Re: [Foundation-l] Call for nominations: chapter-appointed seats on the WMF Board of Trustees

> > *if not all chapters participate, or if the "discussion" is dominated by a > > few chapters, or if by some measure the Board determines that the > selection > > forwarded by the moderators does not sufficiently represent the Chapters, > > is there any thought to refusing to certify under these

Re: [Foundation-l] "We are the media, and so are you" Jimmy Wales and Kat Walsh OpEd in Washington Post

This is something I penned prior to reading this, whilst on holiday. It will probably be published somewhere eventually when complete, but seems directly relevant to this.. so have a draft. It may be lacking in places as a current work in progress. So we had a revolt on the internet; some la

Re: [Foundation-l] My public aplogies to Jan-Bart (was Movement roles letter, Feb 2012)

I used to be really antsy over my name; to the point where, at school, I refused to be taught by one teach for a time because she kept calling me "Tom". Nowadays even I call myself that. Surely normal social convention applies; if someone raises the issue then "Don't be a dick" and take extra care

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

> > Jokes aside :) the problem here is exemplary of what Wikipedia *doesn't* > do well, which is to find ways to assess the legitimacy of > not-yet-legitimised knowledge I'm not seeing a good argument that we *should* assess the legitimacy. This seems to be being cast in the light of "verifiabili

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 valued at W

Re: [Foundation-l] Communicating effectively: Wikimedia needs clear language now

> > > Mostly though, thanks to the Internet and multinational corporations, > > godawful business jargon crosses all national borders. Words and > > phrases like 'onboarding', 'stakeholders', 'mission statements', > > 'platforms', 'proactive', 'sectors' and pretty much anything > > 'strategic', for

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

On 22 February 2012 12:44, Mike Christie wrote: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 7:05 AM, Thomas Morton < > morton.tho...@googlemail.com > > wrote: > > > Realistically *we are all part of the problem*. You, me, etc. because the > > problem is the entire ecosystem. Eve

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

On 22 February 2012 13:11, Achal Prabhala wrote: > > > On Wednesday 22 February 2012 03:45 PM, Thomas Morton wrote: > >> Jokes aside :) the problem here is exemplary of what Wikipedia *doesn't* >>> do well, which is to find ways to assess the legitimacy of &

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

> > I think it's a poor signal when it's the only signal, when it wholly > occupies the phrase 'legitimate knowledge'. In a cross-cultural context, > and especially on English Wikipedia, it's notoriously fraught - it's very > difficult for someone with no experience of a place to distinguish betwee

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

> > Interesting because in the Haymarket case there is a 3,000 page > transcript of the trial on line. I thought we could not use it directly. > What can we use it for? Can it be used as a reference for itself, in the > sense that the fact that there was a lengthy hearing with a great number > of

[Foundation-l] Oral Citations Sourcing

Splitting this off, Achal, I hope that's OK :) There's a discussion on at the reliable sources notice board, for instance, > which highlights some of the interpretive problems you raise: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/** > Noticeboard#Oral_Citations

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 sciences

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

On 7 Mar 2012, at 23:03, David Gerard wrote: > On 7 March 2012 22:41, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > >> WMF is looking to work together with lots of mainstream organisations, from >> the British Museum to the Smithsonian. But this kind of curation of adult >> content is an embarrassment for the Wikimedi

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

On 7 Mar 2012, at 23:16, David Gerard wrote: > On 7 March 2012 23:08, Thomas Morton wrote: >> On 7 Mar 2012, at 23:03, David Gerard wrote: > >>> I think you have no grasp of just how far beyond merely "mainstream" >>> Wikipedia is. > >> The

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

> > If you search for "devoirs" (= homework) or "vacances" (= holiday) on > French Wikipedia, you're presented with a porn video in which a man and a > woman engage in sex acts (cunnilingus and fellatio) with a dog. > > > http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sp%C3%A9cial%3ARecherche&profile=im

Re: [Foundation-l] Controversial content software status

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 bac

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter

> > Give as a clear message, that Wikipedia/Wikimedia will never assist in > hiding knowledge. > The day that Wiki*edia changes its mission from providing access to free knowledge to "enforcing our view of knowledge on you", would be a saddening day. Tom __

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter

Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List < > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter > > On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 5:30 AM, Thomas Morton > wrote: > > > > > > > Give as a clea

