On 19/02/2012 5:21 AM, Thierry Coudray wrote:
Thierry
who still not have found a good translation in French for accountability :)
You probably want "/imputabilité/" :-)
-- Coren / Marc
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
On 19/02/2012 4:25 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
With a bot (or AWB) going through the What Links Here list for your
user page. People have done that before (although maybe not if they
had ten thousand comments to change).
Yes, and on enwp at least the one time I remember this having been
attempte
On 06/10/2011 08:09 AM, CherianTinu Abraham wrote:
> Interesting to see accounts with bot flags are also invited to vote for
> Board elections :)
I'd like to take this opportunity to remind all the bots who have yet to
vote that, as a bot writer and supporter, I pledge to keep their
interests in
On 10/06/2011 5:55 PM, Sarah wrote:
> [...] that the software is actively inviting all accounts that meet
> those requirements, it means we're alerting all the socks that they're
> able to vote. They might otherwise not even have remembered some of
> the accounts the software is reminding them of.
On 06/17/2011 10:54 AM, Theo10011 wrote:
> Results are out.
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Board_elections/2011/Results/en
Congratulations on the incumbents for their reelections.
I must admit that I am simultaneously disappointed and a little bit
relieved that I wasn't elected. It's a toug
On 19/08/2011 2:46 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
> I think one thing that will come out of this, which I'm really happy
> about, is that we will learn a lot more about a broadly consultative
> vote and how to do it well.
I think that the first thing that should be learned -- and indeed that
should ha
On 04/09/2011 3:11 PM, church.of.emacs.ml wrote:
>
> That is where I disagree. The personal image filter doesn't make much
> sense in German Wikipedia, since the German culture is generally pretty
> liberal with respect to depictions of sexuality, (partially) violence
> and of course Muhammed. So i
On 04/09/2011 4:28 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> Because they *demand* an Internet that acts as a one-way filter to
> their bubble, enhancing without contradicting!
Even if they did (which I believe to not even be true of readers at
large -- just of a tiny but loud minority), I don't see how we're
On 04/09/2011 9:24 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
> Absolutely. There's a ton of analysis left to do. I'll add that to the
> list though. :) pb
Let's give the Foundation and the committee who made this survey every
benefit of the doubt. Let's presume they truly and sincerely thought
that the ide
On 05/09/2011 10:55 AM, Andrew Gray wrote:
> As to why no-one is distributing a "filtered" version of Wikipedia, I
> think that falls more under the general heading of "where are the
> major third-party reusers that anyone actually cares about?" - the
> non-existence of a commercial filtered ver
On 05/09/2011 11:04 AM, Risker wrote:
> They already exist, and have for years. We call them "mirrors.
>
Does anyone actually /use/ those mirrors except by accident of search
engine? I've never seen any evidence that they get any significant traffic.
IMO, they are not much higher the Internet
On 05/09/2011 2:08 PM, Stephen Bain wrote:
> It provides a quite satisfactory 'yes' in answer to the question of
> whether it is worth the devs' time coding beginning development. We're
> merely talking about a proposed software feature here.
What? It does give an answer despite the question b
On 06/09/2011 3:19 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> I realized that I started to participate in this madness when I asked
> for some data from the results. And now, community is asked to
> participate into the "Next steps" [3]
Milos, I think you're stepping out to the backyard there. I'm probably
one o
On 07/09/2011 11:17 AM, Bod Notbod wrote:
> [...] but I'm even less keen on parents telling their
> children they can't use Wikipedia [...]
>
It's not the first time I see this meme expressed.
Is there a reliable source somewhere that shows that (a) this represents
a significant number of parent
On 07/09/2011 9:14 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> Are there are pages on English Wikipedia that should be classified as PG?
Perhaps, the problem being that one parent's PG is another's inoffensive
learning material. I can readily see people who wouldn't want their
children anywhere near [[Big Ba
On 02/11/2011 6:36 AM, m...@marcusbuck.org wrote:
> Wait am moment... Wikipedia Zero is an extension to Wikipedia that
> filters out images? And not even some of them on a totally voluntary
> base but all of them for everybody? I guess I better shut down my
> e-mail account to prevent the flood of
On 01/12/2011 7:58 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> "[...] yes, we may be building up a list of categories that could be
> reused by censorware sellers, but that’s not our primary intention."
I'm sorry, but who the fsck cares about intentions? The road to hell is
paved with the best ones. T
On 06/12/2011 4:21 PM, WereSpielChequers wrote:
> Unless he casts his net wider I'm personally more concerned about the sort
> of politicians who are prudish about nudity on the web and reluctant to
> have information about evolution in the classrooms.
The point is, many people (including myself)
On 07/12/2011 4:47 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Uhm, that was not actually what I wrote, but what I was rebutting
Oh! Err, well, then you are obviously correct. Carry on! :-)
-- Coren / Marc
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lis
On 09/12/2011 10:00 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:
> I think another concern is; why is this something WP wants to support?
> does it help our goals? Does it advance anything?
We're an educational resource concerned with the diffusion of
knowledge. They are primary researchers that will publish their
On 09/12/2011 10:26 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:
> Although it does lead to another question; a lot of studies are conducted
> around the world, many of them would benefit dramatically from publicity on
> a "top-5" website. How far does supporting those that ask go?
I think we should do our best to he
On 09/12/2011 5:53 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> Why is the banner so visually unattractive? Is the English Wikipedia being
> punished?
>
In my field, we call this "programmer art". I suspect research teams
have a similar monicker. :-)
-- Coren / Marc
___
On 12/12/2011 3:02 PM, Andre Engels wrote:
> I think what he means is that under most European copyright regimes,
> an author has far-reaching personality rights, which include the right
> to have the work accredited to them whenever it is republished. The
> terms of use, in his feeling, hollow
On 14/12/2011 2:04 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> I am genuinely not anti-american. The logic here does escape me though.
From a lawmaker's point of view, this is clear enough: US-based
websites are reachable through the usual legal means and thus can be
shut down with local intervention i
24 matches
Mail list logo
