On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 16:27, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
wrote:
> What is your obsession with nudity about? The filter isn't
> about nudity.
Ah, you are right! I completely missed the point of the image filter
because my obsession... It's about scared places of indigenous peoples
of Australia and sim
2011/9/16 M. Williamson :
> It's not irrelevant because if approved, it could be added to list of
> pending name changes.
The problem with the request is that it's not in the scope of Language
committee. Renaming "zh-min-nan" into "nan" is in the scope, as it
deals with simple code change. Renamin
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 18:52, Tobias Oelgarte
wrote:
> Am 16.09.2011 16:15, schrieb Milos Rancic:
>> It's about implementing image filter on images which have copyright
>> problems in Germany (but not in US), not about nudity.
>>
> And it got awesomely off-topic. N
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 19:35, M. Williamson wrote:
> In this case, I do not think anything local changed by langcom, the
> foundation, or anybody else unless it creates legal problems. The only thing
> this request covers is the code itself, which is currently wrong since "ku"
> is a macrolanguag
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 19:56, Tobias Oelgarte
wrote:
> Am 16.09.2011 19:13, schrieb Milos Rancic:
> You would have to proof that your facts are indeed true. But if you
> accept it as a huge difference between cultures, how can you impose a
> filter for a culture that doesn't ne
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 20:17, Kim Bruning wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 09:01:04PM +0200, Milos Rancic wrote:
>> It's not so hard to guess if you followed them for some time:
>> * Ting: ambivalent; would be much more happy without the whole drama
>> * Jan-Bart: not
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 21:38, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> I don't see a big money issue for Wiktionary either.
It's not about big money, it's about money necessary for a project to live.
Targeting articles in medicine is quite good, as they are necessary
and not covered as well as, for example, astr
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 11:23, David Gerard wrote:
> (I'm now trying to work out how to get the images without using up all
> my bandwidth allowances ever.)
Something like:
rsync -av --bwlimit=50 (if you want to give ~5Mbps; number is in KiBps)
___
fou
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 00:38, Nathan wrote:
> I don't think White_Cat's nomination is purely without ulterior motive,
> unfortunately. As some editors from ku.wp have alluded to, the issue of the
> name and designation of the "Kurdish Wikipedia" has ethnic and nationalist
> ramifications on both
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 18:35, M. Williamson wrote:
> If all Kurdish editors had been in favor of having a "Kurdish Wikipedia" as
> an "emblem of their unified ethnic identity", as you claim, then there would
> never have been a separate Sorani Wikipedia.
That's true. For example, we have just on
May someone ask Internet Archive to open histories of the Main Pages
of Wikipedias in their Time Machine? If they harvested it at all.
Their Time Machine is usually the only exact way to find when early
Wikipedias were created, but histories of the pages are blocked
because of our robots.txt.
___
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 12:44, Daniel ~ Leinad wrote:
> Hmmm... a few days ago we didn't have any problems to retrieve history
> (2001-2011) of Main Pages of Polish Wikipedia:
> http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150309409533189.363981.147056473188
> - similar should be with other versions
I am serious now, please read below as a serious proposal.
I was talking today with a friend about the image filter, and we came
to the possible solution. Of course, if those who are in favor of
censorship have honest intentions to allow to particular people to
access Wikipedia articles despite th
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:10, WereSpielChequers
wrote:
> Forking and creating "safe" versions of all our wikis has the same
> disadvantage of any other fork, the wisdom of crowds is dissipated if the
> crowd is ever further divided. In that sense this would be as much a mistake
> as it was to spi
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 15:23, Stephen Bain wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:06 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
>> It is not the job of
>> Commons community to work on personal wishes of American
>> right-wingers.
>
> Well, while we're tarring large groups of people
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 15:16, David Gerard wrote:
> On 21 September 2011 14:14, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> wrote:
>> The real problem here is that if there was a real market for stupid
>> sites like that, they would already be there. And they are not, which
>> does seem to point to the conclusion
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 16:45, David Gerard wrote:
> On 21 September 2011 15:43, Milos Rancic wrote:
>> They want that censoring tool and I think that they won't be content
>> until they get it. Thus, let them have it and let them leave the rest
>> of us alone.
