Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

Jake, It is not an accepted practice to ban users from editing Wikipedia unless they are actively disrupting, endangering, or otherwise harming the project. Such bannings usually require either broad community consensus, an action from the Arbitration Committee, or an action from Jimbo Wales. In a

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

Actually, I think the better argument is that pedophilia activism on Wikipedia harms the project. Fred > Jake, > > It is not an accepted practice to ban users from editing Wikipedia unless > they are actively disrupting, endangering, or otherwise harming the > project. Such bannings usually requi

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

> If [it] brings the project in disrepute, then so be it. > André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com It is our responsibility to avoid harm to the project. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

> "appeal" - someone said something that highly surprised me. > Apparently, the AC of enwiki 'endorsed' the blockade, but still you > consider an appeal realistic? I'm sorry, but I would find the chance > of honest ruling very low, nearing zero, in case if that same group of > judges first endorse

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

> Fred Bauder wrote: > >> An appeal is not futile. For one thing the policy might be changed or >> it >> might be decided the policy which exists does not apply in this case. > > Again, I wish to read this policy. Where is it published? And how > was it establish

Re: [Foundation-l] Follow up: Fan History joining the WMF family

Laura, It seems unlikely if only based on "We have no notability requirement." Essentially, you've forked, chosen an incompatible core policy. Fred Bauder > This is a follow up to my proposal that Fan History Wiki join the wMF > family, based on my experiences via e-mai

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

> > Just as a point of interest, do we block people currently > incarcerated from editing? > > I have a vague recollection that one of the most voluminous > contributors to the original edition of the Oxford English > Dictionary, was actually a prisoner... > > > Yours, > > Jussi-Ville Heiskanen >

Re: [Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

> In a message dated 11/29/2009 5:45:02 AM Pacific Standard Time, > fredb...@fairpoint.net writes: > > >> But then, if Ryan could do it, anyone, including an >> investigative journalist could have done it.>> > > But you're assuming that they could then apply "guilt by association" > which > would t

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedic OCD

Some books are very productive in that way, if you have time to add each interesting fact to the encyclopedia. TV is a bit awkward to reference, at least routinely. Fred > Does anyone else suffer from this problem, whereby you listen to or > watch any kind of programme and think "I could add tha

Re: [Foundation-l] Is the consensus to the policy necessary?

> Does Wikipedia's principles need consensus of the community? > There is not consensus of the community, but does somebody pass if > filled out the page with "Policy"? They do. A recently created policy page is only a proposal. Fred ___ foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Is the consensus to the policy necessary?

gt;> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > > As for a Japanese version, The Five Pillars is not adopted. > Wikipedia:Consensus is not policy. > The controversy is solved by the vote. Isn't there problem? Yes, but within broad pa

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikiversity

business. Fred Bauder > What's going on over at Wikiversity? Jimmy Wales has now been threatened > with a block by someone who seems to be an admin in good standing, and he > responds that he has "the full support of the Wikimedia Foundation". Is > this true? What d

Re: [Foundation-l] How to kill a mailing list

Yes, but no need to delete endless repetitive spam from "Anthony" without bothering to read it. Bottom line, serious discussions have moved elsewhere. Progress, I guess, discussions here never seemed to lead anywhere. Just round and round. Fred Bauder > August 2009: 1030 > Sep

Re: [Foundation-l] How to kill a mailing list

, Mar 17, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Fred Bauder > wrote: > >> Bottom line, serious discussions have moved elsewhere. Progress, I >> guess, >> discussions here never seemed to lead anywhere. Just round and round. >> > > Where have the discussions moved? I assume y

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikiversity

e welcome, but don't think this MUD is a platform to continue a fight from another MUD. We have this on Wikinfo regularly, ChildofMidnight being the latest. http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Special:Contributions/ChildofMidnight Fred Bauder _

Re: [Foundation-l] open letter by Wikiversity users to the WMF Board of Trustees

> please see at: > http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity_open_letter_project/WMF_Board_March_2010 Signed: User:Jon Awbrey Jon Awbrey Among others. Talk about a red flag! ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

ble images, the explicit image that used to illustrate "Pearl necklace (sexuality)" comes to mind. I have always objected to offensive images (such as of Muhammad) and know that somewhere there is a sane dividing line between the informative and the prurient. Fred Bauder > As some of you

