natural outcome of trying to create > a system of valuing a certain class of contributors more than others. I was amazed just how actively

Re: [Foundation-l] Organization on Wikipedia that deals with content issues.

On 29 August 2010 18:16, wrote: > Now whether they would have had to or not isn't the point. The point was > that all had experience onwiki aguements, and all had independently > decided that they're time was better spent in ways other than agueing > with a wikieditor. Yes: the problem with ke

Re: [Foundation-l] Organization on Wikipedia that deals with content issues.

On 31 August 2010 00:21, John Vandenberg wrote: > Irony.  David Gerard disparaging CZ using a rationalwiki page as evidence. The links are there if you want to read them. > Pseudo-science, pseudo-humanities, etc are no stranger to Wikipedia, > and our processes have not al

Re: [Foundation-l] Organization on Wikipedia that deals with content issues.

On 31 August 2010 00:55, David Gerard wrote: > On 31 August 2010 00:21, John Vandenberg wrote: >> Irony.  David Gerard disparaging CZ using a rationalwiki page as evidence. > The links are there if you want to read them. Or, if you prefer: of course the wiki is fluff and amus

Re: [Foundation-l] Organization on Wikipedia that deals withcontent issues.

On 31 August 2010 20:16, Peter Damian wrote: > Actually David wrote the page.  I thought it was interesting ... No, that section was substantially written by Trent Toulouse. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubs

Re: [Foundation-l] Organization on Wikipedia that deals with content issues.

On 1 September 2010 00:27, John Vandenberg wrote: > You, and the RW article about WP, start from the assertion that > Wikipedia is successful.  Successful at what?  Success at Google > rankings/pageviews/popular culture?  Is that the only appropriate > measure of an encyclopedia; an encyclopedia

Re: [Foundation-l] HR and Recruiting Feed on Identi.ca and Twitter

On 3 September 2010 04:49, MZMcBride wrote: > One might suggest that the people spending their day on Twitter reading > Wikimedia's "wikimediaatwork" feed aren't going to be the best prospective > employees. http://identi.ca/wikimediaatwork/all/rss The back-end for such a feed is not really cr

Re: [Foundation-l] HR and Recruiting Feed on Identi.ca and Twitter

On 3 September 2010 13:38, Angela wrote: > On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 8:18 PM, David Gerard wrote: >> If there's an RSS-embedding widget that's up to our standards, it >> might be a good thing to put on the relevant WMF wiki page. > It may be better to have a bot co

Re: [Foundation-l] Call for a moratorium on all new software developments

On 7 September 2010 13:03, Teofilo wrote: > Let's not call this a conspiracy. You already did: "I think it is partly thoughtlessness, partly an agenda to remove contributor's names from wherever is possible, so that the WMF can dominate the contents and do whatever it wants with them without t

Re: [Foundation-l] [Language committee] Transparency

On 16 September 2010 12:09, K. Peachey wrote: > May one ask why private personal stuff is even being discussed on this list? This was discussed on foundation-l in August, check the archive. (Subject line: "Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles") - d. __

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia mirrors

On 16 September 2010 17:58, Erik Moeller wrote: > For privacy reasons, we can't back up all data everywhere (e.g. user > account information) -- it might be worth thinking about longer term > strategies for portability of that data (e.g. a group of unaffiliated > entrusted individuals who hold en

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia mirrors

On 16 September 2010 22:16, Erik Moeller wrote: > 2010/9/16 David Gerard : >> Surely dumps would be a natural for the Internet Archive and the >> Library of Congress. > As Tomasz noted in [1], we're already talking to the LOC about keeping > mirrors. But lots of copies

Re: [Foundation-l] Study of Controversial Content

On 16 September 2010 22:35, R M Harris wrote: > As promised, the draft report on our study of Controversial Content on > Wikimedia projects is now available at > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content. >  We're actually planning to release the study on tha

Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

On 16 September 2010 21:53, Peter Damian wrote: > No I meant 'educational'.  I'm actually quite shocked by some of the things > being said in this thread, and that the people who have said them are > running Wikipedia. > Does anyone else, apart from these two, have any views on what they have > s

Re: [Foundation-l] Study of Controversial Content

On 16 September 2010 23:11, Steven Walling wrote: > Not quite sure what you mean by "ratcheted up"? Could you clarify? I thought it was pretty clear. What, if anything, is in place to make sure the planned filtering will not be increased? - d. ___

Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

On 18 September 2010 17:19, Peter Damian wrote: > Normally it is the first step that is the main difficulty.  As it is in the > present case: I don't see any consensus here (apart from a handful of other > posts, such as Andreas above) that there is any problem. You haven't demonstrated there i

Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

On 18 September 2010 18:05, Peter Damian wrote: > You say >> You haven't demonstrated there is enough of a problem even to induce >> people here to jump into action, let alone the Foundation doing so. > and then you say >> There are lots of people who complain about our humanities content, > T

Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

On 18 September 2010 18:28, James Heilman wrote: > We need to look at why other wikis are being created such as wikidocs, > medpeadia, and radiopedia (there are 87 dealing with science alone) rather > than they joining us.  Others in academia obviously perceive some problems > with our system.  A

Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

On 19 September 2010 09:52, Yann Forget wrote: > I agree with that. The first step is to acknowkedge that there is a problem. > But most people I have read about this topic even deny that. > So we can't go further until this is accepted. > BTW this is also the case on the French Wikipedia, so the

Re: [Foundation-l] Umberto Eco on small languages/dialects Wikipedias (Aristotle article)

On 19 September 2010 12:42, Ilario Valdelli wrote: > It is normal because any standard language has different registers, the > dialect has limited registers and in general only for daily and familiar > use. This, by the way, is why we don't have multiple English Wikipedias - in the higher regis

[Foundation-l] Fwd: London Wikimeet July photos for review

Before I put some or all on Commons, please review for any you hate: http://reddragdiva.co.uk/temp/gallery.html If you don't like a photo of you, please email me, not the lists ;-) - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org U

Re: [Foundation-l] Umberto Eco on small languages/dialects Wikipedias (Aristotle article)

On 19 September 2010 20:08, Mark Williamson wrote: > I am not from Italy, but speaking generally about languages and > language varieties around the world, I will say that it is true that > for the most part, any concept that can be expressed in one language > can be expressed in another. In some

Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

On 20 September 2010 05:25, Michael Snow wrote: > These dynamics play out in concerns about article "ownership" manifested > in one direction, or in what David Gerard likes to call Wikipedia's > house style in the other direction. Note that I'm not a fan of it. Ra

Re: [Foundation-l] Increasing the number of new accounts who actually edit

On 22 September 2010 17:26, Robert Rohde wrote: > Currently, only about 1.1% of account registrations reach the level of > 100 edits.  That conversion rate is tiny.  Even if there are many > different reasons that such people abandon editing, I have to imagine > that a significant portion of the

Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Foundation Blog] Article feedback pilot goes live

On 22 September 2010 19:24, Guillaume Paumier wrote: > The "Article Feedback Tool" allows any reader to quickly and easily > assess the sourcing, completeness, neutrality, and readability of a > Wikipedia article on a five-point scale. It will be one of several tools > used by the Public Policy I

Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

On 27 September 2010 15:17, Nathan wrote: > A few posts back Peter linked to several philosophy-trained editors > who had left Wikipedia, representing them as examples of the problems > he has identified. > I think it's worth reposting here what one of those editors gave as > his reasons for leav

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Kosovo Chapter?

On 28 September 2010 12:40, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 27 September 2010 21:02, Joan Goma wrote: >> We are here to promote Wikimedia projects not to promote Serbia union nor >> Kosovo independence. > Very true, but allowing separate Kosovan and Sebian chapters (which is > probably best for the W

Re: [Foundation-l] Pending Changes development update: September 27

On 28 September 2010 23:12, Risker wrote: > You're losing the hearts and minds battle here, guys. There'll be new hearts and minds along in eighteen months. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://li

Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

On 28 September 2010 12:38, David Gerard wrote: > You can hardly move on Wikipedia without tripping over experts in > whatever topic you're editing. Why are there any experts on Wikipedia? I predict Wikipedia's biology articles will far outshine its philosophy articles for the

Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

On 2 October 2010 07:58, Peter Damian wrote: > From: "David Gerard" >> http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.1000941 >> With some fields going to this effort and not others, ultimately it's >> up to the specialists in the fie

Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

On 2 October 2010 10:28, Peter Damian wrote: > From: "David Gerard" >> That [...] doesn't answer the question I asked: >> *what* about the approach in this paper wouldn't work for philosophy, >> in your opinion? Please be specific. >> http://ww

Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

On 2 October 2010 19:09, wrote: > You can sit in your padded room and throw your toys around in a temper > tantrum, but that still won't change anything will it. While WJohnson's manner is perhaps unnecessarily brusque here, this is the point: what to do about this? Wikipedia does appear to h

Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

On 2 October 2010 20:53, Peter Damian wrote: > From: "David Gerard" >> Wikipedia does appear to have fallen into its own folk ontology: an >> answer to the question "what is knowledge?" that is simple and obvious >> enough for smart high school stud

Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

On 2 October 2010 22:00, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > I agree with you, David, that credentialism isn't the way forward. But asking > editors, nicely, to please do some research and to check what scholarly > literature is available, in google scholar, in google books, and in academic > publications

Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

On 2 October 2010 22:44, David Gerard wrote: > The problem is how to avoid making rules against stupidity. Because > you can't actually outlaw stupid. Experts already complain about > uncitability. I suppose we could advise experts on how to use citation > as a debating t

Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

On 3 October 2010 14:09, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > I have a hard time believing that it should be impossible to find a source > which states something that "everyone knows". If it's assumed prior knowledge > in journal articles, it should still be possible to find it in basic > introductions to t

Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

On 3 October 2010 15:53, wrote: > It was never intended however to be a collaboration amongst experts, but > rather an encyclopedia built *by* the masses, for the masses.  That was the > intent.  In this, it has succeeded, for better or worse. No, "built by the masses" was not the intent. The

Re: [Foundation-l] Please delete mo. wikipedia

On 4 October 2010 14:36, Nathan wrote: > Since this regularly comes up on this list, and the request is > outstanding since 2006, maybe at the bottom of the to-do pile isn't > the right place. Wouldn't the smartest temporary solution be to > redirect mo.wp to ro.wp and move mo.wp to ro-cyrl.wp? T

Re: [Foundation-l] Foundation-l word cloud

On 4 October 2010 10:51, K. Peachey wrote: > Although I don't have a issue with it, but you may wish to double > check the licensing you have attached to those uploads, since from > understanding is that copyright and ownership does apply to emails. Not even within Commons level of copyright pa

Re: [Foundation-l] Please delete mo. wikipedia

On 4 October 2010 13:54, Chad wrote: > On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 4:39 AM, Mariano Cecowski > wrote: >> Would it be possible to change the source for editing and then back to be >> stored? I can think of a couple of problems to solve, including image and >> template names, or language links, but a

Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

On 4 October 2010 19:43, geni wrote: > The Wikipedia that went from nothing to top ten site was never built > on  verifiable knowledge. It was built on what people happened to have > in their heads. The whole citation thing outside the more > controversial areas came later. Don't believe me? This

Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

On 5 October 2010 12:01, Andreas Kolbe wrote: >> > It's very distracting, and completely unnecessary. >> There are ways of >> > bundling citations into one footnote at the end of >> each paragraph, >> > while still making clear which citation supports which >> words. But it's >> It doesn't distr

Re: [Foundation-l] Liu Xiaobo

On 8 October 2010 23:45, Nathan wrote: > You understood, I'm sure, that he was making an exaggerated comparison > between the Chinese government's approach to public debate and > Wikipedia's governance? He clearly believes that Liu Xiaobo has been > mistreated (which he has been), and also that h

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial Content Study Part 3

On 11 October 2010 15:56, Nathan wrote: > As for GerardM's comment - I think PM brought it up to illustrate the > problem, not because he thought this was the only example. It isn't a > purely theoretical issue, there are actual cases that make policy > development an important concern. Speakin

[Foundation-l] Expertise and Wikipedia redux

This reads like a radical anti-egalitarian manifesto by some young Internet-based firebrand. Wikipedia is way cool! Universities are dead institutions walking! We'll all learn off the web! Social networks will replace campuses! You know the sort of thing: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-edu

Re: [Foundation-l] Expertise and Wikipedia redux

On 12 October 2010 20:54, Peter Damian wrote: > Otherwise the article irritated me in that once again it cited the badly > flawed 'Nature' study. And it didn't irritate you that this is a vice-chancellor saying these things, with an aim to making you pretty much redundant? (Vice-chancellors are

Re: [Foundation-l] Please delete mo. wikipedia

On 13 October 2010 11:19, Gutza wrote: > Nobody says the current content should be deleted -- just stop > serving it. Here you are playing with language, not advancing the discussion. By "delete", the thread starter meant precisely "stop serving it." - d.

Re: [Foundation-l] Expertise and Wikipedia redux

On 13 October 2010 14:42, Gregory Kohs wrote: > I find it interesting that some 18 hours after Gerard's notification (and my > posting a comment on The Australian's page), still not a single comment has > been approved for publication.  I wonder why that is?  Is there some > official policy withi

Re: [Foundation-l] Russian police probe Wikipedia for extremism

On 18 October 2010 20:38, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: > Fred Bauder, 18/10/2010 21:10: >>>From RT: >> http://rt.com/Top_News/2010-10-18/russian-police-probe-wikipedia.html > «the Russian nonprofit organization Wikipedia.ru»: uh? > Yet another domain name to recover... Presumably they meant htt