>
>
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 18:00, David Levy wrote:
> Some people won't be content until Wikipedia's prose conveys their
> cultural/religious/spiritual beliefs as absolute truth. Should the
> WMF provide en.[insert belief system].wikipedia.org so they can edit
> it and leave the rest of us alone?
D
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 19:10, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> What is the advantage of that compared with the feature as it was
> originally proposed? All you've done is made the URL more complicated.
> You'll still need to use user preferences to determine which images
> are getting hidden, so why can't
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 20:47, David Levy wrote:
> Milos Rancic wrote:
>> Don't worry! Any implementation of censorship project would lead to
>> endless troll-fests which would be more dumb than Youtube comments.
>> The point is just to kick out them out of productive pr
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 21:09, Tobias Oelgarte
wrote:
> You choose discussions about images in a "circus" outside the context
> they belong to? This won't be "circus", since we just reduced the amount
> of arguments from some to zero. If combatants argue about a topic
> without having a word left,
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 20:38, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> An opt-in filter using the same URL as everything else won't affect
> anything else either.
Except:
1) fierce opposition from significant part of the community. (I don't
care about the quality of opposition, just about the fact that it's
very
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 22:04, David Levy wrote:
> An alternative proposal (which is *far* simpler and maintains
> neutrality) already has the public backing of WMF trustee Samuel
> Klein:
Oh, I don't read Meta pages related to Image filter. It's definitely
better option!
___
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 14:03, wrote:
> After some thinking I come to the conclusion that this whole
> discussion is a social phenomenon.
>
> You probably know how some topics when mentioned in newspaper articles
> or blogs spur wild arguments in the comments sections. When the
> article mentions
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 17:20, David Gerard wrote:
> On 23 September 2011 16:17, Milos Rancic wrote:
>> Obviously, majority of those who have small number of edits --
>> who represent specific part of readers, those who have opinion toward
>> Wikipedia articles, but who don&
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 18:43, Stephen Bain wrote:
> My point is that the dewiki poll being worded in a manner that is
> pleasing to people who have critiqued the Foundation-wide survey does
> not render it representative, when it was participated in by at most
> one eightieth of the members of th
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 20:42, David Levy wrote:
> I find it odd that some are inclined to discount the German
> Wikipedia's poll on the basis that it reflects the views of editors
> (as opposed to readers as a whole). Setting aside the general
> public's ignorance of the WMF projects' core princ
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 19:26, Kim Bruning wrote:
> "Dear Press: a self-described 13 YO joined Wikiproject Pornography.
> Wikipedians support him. webcitation.org/61v0ykxJe
> webcitation.org/61v1FfW3K"
> - http://twitter.com/#!/lsanger/status/117299089439334400
Who cares what Sanger said,
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 21:20, Milos Rancic wrote:
> There are around 300M of readers and less than 30k of the extended
> poll of editors, which brings number of 0,01%. Thus, not just
poll => pool
___
foundation-l mailing list
fou
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 16:27, Fae wrote:
> Such "school" and "safesearch" variations already exist. Why waste
> donor's money creating more?
Note that more than 50% of money comes from US and that it could be
easily assumed that at least 10% of ~$10M given by US citizens and
corporations want to
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 00:51, David Levy wrote:
> Milos Rancic wrote:
>
>> There are around 300M of readers and less than 30k of the extended
>> pool of editors, which brings number of 0,01%. Thus, not just
>> irrelevant, but much less than the margin of statistical error
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 00:51, David Levy wrote:
> Milos Rancic wrote:
>
>> Note that more than 50% of money comes from US and that it could be
>> easily assumed that at least 10% of ~$10M given by US citizens and
>> corporations want to have a kind of "family frie
According to [1]:
* 15 January: English
* 16 March: Catalan, German
* 23 March: French
* 3 May: Swedish
* 11 May: Chinese, Esperanto,Hebrew, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese,
Spanish, Russian
* 19 June: Dutch
* 26 September: Polish
* 16 November: Afrikaans
* 26 November: Norwegian (Bokmal)
* 6 Decemb
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 15:54, Sumana Harihareswara
wrote:
>> (As > example: the only 2 girls who commented here - phoebe and me - are in
>> opposite sides. ...)
