Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 15 June 2010 00:17, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
>
>> Tardises are antiquated visual whatchamacallits, but not
>> even remotely "trademarks".
>>
> Now you are just embarrassing yourself. Check your facts:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/2352743.stm
>
Noein wrote:
> Oh Kubla Khan! Jorge Luis Borges was fond of the palace's story and the
> poem. Thank you for your hard work.
>
>
Given Borges's English ancestry among the erudites of the Haslam family
it would not surprise me to find Coleridge walking in that door.
Ray
___
geni wrote:
> On 22 June 2010 01:25, MZMcBride wrote:
>
>> Jeffrey Peters wrote:
>>
>>> Both rewrites/expansions can be found on Simple Wikipedia, a project
>>> that is noble and deserves more involvement by the community as a
>>> whole:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> http://simple.wikipedia.org/wi
David Gerard wrote:
> On 24 June 2010 19:28, Michael Snow wrote:
>
>> That's the meaning, definitely, same as it was in the previous board
>> statement. I would observe, too, that for material on user pages, if
>> you're even going to ask whether it's educational, what is it going to
>> educate
Michael Snow wrote:
> Victor Vasiliev wrote:
>
>> On 06/24/2010 10:20 AM, Michael Snow wrote:
>>
>>> 4. We do expect material in our projects to be educational in nature,
>>>
and any material that is not educational should be removed.
>> I still believe such a sta
Jeffrey Peters wrote:
> Dear David,
>
> I'm going to donate to their cause.
>
> Music lyrics, just like poems and novels, should not be stolen and published
> everywhere, and yet it is. It is people like you that give the internet a
> bad name. I produce my own content and donate it because I chose
Andre Engels wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:17 PM, wrote:
>
>> When I go to YouTube, the number of videos which are some bad amateur
>> singer trying to sing some good song far outweigh the number of original
>> videos
>> of that song/group. The amount of free content in music, in gener
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>>> Copyright by default means that anything, however bad or
>>> trivial, has copyrights; this includes the weekly flyer from your local
>>> supermarket.
>>>
> All of those are de
Cary Bass wrote:
> On 06/30/2010 05:44 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> I shouldn't use the work "luck" however in this case, since it
>> implies you didn't bring it upon yourself. How about this
>> counter-offensive. Threaten to repeal copyright to the point,
>> where any holder *only* gets te
Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
> But i am particularly curious not about the technical issues, but
> about people's experiences - if there are any - with the actual
> content.
>
When I became involved with English Wikipedia it had fewer than 50,000
articles, and many of them were stubs. [[Special:Wan
George Herbert wrote:
> Is there in fact sufficient evidence that this is a topic that the
> Foundation must, or should, engage in actively at this time?
>
> I know why the Foundation has an inclination to get involved - people
> ask about it, and some very uncomfortable stuff finds its way into
>
Bod Notbod wrote:
> Interesting blog post here which is really about the future of
> journalism but has implications for Wikipedia too.
>
> "The Federal Trade Commission suggests that copyright law could be
> expanded to limit the right of aggregators to republish reported facts
> within a specific
stevertigo wrote:
> Translation between wikis currently exists as a largely pulling
> paradigm: Someone on the target wiki finds an article in another
> language (English for example) and then pulls it to their language
> wiki.
>
> These days Google and other translate tools are good enough to use
Mark Williamson wrote:
> Google Translator Toolkit is particularly problematic because it
> messes up the existing article formatting (one example, it messes up
> internal links by putting punctuation marks before double brackets
> when they should be after) and it includes incompatible formatting
good that community members in the target language would be incapable of
making substantive improvements? And if they did make substantive
change, how would you reconcile the divergence when both versions were
subsequently edited?
> Ray Saintonge wrote
>> Key to the growth of Wikiped
Fajro wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Ragib Hasan wrote:
>
>> (The tool used was Google Translation Toolkit. (not Google Translate).
>> There is a distinction between these two tools. Google Translation
>> Toolkit (GTT) is a translation-memory based semi-manual translation
>> tool. Th
Brian J Mingus wrote:
> The WMF mission is to provide free knowledge to the world. Wikipedia, in
> particular, hopes to summarize all notable topics into a neutral sum.