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

uld be anything wrong if she had, but we don't illustrate the articles of any number of women who might have used a dildo at some point in their lives in this way. In a word, the image is made up and quite offensive. Fred Bauder > The thing that has changed is the fact that this was decided

[Foundation-l] The Fox Article

tech/2010/04/27/wikipedia-child-porn-larry-sanger-fbi/ Erik Möller is particularly unfair. Fred Bauder ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo Wales acting outside his remit

Catholics don't matter, but they do). Much better to use a photo of the woman using a dildo or at least an eye-witness report published in a reliable source. The image could, of course, be used appropriately to illustrate an article on caricatures or something about anti-catholicism. Fred B

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo Wales acting outside his remit

How child friendly should we be? Fred Bauder ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo Wales acting outside his remit

Note however, "We were about to be smeared in all media as hosting hardcore pornography with zero educational value and doing nothing about it." Fred Bauder > Further, Mr. Wales: > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&action=historysub

Re: [Foundation-l] Statement on appropriate educational content

to be available to. We have no power to resolve the cultural differences. We can only be aware and make decisions accordingly. Fred Bauder > H... > >> The vast majority of that material is entirely uncontroversial, but the >> projects do contain material that may be inappr

Re: [Foundation-l] Statement on appropriate educational content

> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Fred Bauder > wrote: >> It comes down to the size of the tent. If you want students in Saudi >> Arabia to be able to use Wikipedia it has to be structured one way. If >> you want to please gay college students you structure it anoth

Re: [Foundation-l] Statement on appropriate educational content

rmation in specialist resources. Those will special interests should have no difficulty creating specialized reference resources. Certainly those who are into pornography have. Fred Bauder ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.o

Re: [Foundation-l] Statement on appropriate educational content

> 2010/5/8 Anthony : > >> I dunno, when framed that way it seems the answer is to be >> family-friendly, >> and to let the specialists get their information in specialist >> resources. > > So... are we now going to start writting "USfamilyfriendlypedia(tm)" ? > There is plenty of stuff to be delete

Re: [Foundation-l] "Filtering" ourselves is pointless

> Fox News (or at least this reporter and her editors) have dedicated > themselves to damaging Wikipedia and the Wikimedia projects. This is a > given, and it is evident from their behavior. *Any* followup story would > have demonstrated what these days in the U.S. we are calling "epistemic > clos

Re: [Foundation-l] [Functionaries-en] Jerusalem Post article about concerted pro-palestinian editing

paganda-is-both-intelligent-and-necessary-1.265853 Fred Bauder > There was the I/P ArbCom decision here < > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Remedies> > that implemented a host of discretionary sanctions. > > My personal

Re: [Foundation-l] Participation of intellectual professions

> With wikipedia, any expert could reach and teach millions of persons. In > ten or twenty years, every literate person with internet access could > use an interdisciplinary, edge-cutting database of knowledge for their > diary reasoning. > The knowledge and understanding of mankind could make gia

Re: [Foundation-l] Participation of intellectual professions

political campaign has a "war room" to respond to such press we should make a point of responding. David Gerard has done a great deal of this, particularly in the U.K. > > -- > James Heilman > MD, CCFP-EM, B.Sc. Fred Bauder ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Cultural awareness and sensitivity

impact of Western culture. Fred Bauder > To avoid further disrupting discussion of interlanguage links and > usability, I'll address the cultural problems separately now. I must > admit, though, that in a discussion where we seemed to have agreed > (rightfully so) that a

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

http://ace.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marit_Pola:Lhi_gamba_peukabeh_Nabi_Muhammad_saw&action=history Fred Bauder ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

and but you seem to have no problem with images of a man whose appearance is unknown, and unknowable. Fred Bauder ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

t as the single item of content. > > en.User:Bodnotbod That's the issue. Displaying offensive religious images is a big problem, not a tiny little problem that can be brushed under the rug. You're doing something that outrages millions of people and saying, "Hey, tou