> -*B?ria Lima*
>
> Technically, you, Sarah Stierch, Phoebe, and Sue have all commented --
> at least 4 women, not just 2.
One more, bu
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:23, Sarah Stierch wrote:
>> One more, but forgot her name and too lazy to search. German females
>> in discussion on German Wikipedia should be also checked.
>>
>> Up to now, all females from US (four of them) are in favor of filter
>> (though, Sarah just tactically) and
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:24, Risker wrote:
> Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking about
> in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating, and it is intimidating to
> others who may have useful and progressive ideas but are repeatedly seeing
> the opinions of ot
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 18:29, Risker wrote:
> I think there is much that can be discussed on the range of topic areas
> covered in this thread. But we must keep in mind that the views expressed
> here are those of the individuals, and there is absolutely insufficient
> information for any of us t
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 18:46, Risker wrote:
> Do you have any reason to believe that a statistically significant number
> and percentage of female editors of the German Wikipedia are active
> participants in this mailing list?
No, but there are German Wikipedians who could research that issue.
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 18:07, Sarah Stierch wrote:
> Uh, ok. I'm pansexual and I like pornography. I'm also a feminist (I believe
> in equality). I'm also tired of being accused of being a prudish American
> because I think it's stupid that we have to have a mediocre photograph of a
> naked woman
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 19:59, Sue Gardner wrote:
> I just want to point out quickly that I am not American, and my
> position on all these issues is actually a very Canadian one. Ray and
> Risker and other Canadians will recognize this.
>
> Canada doesn't really feel itself to have a fixed nation
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 21:01, David Gerard wrote:
> http://www.berlios.de/
>
> Is there anything we could do to help? Is this too far outside our area?
>
> I recall how useful and helpful BerliOS was back in the olden days
> when it was Wikipedia's downtime backup and news source ... before
> Wik
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 21:12, David Gerard wrote:
> On 30 September 2011 20:04, Michael Snow wrote:
>> On this score, it seems likely that we are failing to live up to one of
>> our core principles, that of neutrality. I think we need significantly
>> better editorial judgment applied to many of
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 17:18, church.of.emacs.ml
wrote:
> On 09/21/2011 03:47 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
>> * Create en.safe.wikipedia.org […]
>
> Then governments/ISPs/institutions could block unsafe-Wikipedia via DNS
> blocks. This is, compared to DPI, quite easy.
> Using
I think that Wikimedians should give response on that:
* Writing emails and letters to Italian embassies in your country. (I
will email them immediately.)
* Demonstrate -- 5 people are enough -- in front of embassy in your country.
* If you are in EU country, ask your EU parliament members to talk
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 16:03, Milos Rancic wrote:
> I think that Wikimedians should give response on that:
> * Writing emails and letters to Italian embassies in your country. (I
> will email them immediately.)
> * Demonstrate -- 5 people are enough -- in front of embassy in your cou
Wikimedia Serbia supports Italian Wikipedians in denouncing the
proposed law in the Italian Senate known as the "Wiretapping Act" and
its paragraph 29, which undermines the free speech standards of our
civilization.
Wikimedia Serbia fully supports the protest of Italian Wikipedians and
hopes that
One in English:
http://www.businessinsider.com/italy-wikipedia-wiretapping-2011-10
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 21:57, Theo10011 wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Nathan wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
>> > For those not following, Italian Wikipedia went into lockd
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 21:58, Aaron Adrignola wrote:
> Whoever has locked out access to it.wikipedia.org should be immediately
> desysopped under emergency procedures. This site is run by the Wikimedia
> Foundation and I've seen no authorization by the WMF for the vandalism of
> one of its websit
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 22:15, Neil Babbage wrote:
> Yes they are able to strike, but that still doesn't give them the right
> (legal or moral) to shut down property that doesn't belong to them. In
> any case, if the servers are located in the US then US law applies to
> their management.