>
> Accomplishing this goal means Wikipedia an the WMF will have to evolve.
> Consider the implications of the mission: Every sing
Cary Bass wrote:
> I'm leaving the staff, but I will continue to be involved with the
> Wikimedia movement as a volunteer, both as a contributor and in the
> organization of the annual Wikimania conference. Much of my work with
> Wikimedia will continue, except now I will be doing it as a volun
Florence Devouard wrote:
> On 7/31/10 5:21 PM, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
>
>> But all of the above are nice dreams about the future. Is there any
>> proven experience from the past that demonstrates why personal
>> meetings between Wikimedians are not just fun for them, but actually
>> beneficial t
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
> Domas Mituzas wrote:
>
>>> The issue is when someone aggregates the data and associates with
>>> an individual, and then makes publishes it. Or uses that data to
>>> make public statements about a user.
>>>
>> we don't associate data with individual, w
Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
> In 2006 Wikimania in Boston there was a brief, informal meetup of
> chapter committee, existing chapters boards members and people thinikg
> to establish their own chapters. I don't know if it was the results of
> only this meeting but several weeks/months after this meeting
Oliver Keyes wrote:
> Agreed. A good example; on the English Wikipedia, I'm a massive law nerd
> with 40-something legal GAs and FAs to my name. I'd never even have studied
> the subject if it wasn't for a group of Wikipedians, some of whom have later
> helped me with or collaborated on articles. T
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Incidentally, britannica.com removed the seal today from their article on the
> FBI.
>
> http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/203351/Federal-Bureau-of-Investigation
>
> You can see the edit in the "Article History". However, at the time of
> writing, the seal is still
phoebe ayers wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Bod Notbod wrote:
>
>> Well, one of the things it reveals is the difficulty of answering this
>> question and I hope that it has some relation to Wikimedia projects;
>> in particular, I didn't know that multiple books (entirely unrelated
>>
On 02/09/12 10:39 AM, Chris Lee wrote:
The largest problem I see with this is offering a 3D modelling software
that is free and (somewhat) easy to use. I know some exist, but they are
not nearly as friendly as Solidworks or Pro e. secondly, we would need to
offer a free viewer, so that they could
On 02/19/12 12:04 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
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,
On 02/19/12 7:31 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
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 there are
On 02/23/12 11:41 AM, Sarah wrote:
If the oral citations (audio and video) were used as an adjunct to
more traditional sources, I think there would be no problem at all.
On the Holocaust page, we used to highlight a quote (now removed) from
a witness who talked to the BBC at the time of the Brit
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 sciences would know
the intensity with which the highest level schola
On 02/26/12 2:58 PM, M. Williamson wrote:
Ziko, you raise the subject of "illiterates"... I feel that it is blatant
discrimination to assert that the only way illiterates can create sources
worthy of citation on Wikipedia is either by becoming literate, or by being
interviewed by a literate perso
On 02/22/12 11:40 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:
Material on Wikipedia can be divided into "fact" and "opinion". The latter
of these is, perhaps confusingly, the simplest to address; because opinion,
viewpoints and perception can quite easily be collated and summarised. The
only real difficulty exists
On 02/23/12 5:48 PM, Florence Devouard wrote:
But the most difficult ennoying point is simply that most corp
archives appear to be a mess. Because companies are bought and sold,
information is lost on the way. Because of poor communication between
departments. Because staff come and go. And bec
On 02/25/12 10:30 AM, Castelo wrote:
On 25-02-2012 15:58, Michael Peel wrote:
Actually, Wikipedia sort of is the place for original content - when
it comes to illustrations in articles.
Those illustrations are mainly in Commons, with exception of the
images in fair use, but linked in the articl
On 03/07/12 3:29 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
On 7 Mar 2012, at 23:16, David Gerard wrote:
We're beyond mainstream and are now infrastructure. We're part of the
assumed background. Academia and museums come to us now. While I'm
sure someone can then say "and therefore we must filter", that's
asser
On 03/09/12 6:06 AM, Neil Babbage wrote:
Wikimedia is not supposed to be some kind of exercise in perfection for
perfection's sake. It's supposed to be open, accessible and useful.