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

authentic images; they know it is extremely offensive to millions of people. They should have common sense and not put images up in a reference work which are both offensive and false. There might be an exception for Persian art, but such images certainly don't belong in an article o

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

ing included. > > But to get back to the ACE topic: I agree they may decide that they do > not > wish to include these depictions; Not including it isn't a NPOV problem > in > my eyes so they are free to decide what they wish on that regard. But > that > does not give th

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

> On 07/17/2010 04:39 AM, Fred Bauder wrote: >> First: There are no authentic images of Mohammad extant. > > There are no authentic images of most characters from the Bible. Yet I > believe at least 1 % of works of art on Commons contain them. > > --vvv > There is a

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Fred Bauder > wrote: >>... >> >> That's the issue. Displaying offensive religious images is a big >> problem, >> not a tiny little problem that can be brushed under the rug. You're >> doing >> somethin

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

ontrols is troublesome, as is the request for a fatwa. A fatwa that explicitly addresses images of Muhammad in Wikipedia either way would be kind of ridiculous and would not meet with general acceptance. My point is that we don't need to needlessly offend by posting images we know are not authentic. Fred Bauder ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

that question and you'll know why offensive images of Muhammad are not a good idea. The thing is, we're saying, "Hey, come off of it, no real harm is done is there are images of Muhammad" Why doesn't the same reasoning apply to the butt plugs? No real harm would be done. Or

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

olitical controversy. Fred Bauder ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

constant over the history of Islam.) > > > - d. > Well, we should not bow before noise and violence. However, there is a substantial body of Muslim public opinion that holds this view today. Fred Bauder ___ foundation-l mailing list fo

Re: [Foundation-l] Boycott in a...@wiki

> > You are arguing in the wrong place. A very large debate has already > taken place on this issue and consensus has been reached. Nothing you > can say on this mailing list will impact that. If you really think you > have something new to bring to the debate the correct place to raise > the matt

[Foundation-l] Journal Boycott

"Elsevier is emblematic of an abusive publishing industry. "The government pays me and other scientists to produce work, and we give it away to private entities," says Brett S. Abrahams, an assistant professor of genetics at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine. "Then they charge us to read it."

Re: [Foundation-l] Journal Boycott

Another article: http://chronicle.com/article/Who-Gets-to-See-Published/130403/ > "Elsevier has supported a proposed federal law, the Research Works Act > (HR 3699), that could prevent agencies like the National Institutes of > Health from making all articles written by grant recipients freely >

Re: [Foundation-l] Strike against the collection of personal data through edit links

> Strike against the collection of personal data through edit links See http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10448060-38.html ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundati

Re: [Foundation-l] Strike against the collection of personal data through edit links

> FWIW, I know our devs are not at all keen to keep personal data even > sitting around - even checkuser data is cleared after six months, I > think. What is the current policy? > > > - d. About right. Keeping personal data creates disclosure problems with children under 13. Fred __

Re: [Foundation-l] Strike against the collection of personal data through edit links

mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>* > > > On 4 February 2012 13:46, Fred Bauder wrote: > >> > Strike against the collection of

Re: [Foundation-l] Fw: Strike against the collection of personal data through edit links

> To list! > Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device > > -Original Message- > From: dger...@gmail.com > Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 16:46:58 > To: Béria Lima > Reply-To: dger...@gmail.com > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Strike against the collection of personal > data through edit links > > 3 mon

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

> Some FAs should never be shown on the main page. > > Nothing in the FA criteria says anything about the subject of the > article: such as whether the subject is of broad interest or has > educational merit. Such criteria should be considered for choosing > articles to show on the main page. The

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

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Right to be Forgotten

I think the biggest problems might involve users who have been trashed for one reason or another, justified or not. Fred > Is the worry primarily around article-space, or around Wikipedia users? > There's already > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Courtesy_vanishing, though it > would have