You are
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 22:32, Risker wrote:
> (As an aside, kudos to Milos' rapid response and ability to organize his own
> local community in support of the concerns of our Italian counterparts.)
Thanks! It should be noted that this the decision has been supported
by 100% of WM RS Board members
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 22:58, Mathias Schindler
wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 22:55, M. Williamson wrote:
>> Another important point here is that Wikipedia is an international project;
>
> No, this is not another important point, this is exactly my point. Is
> the Kiribati based community (or a
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 12:49, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Even this corrected version does not seem to be right. As I understand the
> proposed law,
> the subject would have the right for a statement to be shown, unaltered, on
> the page (which
> actually would be possible for Wikipedia to do, via a
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 16:03, Domas Mituzas wrote:
> When writers guild went on strike, we could still watch old stuff, right, it
> wasn't pulled ;-)
> If doctors go on strike, people are still allowed to live, retroactive
> disease correction is not done...
When truck drivers go on strike in F
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 06:27, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> http://www.linkiesta.it/wikipedia-law
>
> It'd be nice to have Italian Wikipedia back up as people are waking up
> in Italy.
Wikipedia needs to strike just one day to get requests fulfilled.
That's good to know!
Congratulations to Italian Wikipe
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 18:19, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> If we provide a filter, we have to be pragmatic, and restrict its application
> to media that significant demographics really might want to filter.
That should be designed well and maintained, too. I am really
frustrated by Google's insisting
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 04:19, John Vandenberg wrote:
> Somehow David Gerard, Milos Rancic, Kim and Tobias Oelgarte made it to
> 96, 95, 89 and 83 posts last month. Last month Thomas Dalton,
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen and I posted 39, 37 and 35 times respectively,
> and everyone else w
If so, goodbye wiki, as well. At least in US.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/10/26/0451240/new-version-of-protect-ip-bill-may-target-legal-sites
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ma
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 15:43, Domas Mituzas wrote:
> Hi!
>
> we recently did some practice on italian wikipedia, are we going to protest
> IP legislation in US by taking down English Wikipedia?
>
> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/10/disastrous-ip-legislation-back-%E2%80%93-and-it%E2%80%99s-wo
Mostly useless and mostly harmless thing becomes harmful at the moment
when people start to spend a lot of time on discussing it.
A note for future improvements: Yes, WMF should do bold actions, but
it shouldn't waste community's confidence on mostly useless
"improvements".
__
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 19:36, Erik Moeller wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Michael Snow wrote:
>> If I understand correctly, the English Wikipedia is the main test
>> deployment for this as an experimental feature. While the feature
>> remains experimental, additional deployments to o
I came from pub and before going to bed, I checked emails and news.
And I saw that the conflict with police is escalating. As many
Wikimedians participate in OWS and other Occupy protests in US, it
would be good that you report here what's going on with you.
___
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 23:35, Fred Bauder wrote:
> https://www.facebook.com/pages/Internet-Workers-of-the-World/224417737626665?sk=wall
>
> Our union
I was thinking about party, but union is better :)
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.w
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 13:08, emijrp wrote:
> Looks like Wikimedia Foundation is very worried about censorship and the
> cut off of fundraising payment processors. Now.
>
> What did WMF do when WikiLeaks domains were seized and its fundraising
> payment processors (PayPal, Visa, MasterCard) were
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 19:23, Mateus Nobre wrote:
>> What did WMF do when WikiLeaks domains were seized and its fundraising
>> payment processors (PayPal, Visa, MasterCard) were cut off? Did WMF protest
>> against Internet censorship? No.
>
> Wikimedia defends itself, not the ''justice in America
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 21:38, Mateus Nobre wrote:
> It's complex, Milos.
>
> We are not activists. Being a volunteer in Wikimedia do not torn ourselves
> activists.