"Useful", like "notable" is another of those words that cannot be easily
defined. In many otherwise non-controve
On 03/08/12 3:23 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:
On 8 March 2012 11:01, Ray Saintonge wrote:
On 03/07/12 3:29 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
On 7 Mar 2012, at 23:16, David Gerard wrote:
We're beyond mainstream and are now infrastructure. We're part of the
assumed background. Academia and mu
On 03/08/12 2:20 AM, Theo10011 wrote:
The other issue is morality and responsibility. I don't think any
executives or board members should make a statement about that video. It's
a stated policy that they are not responsible for the content on the
project. To hold them legally or morally responsi
On 03/12/12 12:35 PM, George Herbert wrote:
Without delving into the specifics here, or concluding either way as
to the current case lacking actual evidence in front of me, it is a
real and quite serious problem if we don't hold senior and longtime
editors to account for abuses they may perpetuat
On 03/09/12 9:39 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 2:16 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
On 03/08/12 2:20 AM, Theo10011 wrote:
The other issue is morality and responsibility. I don't think any
executives or board members should make a statement about that video. It's
a sta
On 03/12/12 10:11 AM, Nathan wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Marc Riddellwrote:
on 3/12/12 11:43 AM, Nathan at nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
The "bible belt" phrase that some people throw around in this discussion is
just a stand-in for anti-Americanism and a sign of profound ignorance. It
On 03/09/12 10:00 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
On 10 March 2012 00:57, Ray Saintonge wrote:
On 03/09/12 6:06 AM, Neil Babbage wrote:
Wikimedia is not supposed to be some kind of exercise in perfection for
perfection's sake. It's supposed to be open, accessible and useful.
&quo
On 03/13/12 3:58 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 22:54:48 +, Thomas Dalton
wrote:
I thought they had already stopped... I'm sure I remember an
announcement like this a year or two ago... does anyone know what it
is I'm remembering?
No, I think there were only like three b
On 03/14/12 2:29 PM, Joan Goma wrote:
Catalan Wikipedia has about 10 times more pageviews than them. If they use
a free license and use a wiki then their professionals can copy our best
articles and review them and we can copy their content. 7,8% of their
page-views go there from Catalan Wikiped
On 03/22/12 1:37 AM, En Pine wrote:
First, has anyone thought about automatically adding a welcome message to the
user’s talk page when they first register, not only for EN but also for
Commons, Simple, and other projects? Currently we require a human to do this,
which means that lots of peopl
On 03/25/12 12:34 PM, James Heilman wrote:
Some academics need conferences to be sponsored by / associated with an
academic institution to receive time off and funding to attend conferences.
Is this something that Wikimania has ever attempted? Ie. having Wikimania
hosted by the local chapter plus
On 06/17/11 7:15 AM, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
> 2011/6/17 Peter Gervai:
>> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 15:24, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
>>> In such cases, as an Israeli saying goes, i am right, but i am not
>>> clever. It hurts that person and it hurts the project, because that
>>> person may otherwise be a
On 06/17/11 5:01 PM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis wrote:
> I am a bit biased since I have a project to add a trust metric on mediawiki
> but I think that content ownership is important. It lets us evaluate the
> content without reading it which is important to most of us who are only
> experts on one
On 06/18/11 3:28 PM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis wrote:
> The fact that the truth is determined by consensus between experts and
> unknowledgeable or between people with contrary ideas is a problem.
>
> It is not a process that derives the truth since the truth is defined by the
> many,
> http://en.w
On 06/20/11 2:12 PM, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> The case with Simple English WP is a little more complicated:
> http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Simple_English_Wikipedia
> Basic English is only one standard they are looking at.
> There should be also more consideration about the target group.
On 06/22/11 1:46 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 22:24, Lodewijk wrote:
>> 2011/6/22 Milos Rancic
>>
>> There are at least three serious issues in creation of such projects, if
>>> they are not defined strictly linguistically:
>>> * Scope. Which age do we cover, approximately? An
On 06/23/11 1:30 PM, rupert THURNER wrote:
> people working at teacher schools in switzerland approached us a couple of
> times to push into a direction of *having wikipedia for different age groups
> *. first discussed ideas included the *groups **kids, junior, standard, *and
> * expert*. this wou
On 07/12/11 11:16 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> It's not something we've developed expertise in doing. While it may be
> a valuable service, that would almost be another top-level Project or
> two.