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Right to be Forgotten

> On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 11:25:56 -0700 (MST), "Fred Bauder" > wrote: >> I think the biggest problems might involve users who have been trashed >> for one reason or another, justified or not. >> >> Fred >> > > My understanding is that the legi

[Foundation-l] Wikipedia Articles In Uzbek Blocked

http://www.rferl.org/content/uzbek_wikipedia_blocked/24486460.html ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

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

> The key problem here is that WP:UNDUE was expressly written to address > the problem of genuine ongoing controversies, and fringe views. In > this case there is no ongoing controversy, but the use of the policy > has for long been used to remove new research no-one has even refuted, > much less t

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

> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 4:44 AM, Mike Godwin wrote: > >> I think the article in The Chronicle of Higher Education is a >> must-read. Here you have a researcher who actually took pains to learn >> what the rules to editing Wikipedia are (including No Original >> Research), and who, instead of try

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

> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 3:57 AM, Mike Christie > wrote: > >> Perhaps the policies can be improved, but they are written to stop bad >> editing rather than to encourage good editing.  I don't think that can >> be >> changed.  It's impossible to legislate good judgement, and it's >> judgement >> t

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Right to be Forgotten

> On 19 February 2012 18:06, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen > wrote: >> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) >> wrote: >>> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, 19/02/2012 08:12: >>> Do the people at MeatballWiki know? >>> >>> >>> Why should they care? >>> >> >> This is where it all started, >> >>

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

> Fred Bauder writes: > >> I think it probably seems to climate change deniers that excluding >> political opinions from science-based articles on global warming is a >> violation of neutral point of view, and of basic fairness. That is just >> one example, but ther

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

I have initiated a discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#The_.27Undue_Weight.27_of_Truth_on_Wikipedia It is there that any refinement of the policy and how it is properly applied can possibly be resolved. I note that the article in question still does not

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

> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Mike Godwin wrote: > >> Apart from the question of whether this particular article -- on the >> Haymarket bombing -- has been hurt by editors' ill-considered >> application of UNDUE, there's the larger question of what it means for >> our credibility when a very

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

>> >> "What *was* at issue here is how we treat new users; the discussion was >> approached (on the part of our editors) either as a battleground/fight, >> or >> in a quite patronising way. The issue here was that someone was put off >> from raising the issues." >> >> The "expertise" that is most v

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

> This idea of "published" can (and is) relaxed though. Indeed it is my > perception that in many topic areas we rely far too heavily on online > sources - there can be a distinct prejudice against offline source > material. > Tom Journals pose a particular problem as they are often, as in the c

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

> > And this is what I meant about misunderstanding policies. Because nothing > in our policies precludes the use of primary sources. What you can't do > is > use them for interpretation or analysis. So to make up an example; if you > have an oral citation from someone who was arrested under an op

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

> On 24 February 2012 09:34, Ray Saintonge wrote: > >> On 02/22/12 6:04 PM, David Goodman wrote: >> >>> There are many subjects in which there would be multiple schools of >>> thought with little agreement; anyone following book reviews in the >>> humanities or social sciences or even some of the

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

> Can anyone explain why Arbcom members are not required to refrain from > posting and responding to requests on Wikipedia Review while they are on > Arbcom? It seems a basic conflict of interest to be actively promoting > the > opinions and drawing unnecessary attention to attack posts against > W

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

> The answer, evidently, is "not as much as Bing" - > http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2161910/Bing-Not-Google-Favors-Wikipedia-More-Often-in-Search-Results-Study > > Thought people might find it interesting :) No question that we are a center of attention for Google. I've noticed that when I

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

> > Perhaps they honestly believe that their keyword-primed advertorial > page is actually more useful than a Wikipedia page and are astounded > that Google might have the temerity to disagree. ;-) > > -- > Tom Morris > We can't create a new page based on a press release o

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

> Fred Bauder wrote: >>> Perhaps they honestly believe that their keyword-primed advertorial >>> page is actually more useful than a Wikipedia page and are astounded >>> that Google might have the temerity to disagree. ;-) >> >> We can't c

[Foundation-l] The People’s Encyclopedia Under the Gaze of the Sages: A Sys tematic Review of Scholarly Research on Wikipedia