>
> It could be, but the option to be a volunteer in Wikipedia is just a option
> to share the free knowledge, not about political
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 23:26, Robin Pepermans wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> As of yesterday, when you go to a missing wiki (the redlinks on
> Special:SiteMatrix) you will no longer see a static "this wiki does
> not exist" error, but it will redirect to the Wikimedia Incubator,
> where there is either
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 00:36, Kevin Gorman wrote:
> Although the problem has not been solved, it appears that it has at least
> been staved off:
> http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9S3I7DO1.htm
Obviously, cultural institutions are in bad situation and not just in
Bosnia, but in the wh
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 02:42, Craig Franklin wrote:
> I might just be a crypto-American chauvinist (and really, that sort of
> inflammatory message is completely unnecessary on this list), so I
> apologise for any ignorance on the situation, but would Wikimedia
> Serbia really be the best organisa
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 10:23, David Gerard wrote:
> On 8 January 2012 09:09, Milos Rancic wrote:
>> Structural help is not Wikimedia's task [yet]. There are a lot of
>> other institutions which could give them money for daily operations or
>> artifacts preservation
Wikimedia Serbia also supports English Wikipedians [1] (English
grammar fixes are welcome :) ):
Wikimedia Serbia wants to express solidarity with English Wikipedians
in protest against the proposed laws -- SOPA and PIPA --, which
undermine the freedom of information on Internet.
Unlike the laws i
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 4:07 AM, Klaus Graf wrote:
> it is a myth that only the 5 main authors have to be mentioned
> according the GFDL. This refers only to the title page and I cannot
> see such a thing like a title page in the Wikipedia.
This is significant. I would like to see what does Mike G
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 4:33 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 4:07 AM, Klaus Graf wrote:
>> it is a myth that only the 5 main authors have to be mentioned
>> according the GFDL. This refers only to the title page and I cannot
>> see such a thing like a title
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 12:08 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Mohamed Magdy wrote:
>> (I heard that people were happy at Wikimania (Florence?)
>> because of that proposal but I fail to understand why the Egyptian people
>> there didn't express their opinion about it (it was in Egypt :!).
>
> I was sittin
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 3:27 AM, Marcus Buck wrote:
> elisabeth bauer hett schreven:
>> 2009/1/11 Marcus Buck :
>>
>>
>>> In the Arabic world there's a prevalent POV, that Arabs form one nation
>>> united by the use of the Arabic language. But in reality Standard Arabic
>>> is something like Latin
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 2:46 AM, geni wrote:
> 2009/1/11 Milos Rancic :
>> Jimmy, just to remind you that people in one academic institution in
>> Belgrade laughed when you mentioned Bosnian language in 2005. But,
>> things are somewhat changed now.
>
> Not really. The
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2009/1/10 James Rigg :
>> Hi
>>
>> This is my first post to this list - I'm a thirtysomething newbie from
>> England. After using Wikipedia for years without getting involved, I
>> thought I should look more closely into how it all works - and
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 7:21 AM, Muhammad Alsebaey wrote:
> With all due respect to all the work Gerard has done, my issue with him is
> simple (should be apparent by now), he approved EA based on a mail exchange
> he had with only one committee member, painted that in a public email as a
> unanim
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
> Well, I think there should be not only computer-linguists experts like
> Evertype in LangCom, but you desperately need people who have good
> knowledge about culture, sociology and history of the main language
> groups, or at least you shoul
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
>> Well, I think there should be not only computer-linguists experts like
>> Evertype in LangCom, but you desperately need people who have good
>> knowledge about c
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 3:04 AM, Marcus Buck wrote:
> Tim Starling hett schreven:
>> Marcus Buck wrote:
>>
>>> In the Arabic world there's a prevalent POV, that Arabs form one nation
>>> united by the use of the Arabic language. But in reality Standard Arabic
>>> is something like Latin. With the
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 1:04 AM, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
> I did't want to come back to Belarus Wikipedia case, but at that time
> I have found quite easily 2 good experts. One from Univ. of Warsaw,
> vice-head o Belaruss literature department and one from Univ of Oxford
> (an emeritus professor, spe
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 5:12 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
> Arabic may have spread from Morocco to Malaysia, but Cairo is quite close
> to the Arabian peninsula, so I wonder if you're not overgeneralising.