>
> On the other hand, PLoS (plos.org - the public library of science) is
> a great journal publisher tha
On 07/09/11 2:06 PM, Andrea Zanni wrote:
> My point (working in an academic digital library and just seeing the
> amount
> of thesis, dissertation, articles passing by) is that if for people is a
> difficult, overcomplicated burden to upload a PDF in an institutional
> repository (5 minutes of the
On 07/07/11 12:00 AM, Ting Chen wrote:
> On de.wikisource.org they scan every page of the original text, upload
> the scan on Commons and show the scan on the right part of every page as
> an image. It is even obligatory to have the original scan of the text.
>
> The following page is an example:
>
On 07/18/11 2:10 AM, Andrea Zanni wrote:
> 2011/7/18 Ray Saintonge
>
>> On 07/09/11 2:06 PM, Andrea Zanni wrote:
>>> My point (working in an academic digital library and just seeing the
>>> amount
>>> of thesis, dissertation, articles passing by) i
On 07/20/11 12:47 AM, Andrea Zanni wrote:
> 2011/7/19 David Gerard> So. What can we do to help take out the proprietary journal system?
> 1. Openly support the OA movement, partecipating in conferences, making
> public statements, addressing the issue to the community. We discuss with
> them on the
On 07/21/11 8:19 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On the subject of organisations that attempt to enclose the public
> domain: Do we have the proceedings of the Royal Society 1600-1923 on
> Wikimedia servers, as we quite definitely should? What's in progress
> along these lines?
>
There's a tiny handful
On 07/27/11 12:42 PM, Wjhonson wrote:
> David how is an exact quote a summary or interpretation?
> An exact quote, backed up by the actual audio track is... exact.
> You are not summarizing it, and you are not interpreting it either.
> You are presenting it.
If that is to be the case the exact quo
On 07/27/11 2:34 PM, M. Williamson wrote:
> Nathan, I think that Raul Gutierrez, Maria Alameda and "Elizabeth" are all
> the same person, somebody trolling the list. While we occasionally get
> single-issue new posters starting topics, it's rare to see them pop up in
> the middle of a topic just to
able to use non-English sources since all
> translation is interpretation and would therefore be considered OR which is
> not allowed at Wikipedia.
>
> 2011/7/27 Ray Saintonge> On 07/27/11 12:42 PM, Wjhonson wrote:
>>> David how is an exact quote a summary or interpretatio
rved by expressing our uncertainties instead of blocking
uncertain facts. Especially in matters of history it should be up to
the reader to decide what weight to give to material.
Ray
> -Original Message-
> From: Ray Saintonge
> Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 4:36 pm
> Subject: Re:
From the perspective of Wikimedia Canada, this sounds exciting. Many
of us believe that work with the First Nations is an important element
in Wikimedia Canada's tasks. I look forward to meeting you in Haifa.
Thanks for providing the RRN link; since I am in the Greater Vancouver
District the
This is spot on.
At times I wonder if some Wikipedians have ever heard of epistemology.
I also have taken note that there is a tendency among some editors to
truncate probability calculations to the nearest whole number.
Ray
On 07/29/11 2:50 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> The great thing about an
On 08/15/11 12:10 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
>> So you're worried about a policy change? What sort of policy change
>> specifically would necessitate forking the project? Is there any such
>> policy change which could plausibly be implemented by the Foundation
>> while it remains a charity?
>>
On 08/14/11 11:51 PM, Tim Starling wrote:
> On 15/08/11 16:30, David Gerard wrote:
>> 2011/8/15 David Richfield:
>>> It's not just financial collapse. When Sun was acquired by Oracle and
>>> they started messing about with OpenOffice, it was not hard to fork
>>> the project - take the codebase and
On 08/15/11 10:00 AM, WereSpielChequers wrote:
> A successful fork needs more than just the content, software and sufficient
> hardware, it also needs a community.
Indeed, but the right to fork also includes the right to fail. If I
chose to start a fork I'm sure that I would have enough technica
On 08/15/11 1:06 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 15 August 2011 20:02, Gustavo Carrancio wrote
>> 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!