Abstract: Wikipedia has become one of the ten most visited sites on the Web, and the world’s leading source of Web reference information. Its rapid success has inspired hundreds of scholars from various disciplines to study its content, communication and community dynamics from various perspective

Re: [Foundation-l] The People’s Encyclopedia Under the Gaze of the Sages: A Sys tematic Review of Scholarly Research on Wikipedia

They have a wiki: http://wikilit.referata.com/wiki/Main_Page Fred > Abstract: > Wikipedia has become one of the ten most visited sites on the Web, and > the world’s leading source of Web reference information. Its rapid > success has inspired hundreds of scholars from various disciplines to > st

Re: [Foundation-l] Plethora of overlapping Categories

> Hi > > I know I am in the wrong place for this. Normally this kind of thing > would/ > should go on the "discuss" pages, but category discuss pages don't > attract > much attention. > > If you consult Categories: Sailors/ Navigators/ Explorers, you will see > that > quite a number of people are l

[Foundation-l] It Is not Us

The web itself is passé http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-facebook-vs-the-rest-of-the-web-2011-6 Actually, we missed the boat, but that ship sailed long ago. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscrib

Re: [Foundation-l] It Is not Us

gs out a bit, > we are seeing growth (albeit fairly low growth). What the rest of the > internet is doing isn't really important. > > > > On 25 June 2011 15:03, Fred Bauder wrote: >> The web itself is passé >> >> http://www.b

Re: [Foundation-l] It Is not Us

> Hoi, > I have read the replies that are against social networking functionality. > In > my opinion you are all missing the point. Our projects are crowd sourced > projects and we do not support collaboration, we do not support special > projects. We need to. > > Social networking in our context w

[Foundation-l] Façonnable USA Corp. v. John Does 1-10

The progress of Façonnable USA Corp. v. John Does 1-10 a U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado case which concerns editing of the article Façonnable can be followed at http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/fa%C3%A7onnable-usa-corp-v-john-does-1-10#description The edits complained of, made

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 > en

Re: [Foundation-l] It Is not Us

>> Of course, that could either help or hinder, with no way to >> know for sure in advance; perhaps encouraging more social interaction >> would exacerbate and personalize the disputes and conflicts that drive >> people away. >> > >>From my perspective, this is exactly what is happening. Too many p

Re: [Foundation-l] It Is not Us

I think people should be more flexible in their postings. It is OK to write a message in Japanese and also in not quite perfect, or even rather poor English. Send both. And if there is no English just use Japanese, even on this list. We can all go to Google translate and see more or less what it sa

Re: [Foundation-l] Merge wikis

> One thing I find irritating and complex about our structure is the > proliferation of small wikis. Now I've no objection to the idea that > we have a wiki for every language on Earth, though where languages are > mutually intelligible such as the major dialects of English it seems > sensible to

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: wikiEducation: The Classroom Wikipedia

We should do this before some aggressive outfit like Wikinfo jumps in... It wouldn't be an anyone can edit wiki. Only authorized student accounts could edit. It would be a teaching tool. Fred > Forwarded to the list on behalf of a non-member. > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Ja

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: wikiEducation: The Classroom Wikipedia

> On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 13:49:58 -0600 (MDT), "Fred Bauder" > wrote: >> We should do this before some aggressive outfit like Wikinfo jumps >> in... >> It wouldn't be an anyone can edit wiki. Only authorized student >> accounts >> could edit. It wou

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: wikiEducation: The Classroom Wikipedia

> Hi, > > On Sun, Jul 03, 2011 at 12:14:39AM +0400, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: >> On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 13:49:58 -0600 (MDT), "Fred Bauder" >> wrote: >> > We should do this before some aggressive outfit like Wikinfo jumps >> in... >> > It would

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: wikiEducation: The Classroom Wikipedia

> Hi, > > On 2 July 2011 23:28, Fred Bauder wrote: >> On 2 July 2011 23:16, Isabell Long wrote: >>> >>> Sorry to dampen things, but as we're proposing "what if"s, what if >>> some >>> of Wikipedia's material was copie