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter

On 9 March 2012 14:47, Tobias Oelgarte wrote: > Am 09.03.2012 15:34, schrieb Gerard Meijssen: > > The question you have to ask yourself, where is the value in Commons when >> we do not optimise it as much as possible so that it will be the >> repository >> of choice of freely licensed imagery. >>

Re: [Foundation-l] Image filter

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. >> >> >> "Useful", like "notable" is another of those words

Re: [Foundation-l] Draft charter of the Wikimedia Chapters Association

Hmmm, whilst I certainly sympathise with the factions that prompted this, I have to agree with Nathan that it is a saddening thing to see. Governments are stifling, and this unfortunately is what appears to be being proposed. I recall a comment one of my favourite professors used to make which wa

Re: [Foundation-l] Draft charter of the Wikimedia Chapters Association

Some further comments, having read the related pages in more depth: - To what legal body will the "duties" be paid? - What is the purpose of duties exactly (there seems no obvious use for them by the council)? As I can make out it is to set up committees, groups and projects and chapter events -

Re: [Foundation-l] Draft charter of the Wikimedia Chapters Association

On 18 March 2012 21:29, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 18 March 2012 21:18, Thomas Morton > wrote: > > Some further comments, having read the related pages in more depth: > > > > - To what legal body will the "duties" be paid? > > The idea is that the counci

Re: [Foundation-l] help.wikimedia.org - Q&A site

You might want to warn stackexchange ;-) Tom Morton On 6 Apr 2012, at 21:44, John wrote: > WOW, you guys are bashing the WMF for not supporting a legal nightmare, and > yet another clone of an existing service (answers.yahoo.com). The > legalities and paperwork necessary to avoid the WMF from g

Re: [Foundation-l] Elections email

Perhaps. Although with that said nearly 1000 people have voted today - compared to between 100-200 on the previous days (excepting the 29th, first day, which had about 600-800). So it's a case of; is the risk worth the reward? Tom On 10 June 2011 22:19, Sarah wrote: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 1

Re: [Foundation-l] Election results?

Latest update from the election officials: http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABoard_elections%2F2011&action=historysubmit&diff=2667116&oldid=2666426 * * Tom * * On 17 June 2011 12:53, Austin Hair wrote: > It's now the afternoon of the 17th (UTC), and this list—of which I > have th

[Foundation-l] EFF & Bitcoins

As a follow up to the discussion about Bitcoins (during the board elections) & accepting them as donations... I thought this article by the EFF explaining why they no longer accept BC sets out some interesting arguments: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/06/eff-and-bitcoin Tom ___

Re: [Foundation-l] EFF & Bitcoins

ommentators into the attitude of "there could be trouble brewing here". Just in case BTC's were every logistically on the table... this should all be taken under consideration :) Tom On 21 June 2011 14:37, Milos Rancic wrote: > On 06/21/2011 09:11 AM, Thomas Morton wr

Re: [Foundation-l] content ownership in different projects

> A fair comparision, though as with Wikipedia editions I think this varies by language. Even on en.wiki it is not always like that. The major contributors to featured articles ate generally allowed more leeway on content ownership. That's written into th guideline. Tom __

Re: [Foundation-l] Merge wikis

On 4 Jul 2011, at 23:57, Juergen Fenn wrote: > > > Am 02.07.11 14:17 schrieb Alec Conroy: >>> if you talk to the press, or to media experts, they all know >>> "Wikipedia" but not "Wikimedia". The most simple and reasonable way is >>> to use the famous brand, not to invest in "Wikimedia". >> >> >>

Re: [Foundation-l] Merge wikis

> Wikinews is too dynamic and has it's own set of problems to merge easily. It could be done though if given it's own namespace, and Wikipedia would definitely benefit. +1 In the topic area I work there are a lot of contributors writing content that is vastly more suited to Wikinews. A News: nam

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy concerns

This a serious and urgent problem; and the foundation need to look into it quickly. In no circumstances should Wikipedia users be receiving copies of other people's identity documents - it is a privacy nightmare! Tom On 10 July 2011 11:03, David Gerard wrote: > On 10 July 2011 10:55, Huib Laur

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy concerns

> > Just to be clear: the alternative situation was, and would probably be, > that > people who currently can choose to use this clause, would simply be blocked > forever without a way of getting unblocked. > That's the approach most projects take... and anyway copies of identity documents don't p

Re: [Foundation-l] Privacy concerns

> Seem to work though. Does it? Where is the evidence for this? I'm not being hasty in forming a firm judgement here - other than to say it doesn't, on the face of it, seem like a good idea for a project to be doing this. > And if the details of the handling of private data is well outlined and c