>
On 08/15/11 12:25 PM, Gustavo Carrancio wrote:
> Fred: easy to fork vs hard to understand other cultures. Think a minute.
> ¿Are we making an Encyclopedia? Must we struggle to split or to get
> togeather?
At some point we need to ask ourselves: Is our mission to make the sum
of all human knowledg
On 08/16/11 1:20 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 16 August 2011 09:18, David Gerard wrote
>> (BTW - we *do* have someone making sure the Internet Archive - or a
>> similar organisation, if there are any similar organisations - has a
>> full collection of all our backups, so if Florida was hit by a me
On 08/15/11 7:52 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> The emphasis needs to
> be on content, not on trying to figure out extensions and templates.
A key feature of forks!!!
Ray
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lis
On 08/17/11 10:33 AM, Robin McCain wrote:
> As for litigation - I don't think anyone was going to actually attempt
> to go into court on this matter. The Book of Mormon was extremely
> controversial and received a lot of adverse publicity - it is one thing
> to claim that you are going to file an a
On 08/26/11 2:26 PM, Nathan wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Lodewijk wrote:
>> Hi Jimmy,
>>
>> There are several side effects to the idea of not allowing chapters at all
>> to fundraise (I note that boardmembers and staff members have a different
>> take on this, so I'll keep it general
I find this all very sad. Who are the Brazilian volunteers, and how
effectively do they represent the views of those Brazilians who are
truly interested in Wikipedia in their country. The simple fact is that
an agreement entered into by an ad hoc group binds no-one except the
individuals that
On 08/27/11 4:42 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2011/8/28 Delphine Ménard:
>> I'm still baffled at the Wikimedia Foundation wanting to go against
>> what other international organisations are doing, ie. they fundraise
>> locally.
> Is that what the WMF wants? I know it's what Sue said the plan was,
> b
On 08/27/11 4:34 PM, Delphine Ménard wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>> If it were only the chapters themselves at stake (as is the case when
>>> they raise funds independently), then they could get money first and
>>> organization
r ways to do it, and your opinion is
> welcome.
>
> Castelo
> [[:m:User:Castelobranco]]
> Wikimedia Brasil
>
> Em 27/08/2011 21:00, Ray Saintonge escreveu:
>> I find this all very sad. Who are the Brazilian volunteers, and how
>> effectively do they represent
On 08/28/11 12:17 PM, Nathan wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
>> Hi Risker
>>
>> I would like to ask your opinion on WMF's stewardship of the money. The
>> Foundation has fulfilled its legal obligation as a non-profit but as a
>> community member from english wikipedia,
On 08/28/11 2:47 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> Theo writes:
>> Second, it might be some form of elitist outlook if you think accountability
>> standards for US Non-profits are more transparent and fiscally responsible
>> than say somewhere in EU like Germany, France or the Switzerland. I assure
>> you,
On 08/28/11 4:38 PM, Nathan wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> On 08/28/11 12:17 PM, Nathan wrote:
>>> More to the point, according to [1] nearly 80% of the total
>>> fundraising take was from North America. Participation by chapter
On 08/28/11 4:34 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 29 August 2011 00:29, Nathan wrote:
>> Which other criteria are so onerous that folks are reacting
>> like the letter indicts the entire system of chapters?
> Because that's its effect: "The entire system of chapters, except
> WMDE, is hereby recentr
On 08/29/11 11:47 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 13:18, Milos Rancic wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 13:04, David Gerard wrote:
>>> But then, central planning is famous for its notable successes in economics.
>> Fortunately, we wouldn't have to eat passers to make it clear ho
On 08/29/11 1:55 AM, Lodewijk wrote:
> John is unfortunately right. The (currently not publicly available as I
> understand) draft includes clauses that require every chapter that receives
> a grant to abide all US law, including but not exclusively US anti terrorism
> laws and trade bans (unless a
On 08/29/11 3:51 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
>
> What I am saying is that Foundation will have to check every program
> of every chapter, no matter if it would give one large or per-program
> grants. And it will have to do no matter if chapters think that it is
> their problem.
>
> What would WMF do:
>
On 08/30/11 4:35 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> It is a draft. A few problems were communicated privately nine days
> ago from WMAU, and from other chapters around the same time.
>
> I would like an ETA from the WMF on a public version for comment.