From: http://www.lmp.ucla.edu/Profile.aspx?menu=004&LangID=51
"Egyptian Arabic is distinguished
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 2:39 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> This is a request for comment. I've posted a draft proposal for the
> license update here:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Licensing_update
>
> It is not intended to be final, but I hope we can arrive at a final
> version by February 1.
>
>
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 8:16 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
> Milos Rancic wrote:
>> * If it is about printed work, it should point at least to the
>> appropriate printed work. It is really not any kind of reasonable
>> solution to allow pointing from less advanced medium to mo
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
> I'm afraid I simply don't understand what you're trying to say, then. It
> sounded like you were talking about having one document (web, print,
> whatever medium) point to another, something that might be done for
> attribution or a variety of
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Brian wrote:
> Yes! Better tools are needed for finding good ideas and gauging consensus.
> The worst thing is that it won't get used - the best thing is much better.
I agree, too. It would be good to have SUL integrated there, as well
as to promote it at other Wi
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> But then I guess there alre already checkusers on fa.wp?
Nope. Candidates were not able to get enough support; which has much
more with the situation in the community than with anything else. At
fa.wp candidates very rarely pass RfAs
Here are the foundation-l statistics up to February 2009. For January and
February, picture looks better than it looked in the period
September-December 2008. I am generating now statistics for some other
lists, too.
;Email count:
yearJan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Au
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 4:46 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> For example, if the survey had shown community credit to be highly
> desired and not controversial at all, that would be interesting: We
> could have an informed conversation about whether we should try to
> accommodate that model after all. As
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Sage Ross wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Chad wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Mike Linksvayer
>> wrote:
>>> p.s. Personally, discussions of "offline" here and everywhere (say,
>>> accessibility of educational materials) are absurdly myopic.
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 9:28 PM, geni wrote:
> 2009/3/9 Milos Rancic :
>> And Kenyans would care about US and European copyright laws? :))) And
>> we would care why they didn't attribute us? In such cases, those who
>> care from both sides are maybe ignorants, maybe
On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Zaharias Diakonikolaou
wrote:
> The Pontic wikipedia has launched! Everyone is welcome to participate in the
> project. Also, I would like to thank Brion Vibber because he responded to my
> mail and arranged the launch of the wikipedia.
Why is the name of Republic
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:07 PM, geni wrote:
> 2009/3/9 Milos Rancic :
>> So, they don't care about their own copyright law.
>
> Common law is very much driven by legal precedent. Looking to see what
> similar legal systems have done is a fairly common approach.
>
>
To be clear, my personal position toward any kind authorship
(especially toward "moral rights") is a very negative one. In brief, I
think that this is a kind of bourgeois egotism. In more details, I
think that all of us own to our teachers, they own to their teachers;
which, in fact, means that all
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 5:54 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2009/3/19 Milos Rancic :
>> This kind of construction makes one copyleft license in practice just
>> a little bit stronger than public domain.
>
> Um, no. The power of copyleft is in preserving freedom to re-use on
&
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 10:41 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> I disagree that there is a "huge" probability of legal exposure with regard
> to this question. I follow moral-rights jurisprudence reasonably closely,
> and I have yet to see any reason to believe that the risk of legal action
> against the
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 1:15 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> I think the percentages given as plausible, but do we really have 10
> million contributors? The English Wikipedia apparently has 9,237,657
> registered users, but I believe a very large proportion of them have
> never made an edit, an even l
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 1:57 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 10% doesn't sound at all reasonable to me.
In one of the previous emails I described that 5 very active
contributors were not happy with the situation at sr.wp at the time
when there were ~40 very active contributors. I don't think that sr.w
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 12:35 AM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> I am talking to a few museums and archives and several of them are
> interested in considering Commons for their collection. At the same time
> they are also considering Flickr.
>
> The issue they have with Commons is its restrictions. One
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 5:50 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> Once again, if we have non-free.wikimedia.org repository, with precise
> rules, we wouldn't be able to have all kinds of materials which policy
> of Commons prohibits:
... we would be able to h
301 - 400 of 676 matches
Mail list logo