Re: [Foundation-l] Black market science

> > On the other hand, PLoS (plos.org - the public library of science) is > a great journal publisher that reviews and publishes scientific work > under a free license. [They impose even fewer restrictions on reuse > than Wikimedia, using CC-BY, which is a more appropriate license in my > opinion

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

> > Go back to the more transparent rationale that copyright infringement rests > solely upon the person who uploaded the copyrighted item, not on people who > merely link to it. That would allow us to link to YouTube videos for > example (not host them, just link to them). > Why read an article

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

> > Again you are referring to the hosting or presentation of non-free content > and I am not. > I am not referring to the DISPLAY of videos within Wikipedia. > Only the LINKING of videos from Wikipedia. > No, I realise that is what you are referring to - and I don't honestly see any huge value to

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

> > I'll go further-- provided we can do so cheaply, I want new projects > that are like the ridiculous early failures of flight. > [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7OJvv4LG9M]. I want to hear about a > new WMF project and it's policy, think "That's crazy-- that's never > gonna get off the ground"

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

> > If you don't see the significant value in including video content, then I > would suggest that you don't see the significant value in including > photographic content either. I would suggest that's an outdated value > system. > > You're simply extending my argument too far there, which is just

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

> > The point is, the copyright police have taken a fear (of something which > has never occurred in actual law), and made it a point of battle. > This is, I think, the wrong forum for our disagreement. I mostly rose to your nasty casting of "copyright police", which was a mistake. Sorry to everyo

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

> > Where is that policy and discussion? > In terms of en.wiki... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ELNEVER That is the main restriction against external linking which makes an extremely strong (even for WP policy) stat

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

Thanks for the kind words. And the only thing that's stopping us from > having that many sites in the movement is Trademark Law / Branding . > The idea works and requires no resources, just a small campaign of > communication offering up the possibility. > > Not so much that; but protecting Wiki

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

Good :) I'm glad I am reading your ideas right. > As for the name-- this looks like a job for experts. Perhaps - though with that said when I am programming it is often my only-slightly-technically minded work colleages who come up with ideas for the most effective solution. We could a

Re: [Foundation-l] Start "questions and answers" site within Wikimedia

There was a push to launch a stackexchange site relating to Wikipedia a few months back. It's currently in the commitment phase - needing people to commit to seeding it. SE is a proven QA platform; so worth considering. Tom Morton On 21 Jul 2011, at 21:00, Samuel Klein wrote: > This is a good

Re: [Foundation-l] Start "questions and answers" site within Wikimedia

> True. But we don't need to use proprietary software for this. Why? Honest question; SE has sensible ideals and license their content well. Why add to the workload of our sysops and developers with another system to maintain and support We do Wiki's really well. SE do Q&A extremely well...

Re: [Foundation-l] Start "questions and answers" site within Wikimedia

> Is it really that much load on Wikimedia sysops to install a (very simple) > script like OSQA? For the value added it would pay itself quickly off. But > this goes down to resource allocations and innovation potential at the > Foundation, which I can not understand most of the time... > It's sim

Re: [Foundation-l] Start "questions and answers" site within Wikimedia

> > but I won't belabour the point :) > Actually I will make one more comment (sorry) :) because I do actually have sound reasoning behind my suggestion beyond just "it's better", and it is only right I lay them out. (I've maintained/operated/implemented a number of Q&A sites for small communiti

Re: [Foundation-l] Start "questions and answers" site within Wikimedia

> > This results from point #3. We do not want to depend on 3rd party in terms > of content security and reliability Not to be glib of course... but you mean like we depend on the commercial hosts/datacenters and top tier connectivity. I do think this point needs stressing though... going your

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

This is a really interesting and thoughtfully complete project. As an editor I am cautious of how well these could be used as citations without falling afoul of "original research". The first problem I see is that presentation becomes difficult: > "Interviews with members of the Sk8r > tribe in

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

> > Also, the escope of this project is much more important for the projects on these languages, and for speakers of these languages, rather > than the English Wikipedia or its readers. > I partially disagree. Certainly it is very important from the perspective of providing material about the nat

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

> > How about Brazilian "caldo de sururu", which is missing on en.wiki (and > also > on pt.wiki)? It's surely a lack for pt.wiki, but maybe not for en.wiki, > Perhaps this is the fundamental difference in our views; because I consider that a lack on *any language Wikipedia* whether pt, en, de, fr