[Foundation-l] Another machine-assisted translation tool

This time from Microsoft Research: http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2010/10/18/wikibhasha/ Has anyone used this one? How is it? Did Google ever commit to releasing the translation pairs? If so, we should certainly ask Microsoft for the same. - d. ___

Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Announcement: Mike Godwin leaves the Wikimedia Foundation

On 21 October 2010 20:18, Robert Rohde wrote: > I would also like to add my gratitude to Mike for his years of useful > service.  It is hard to imagine who could be a suitable replacement. Having been privileged to see some of the breathtaking thngs Mike pulled off for Wikimedia that cannot as

Re: [Foundation-l] Ban and moderate

On 22 October 2010 08:19, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: > If you are counting votes, please count mine for moderation. +1 Seriously, this list is commonly referred to as "troll-l" and lots of chapter people refuse to even look at it. Pulling it out of the mire might make it even slightly useful a

Re: [Foundation-l] Ban and moderate

On 22 October 2010 14:14, Marc Riddell wrote: > on 10/22/10 8:49 AM, Gerard Meijssen at gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: >> People who appreciate an upgrade from totally useless... obviously... > To what "use" are you talking about, Gerard; groupthink-l? Your answer appears to have fallen prey

Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal for new projects

On 23 October 2010 12:13, Samuel Klein wrote: > WikiHow is a good place for how-tos, and has an amazing community. > They unfortunately use a license (NC-SA) that isn't compatible with > Wikimedia projects.  If you want to do something like WikiHow under a > CC-SA license, you might pursue a new

Re: [Foundation-l] Proposed Wikimedia Project in Kenya

On 23 October 2010 15:00, Abbas Mahmoud wrote: > We still are at a very early stage: the framework/proposal is still sketchy. > Please check it out at > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Kenya/Project_for_Kenyan_Schools and > give us your feedback. Feel free to edit, redaft or whatever y

Re: [Foundation-l] Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate

On 24 October 2010 12:40, SlimVirgin wrote: > By excluding high-quality media sources you're elevating the lowliest > scientist as a source, and the vested interests that finance the > research, above the most senior and experienced of disinterested > journalists. That makes no sense to me. The

Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate

On 24 October 2010 16:52, wrote: > Well you could put a banner above every article that read "The > information contained on the page could well be nonsense". That would be the logo at the side, then. Really, Wikipedia can't be expected to think for those who can't or won't. The community at

Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate

On 24 October 2010 20:26, Anthony wrote: > Put it in a fixed form, like on a CD, and then you can call it an > encyclopedia. Unfortunately, you're running behind the English language. http://twitter.com/#!/alisonclement/status/8421314259 "Yesterday I asked one of my students if she knew what

Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate

On 24 October 2010 23:40, wrote: > Oh well that's OK then. One Encyclopaedia puts an fake entry into the > work about a fictitious person (born in bangs, died in an explosion, > whilst working for combustible), and that absolutely justifies having a > site that boasts of containing the world

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Foundation switching to Google Apps?

On 26 October 2010 14:23, Nathan wrote: > I don't know about anyone else, but I couldn't possibly care less what > office software the Foundation uses. I suppose the paranoid conspiracy > theory of a Google takeover fueled by illicit access to WMF data > doesn't strike me as remotely realistic.

Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and...

Forget medical information. How about making a plane that won't fall out of thesky? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/26/kenya-plane-homemade I *facepalm*ed. ENGINEER HUBRIS IS NOT WHAT WIKIPEDIA IS FOR! - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foun

Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and...

On 26 October 2010 20:30, Michael Snow wrote: > David Gerard wrote: >> I *facepalm*ed. ENGINEER HUBRIS IS NOT WHAT WIKIPEDIA IS FOR! > No, but it's what much of Wikipedia was written with. +1 Actually, it was the computer stuff that was the first area of Wikipedia that

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Foundation switching to Google Apps?

On 26 October 2010 21:30, MZMcBride wrote: > Perhaps Google Apps has some terrific benefits that Wikimedia sorely needs; > that was the reason I asked what benefits Wikimedia saw in migrating their > systems in my original post. However, from where I'm standing, the cost > versus benefits simply

Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and...

On 26 October 2010 20:49, George Herbert wrote: > On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 12:38 PM, David Gerard wrote: >> There's a place for applied engineer hubris[1]. With due caution. >> [1] http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/engineers%20and%20woo > (grump) > While generally true

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Foundation switching to Google Apps?

On 26 October 2010 23:35, Zugravu Gheorghe wrote: > And as a small comment: Thunderbird is free (as in freedom) application > and allows to do whatever manipulation with the code (and there are a > bunch of thunderbird customization already available there) - thus if > there is a need this need c

<    4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   >