>
This would help.
Ray
On 09/02/11 1:59 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
> On 9/2/2011 1:35 PM, Béria Lima wrote:
>>> *If the point is to improve communication, then a more practical approach
>>> might be to designate "observers" who are not given authority but merely sit
>>> in with a chapter board. That's assuming that the chap
On 09/02/11 5:28 PM, Craig Franklin wrote:
> Just to add to what Illario has said, I think it's important to remember
> that most (if not all) chapters are run via a democratic system where the
> entire board or committee is elected by its members. Appointing WMF members
> to boards would obviousl
On 09/02/11 1:02 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
> Meanwhile, on the subject of mutual board appointments between chapters
> and the foundation, I figured I'd chime in as I helped push the idea for
> chapters to select foundation board members in the first place. For one
> thing, there's a very different p
On 09/02/11 12:25 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 9:07 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>> On 8/28/11 1:00 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>> I think that developing such a legal entity should be a high priority
>>> for Brazilian Wikipedians to ensure that Wi
On 09/02/11 12:11 PM, Florence Devouard wrote:
> ...
>
> We are facing rather severe challenges right now. Let's say it straight,
> Wikimedia Foundation is simply trying to absorb/control the chapters as
> is they were simple bureaux of the WMF locally and chapters kind of
> disagree with WMF idea
On 09/03/11 4:06 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
>
> Just a bit of different perspective: I could make a list of chapters,
> besides WM RS, which would be happy to get a representative from WMF
> (but from any other bigger chapter, as well) in their Board, if that
> means that the representative would real
On 09/03/11 3:03 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 3 September 2011 10:51, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>> The organization itself is not the objective.
> +1
>
> What things could WMF do to make itself obsolete as quickly as
> possible, in as many individual areas as possible?
>
&g
On 09/03/11 1:45 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> I was mentioned in a leaked US diplomatic cable - with my name spelled
> wrong!
>
> http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2008/11/08SANTIAGO1015.html
>
> Hilarious.
>
>
Treat the name as coded. If the cable put Wikipedia's creator in danger
you can feel safe that they
On 09/06/11 3:29 AM, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> Funny, These lines remind us that a lot of the "intelligence" work is
> nothing more than reading the newspaper. No much real "leaking", one
> might say.
>
> Obviously, those writers love the word "leading" to make their readers
> understand the importanc
On 09/11/11 5:13 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> 2011/8/17 David Richfield:
>>> You say that we exclude significant material on the basis of
>>> notability?
>> Notability is not an absolute criteria.
>> There are thousands of subjects/articles which could be notable with
>> different criterias.
> What is
On 09/14/11 11:10 AM, Sarah wrote:
>
> There are current affairs issues that would continue to be of
> interest. I've always felt this was an area Wikipedia and Wikinews
> should pursue: video interviews by Wikipedians of interesting people.
> Not necessarily celebrities or news types -- interviews
On 09/15/11 11:51 PM, Andre Engels wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>> This is an interesting point. In some ways Wikipedia has so fetishised
>> reliability that there isn't much room for oral histories and memoirs.
>> We can contact and c
On 09/14/11 5:01 PM, Heather Ford wrote:
> On Sep 14, 2011, at 2:21 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 2:14 AM, Sarah wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 14:28, Theo10011 wrote:
>>>
>>> Adding video-taped interviews is the next step. Imagine articles about
>>> the Second World War con
On 09/14/11 1:44 PM, Sarah wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 14:28, Theo10011 wrote:
>> I doubt that would be enough to satisfy the no original research
>> requirement. The idea linking back to a Wikimedia project as a source is not
>> a new one, it has been tried many times and doesn't work.
> The
On 09/14/11 9:12 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 20:03, Theo10011 wrote:
>> I think Wikinews needs to find its own identity first. There is no way it
>> can compete with large news sites you are thinking of, but there are plenty
>> of other ways it can have its own identity. In t
On 09/15/11 8:50 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 16:43, Andrew Lih wrote:
>> That's a erroneous comparison -- those same WMF employees keep the
>> servers running for all of Wikimedia. It's not specific to
>> Wikipedia's community fundamentals for encyclopedia writing.
> "runn
101 - 200 of 474 matches
Mail list logo