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

> > All sources can be cited without falling afoul of "original research" > Original research only covers claims without sources at all, or claims made > from yourself as the source. > Any source, including citing to a video interviews, is never original > research. > > Ideally of course, yes. Howe

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

> > 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. > > The point David is making is that you are selecting material to quote an

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

> Here's essays from Tom Morris (another philosopher): > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tom_Morris/The_Reliability_Delusion > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tom_Morris/The_Definition_Delusion > > While some editors do tend to argue binary options over sources, in general this is not the cas

Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge

For what it is worth I think this approach exists on en.wiki on the premise that by using foreign sources with no independent translation available: a) It makes it easier to push a POV or miss-interpretation via that source (because other editors are generally not able to understand it) b) Th

Re: [Foundation-l] a funny story about wikipedia's strange power

> > I myself work for [[The_Ministry_of_Silly_Walks]] David, you win ONE INTERNETS :) Tom ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] a funny story about wikipedia's strange power

No way, it's just resting! ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today

Let me rephrase in a slightly less trollish manner. > > Admins should never be given powers over content. Perhaps fittingly, the abuse filter has been active on English Wikipedia for some time. And even better, it is not a "sysop" group right. Instead it has its own group. If you are volunteeri

Re: [Foundation-l] AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by default today

On 24 August 2011 18:12, Wjhonson wrote: > > Give me permission. > I am volunteering to head up the abuse filter team. > > Thomas don't mistake my point for some other point. > I am not suggesting that admins AS EDITORS should veer away from content > creation, but rather that admins using their

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia used for SPAM

I suspect they are pulling addresses off the list, then using address spoofing to make it appear to come from the list owner. I have a few in my spam folder. Tom On 25 August 2011 14:08, Huib Laurens wrote: > Hi! > > I''m getting this kind of e-mails since yesterday... Did they use the list >

Re: [Foundation-l] The systematic and codified bias against non-Western articles on Wikinews

n 6 September 2011 12:49, Tom Morris wrote: > On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:32, Thomas Dalton > wrote: > > While I agree this isn't a good situation to be in, I'm not sure what > > the alternative is. The reviewers need to be able to understand the > > sources and there probably aren't many (any?) r

Re: [Foundation-l] The systematic and codified bias against non-Western articles on Wikinews

On 6 September 2011 13:54, Andre Engels wrote: > On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Thomas Morton > wrote: > > > > But as Tom say, online media has quickly found that the traditional > > editorial process doesn't work so well on the internet. On the other hand >

Re: [Foundation-l] Personal Image Filter results announced

On 6 September 2011 13:56, Milos Rancic wrote: > On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 14:33, Tim Starling > wrote: > > Personally, I think the filter will be mostly harmless, and that it's > > not worth the effort to rail against it. It will be useful for PR -- > > it will seem as if we are trying to accomoda

Re: [Foundation-l] Personal Image Filter results announced

> > First, I actually don't oppose to the filter per se. There is > significant difference between what Jimmy did in May 2010 and this > filter. From the point of freedom of information, that's not an issue. > I was even thinking to support image filter inclusion; just to finish > with that; but gr

Re: [Foundation-l] Personal Image Filter results announced

> > The *first* instance to be asked about such thing are editors, not > readers. I mean, the first question is "Do *we* want it?". Readers > opinion could be one of the arguments in discussion; likely one of the > most important ones; but decision should be on editors. And Board > should act in op

Re: [Foundation-l] Personal Image Filter results announced

> > I oppose any form of reader/editor dichotomy in the strongest possible way. > And yet speak in support of the current system - which makes no effort to listen readers... it enforces a dichotomy of its own! > A wiki operates on the premise that all readers are editors, and all > editors are r

Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikinews-l] The systematic and codified bias against non-Western articles on Wikinews

> > Wikipedia *still* does not enforce their "not a news site" policy, and > it is an utter waste of time bringing such up; numerous selfish > Wikipedians reject efforts to direct news-writing efforts to Wikinews. I > neither know, nor care, if this is because they're incapable of writing > to the

Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikinews-l] The systematic and codified bias against non-Western articles on Wikinews

> > See item #3 in this Signpost re. death of Osama bin Laden. We nailed it: > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-05-09/News_and_notes > > Wikipedia seems to get a lot of hits when it keeps up with the news. I > think it reflects well on the project and has a bit of

Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikinews-l] The systematic and codified bias against non-Western articles on Wikinews