Re: [Foundation-l] Merge wikis

> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 3:34 PM, . Courcelles > wrote: > >> I couldn't agree more, now that the date has passed, so should >> ten.wikipedia. Outreach and Strategy have a mission, but nothing so >> distinct that it would be out of scope on Meta, and combining those >> three >> projects would reduc

[Foundation-l] Lessons from Wikipedia

http://therexpedition.com/?p=59 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] They do make or break reputations

Speaking of the British tabloids, of course. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/world/europe/10britain.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=globasasa2 The lesson for us is to not take a leading position, be topical, but to report events which have occurred and on which there is some sort of considered opi

Re: [Foundation-l] They do make or break reputations

or a while, and when the dust has settled, > > WRITE A FUCKING ENCYCLOPEDIA! > > Why is that a problem? Most of us have agendas, and this is the only major outlet most of us have access to. Fred > > Fred Bauder wrote: >> Speaking of the British tabloids, of course. >> &

Re: [Foundation-l] They do make or break reputations

>>> Most of us have agendas, and this is the only major outlet most of us >>> have access to. > > As a sort of aside-- everyone comes with agendas, and sometimes > people act neutrally, sometimes people act like advocates for their > agenda. > > I've always wondered if we couldn't "peel off' the p

Re: [Foundation-l] They do make or break reputations

Regarding external links to videos: > Perhaps an on-wiki discussion is the way to progress this. > Tom Where is that policy and discussion? Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/m

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

I'm open to negotiations, on behalf of Wikinfo, for the friendliest possible cooperative relationship. However, the more relaxed editing atmosphere, the exclusion of nasty editing behavior, and exploration of alternate points of view are not negotiable. Fred Bauder > I had

Re: [Foundation-l] They do make or break reputations

There are practices which are beyond the pale, for example, linking to a pirated copy of the latest Harry Potter movie. Linking to the typical YouTube video of unknown provenance is quite another matter; although it is quite true that in both cases there may be a technical copyright violation. In t

Re: [Foundation-l] Re Greg Kohs

As they say, He is dead to me. Fred > If anyone thinks The Kohser is just a maverick who asks awkward > questions, and rather more relevantly did some sockpuppetry and ran a > breaching experiment doing "unhelpful" edits to unwatched articles, > please read the thread at > http://meta.wikimedia.o

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

> As someone said previously, the mailing software truncates stuff after > the > word "From", if it begins a sentence, probably because it thinks that's > part > of the mail header. No conspiracy or cloak and dagger stuff, just a bug > that probably ought to be looked at. > > I'd take this opportu

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

> > > > Although he reneged on his offer to buy > > http://knol.google.com/k/bose-201-series-ii-direct-reflecting-bookshelf-speakers# > The Speakers Which Almost Destroyed Knol > > I as well as others support welcoming Kohs back to this list by unbanning > him. > > I agree with the sentiment that t

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

rupted discussions about the Wikimedia Foundation, the purpose of the list. Fred > > -Original Message- > From: Fred Bauder > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > Sent: Sun, Jul 24, 2011 2:00 pm > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian > > >> &

Re: [Foundation-l] We need to make it easy to fork and leave

of > resources that we need to spend on this should be proportional to the > risk. > > -- Tim Starling That technical staff have effective power to decide whether a fork is justified is reason enough. Fred Bauder ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] We need to make it easy to fork and leave

treating Group POV as Neutral POV. > Ray Bingo Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] We need to make it easy to fork and leave

> I'm sure I > could easily fork enwp with just one machine, and handle a few hundred > visitors a day, or even in an hour. I believe Fred Bauder have made a > fork of a kind (yes I know it used a different method) and I guess he > do see the traffic stats and resource req

Re: [Foundation-l] To make it easy to fork and leave

> Yes, leave and forking is our main problem. Sure. I think that to make > easy > to fork will be something like to show the exit way to some people > well, > let me think one minuteYes! excelent! > > 2011/8/15 Tom Morris Oh, but we leave, and stay. Fred ___

  1   2   3   4   5   >