> > Does anyone want to argue for a policy that says "Wikipedia does not > record events until they are x days/months old"? > Yes, this would solve a large number of problems (not least resolving the "historical significance" issue). If the lifecycle of an article that involves current news is: >

Re: [Foundation-l] Personal Image Filter results announced

> > > The idea of offering imagine filters on WMF project is much more > > controversial than it is on other internet websites. So, I I think > > that it is fair to suggest that we examine why we are having > > conflicts over this topic when other website don't. One possible > > reason is that our

Re: [Foundation-l] Personal Image Filter results announced

> > Agreed. And one of the most important aspects to acknowledge is the > infeasibility of labeling/grouping images based on what we believe > people will want to filter. > > I confess to not being "on top" of the exact mechanics of this proposal... but why can we not be using normal categories?

Re: [Foundation-l] Personal Image Filter results announced

> > Thus, to use categories for an image filtering system would indeed > require constructing a category for the specific purpose of exclusion. > Big ALA "actually, that *is* censorship" alarm goes off. This is true, and I agree. but... > * The category system is constructed of minute subcatego

Re: [Foundation-l] Personal Image Filter results announced

On 7 September 2011 15:58, David Gerard wrote: > On 7 September 2011 15:55, Thomas Morton > wrote: > > > Obviously given the complexity of the category tree system any such > > engineering wouldn't be infallible - but you could match it to most use > > cases. Ul

Re: [Foundation-l] Personal Image Filter results announced

> > I'm not looking forward to the possibility that every picture is going > to be surrounded by filter-cruft. I don't really want pictures of > planets, plants, fonts, colours and anything else that's universally > inoffensive being accompanied with buttons. I hope there's a more > elegant solutio

Re: [Foundation-l] Personal Image Filter results announced

> > It is very hard to cater for someone when you are not engaged with > them in conversation. Any attempts to do so are doomed to make an ASS > of U and ME (ASSUME). > It is hard, sure; most users/consumers don't engage - which is why a whole industry has grown around finding out what they want a

Re: [Foundation-l] Personal Image Filter results announced

On 7 Sep 2011, at 23:04, MZMcBride wrote: > Thomas Morton wrote: >> This is largely an engineering problem; and it can probably be overcome with >> some architecture work. As we are going to be implementing a major new >> feature *anyway* it's not something t

Re: [Foundation-l] Hypothetical project rebranding Wikimedia

> > However, I thought the logo that the agency came up with sucked. :-) > > Agree; although it did look good on the mobile browser mockup IMO. Tom ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ma

Re: [Foundation-l] Hypothetical project rebranding Wikimedia

On 8 September 2011 21:22, Fred Bauder wrote: > > 2011/9/8 Fajro : > >> Wikimedia is a Great Brand, the problem is that it was never promoted > >> properly. > >> In fact, the brand / logo is hidden at the bottom of the footer in > >> every page! > >> > > > > Hello, you can make Wikimedia as famou

Re: [Foundation-l] On curiosity, cats and scapegoats

> > 2011/9/9 Jimmy Wales : > > If you don't like the feature, then don't use it. > > Every single proposal I've seen on this feature from the staff assumed > that the filter will be enabled by default and could (perhaps) be > disabled. Did I miss something? Could just be misreading; I see that as

Re: [Foundation-l] A Wikimedia project has forked

It's a tiny bit disappointing that the tone here is "oh well, we tried and failed". When really it should be "cool - now we have a competitor, what do we need to give WN to help them stay in the market" Tom ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lis

Re: [Foundation-l] A Wikimedia project has forked

> > We've failed. Maybe someone else will do better. If they do, our goal will > still be achieved. Well that's exactly the problem :) This should be a last gasp kick up the backside.. not a shrug of the shoulders. Just saying. Tom ___ foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] A Wikimedia project has forked

> > 1) WikiLove has been enabled on Swedish, Malayalam, Hungarian, Hebrew, > Arabic, and Hindi Wikipedia, as well as Commons, all on request of the > respective project communities. > > Uh oh - criticism time... WikiLove was developed supposedly to address one of the major problems of English Wiki

Re: [Foundation-l] On Wikinews

The elephant in the room in all this is that Wikinews lacks the critical mass of editors to overcome these issues. So... you could have a strict review system; if there were enough good reviewers you could cover a broad spectrum of news; if there were enough editors you could implement collaborat

Re: [Foundation-l] On curiosity, cats and scapegoats

> > A wiki usually serves its participants first, (with the world at > large being a secondary goal; after all - the entire world is > invited and welcome to participate if they want to). I've commented at length already on why this is the wrong approach; and forces us into an even more insular c

Re: [Foundation-l] Spiders and bots. Was "The WikiNews fork - for lack of a copyvio detection bot half a project was lost"

On 14 Sep 2011, at 23:05, WereSpielChequers wrote: > I remember hearing a couple of times that CorenSearchBot was down, but just > assumed that something so important was being rescued, though I did wonder > slightly about the recent net increase in articles on EN wiki. 3,738,826 > articles today

Re: [Foundation-l] On curiosity, cats and scapegoats

> > > > I can't ASSUME > > > things about non-participants. For all I know anything we do > > > (including filtering) might hurt them. If they don't speak up, we > > > don't know. > > And this takes us full circle to just about my first question on this > long > > thread has anyone actually as

Re: [Foundation-l] Personal Image Filter results announced

> > You may have missed a couple of things. A good portion of the loudest > critics of _the_ _process_ (not the result) ; I hesitate say the majority, > because I haven't done the numbers; were in fact people in favor of > the proposal itself, but who had the integrity to recognize that a > resul

Re: [Foundation-l] "All human knowledge", by Jimmy Wales (?)

On 17 Sep 2011, at 09:41, Ray Saintonge wrote: > On 09/16/11 12:38 PM, Robert Rohde wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:01 PM, emijrp wrote: >>> I think that the phrase meaning refered to Wikipedia is "the sum of all >>> human knowledge which is notable and encyclopedic". >>> >>> Not ALL, ALL,

Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia

I think this is a prime opportunity to point out to those concerned: Wikipedia is hosted in the US :) so no need to worry! Tom ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/founda

Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia

On 4 October 2011 13:56, Tomasz Ganicz wrote: > 2011/10/4 Thomas Morton : > > I think this is a prime opportunity to point out to those concerned: > > Wikipedia is hosted in the US :) so no need to worry! > > > > Are you sure? Contributors lives mainly in Italy, so th

Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia

On 4 October 2011 14:03, Ilario Valdelli wrote: > An official statement will be published in Foundation-l. > > The question is that the server are in USA, but for the penal law it's > sufficient to edit from the Italian country. > > I am in a special situation because I live in Switzerland and I

Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia

> > Because of such a risk (it’s easily understandable that this rule will make > encyclopedia articles as pure “frames” for unchangeable text imposed by > others), the Italian community has decided, by a vast majority (see > http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Comma_29_e_Wikiped

Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia

On 4 October 2011 14:40, Lodewijk wrote: > I think it is fairly easy to make such statements when you live abroad, and > are not directly influenced by its outcomes. I live in the UK; where our defamation laws definitely make it very risky to edit Wikipedia (context; in the UK suing for defamat

Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia

> > Does the proposed law say who is responsible for compliance? I would > be surprised if it was anyone other than the WMF. The website owner (it's very clear over this), the website owner is also directly responsible for non-compliance. Legally speaking, > we're all just users of the website.

Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia

This is going to be a PR nightmare :-s Tom Morton On 4 Oct 2011, at 20:58, 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

Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia

Lengthy and critical email on why this is a flabbergasting response... At this time we now have a Wikipedia taking a political position, and indeed political action. In essence they have made an operational decision and abused their autonomy as a Wikipedia within the foundation. Don't get me wron

Re: [Foundation-l] Blanking a Wikipedia, a very bad idea

On 4 October 2011 22:15, Benjamin Lees wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 5:10 PM, Mathias Schindler > wrote: > > Then can you specify the threshold for the community-ratio that is in > > your opinion required for some Wikipedians to vandalize a language > > edition of Wikipedia in such way? > > Un

Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does the proposed law say?

http://www.camera.it/_dati/leg16/lavori/stampati/pdf/16PDL0038530.pdf Page 24. On 4 October 2011 22:40, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > I would echo Risker's question: What exactly does the proposed new law > say? > Is it that disputed content will have to be *removed* if a request is > received, and *r

Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia - What exactly does the proposed law say?

On 4 October 2011 23:12, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: > Andreas Kolbe, 04/10/2011 23:40: > > Is it that disputed content will have to be *removed* if a request is > received, and *replaced* with the BLP subject's statement? > > Or is it that BLP subjects have the right to ask for a correction to b

Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia

On 4 October 2011 23:19, John Vandenberg wrote: > On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 7:15 AM, 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

  1   2   >