2009/3/2 philippe philippe.w...@gmail.com
On Mar 2, 2009, at 5:48 PM, private musings wrote:
basically there's a sensible three stage plan to follow to help drive
quality and minimise 'BLP' harm;
1) Semi-protext all 'BLP' material
2) Allow an 'opt-out' for some subjects (eg. non
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 3:17 AM, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:
It seems obvious to me from the conversation on this thread that part of
the
reason the German Wikipedia seems better able to manage its BLPs (assuming
that is true - but it seems true) is because there is a smaller
Any body help I have blog for publiser ...but my trafic is low
Sent from my BlackBerry®
powered by Sinyal Kuat INDOSAT
-Original Message-
From: Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 00:17:14
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing Listfoundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:25 AM, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de wrote:
Back to BLP. Personally I think that the policies we have related to
BLPs are enough, but maybe we should be put more resource in the
inforcement of these policies. The meetings Philipp mentioned in Germany
are a very
2009/3/3 Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de:
yes I think the english and the german wikipedias are two models and
examples that are often used for the other language versions. I remember
the talk from Harel in Taipei about the Hebrew Wikipedia and had the
impression that they orient themselves
2009/3/3 Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net:
I've made this observation before, but I think it bears repeating. At
least on the English Wikipedia, a frequent practice is to start a
section called Criticism and controversy or some variation thereof.
This indicates to me an utter failure to
2009/3/3 Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org:
Can I ask: does anyone reading this thread 1) think raising the notability
threshold is a bad idea, 2) believe defaulting to deletion upon request is a
bad idea, or 3) disagree with the notion that other Wikipedias should shift
closer to the German
2009/3/3 Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org:
Can I ask: does anyone reading this thread 1) think raising the notability
threshold is a bad idea, 2) believe defaulting to deletion upon request is a
bad idea, or 3) disagree with the notion that other Wikipedias should shift
closer to the German
2009/3/2 Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com:
I'm unclear as to how it seems inconsistent to you. Can you explain what you
think is unreconciled? I assume you recognize that NPOV has been adopted by
the Wikipedia community and is enforced by it (and not by the Foundation).
That statement is
2009/3/3 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/3/3 Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com:
I there is simpler way to solicit these reports this without all the false
positives that might come from a report a problem link. I imagine that
all these people who have issues must click on the Help
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 4:35 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/3/3 Aude audeviv...@gmail.com:
Inclusion criteria, such as the one news event is helpful. If we could
make the inclusion criteria for BLP more stringent in other such ways to
weed out some of the garbage or
Aude schrieb:
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:25 AM, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de wrote:
Back to BLP. Personally I think that the policies we have related to
BLPs are enough, but maybe we should be put more resource in the
inforcement of these policies. The meetings Philipp mentioned in
I probably should have used the word implement rather than enforce.
I agree that in some sense the death penalty qualifies as enforcement, but
it doesn't actually make any particular article adhere to NPOV. It's the
community, not the Foundation, that is trusted with ensuring that individual
2009/3/2 Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org:
So, two questions strike me:
2) When it comes to the German Wikipedia and other language versions which
put an unusually high priority on quality . I am curious to know what
quality-supportive measures (be they technical, social/cultural, or
2009/3/3 Domas Mituzas midom.li...@gmail.com:
Hi!
If there is anything like that going on, even in planning, the board
should be acknowledged. I know nothing of such a thing. So I suppose
it
is nonsence.
Ditto. Unless there is a cabal there too! :) (For the record, I'm
joking, even if it
2009/3/3 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
A sub-cabal within the board? Now, what colour would *their* helicopters be?
We're a charity. They flap their arms really hard.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Can I ask: does anyone reading this thread 1) think raising the
notability
threshold is a bad idea, 2) believe defaulting to deletion upon request
is a
bad idea, or 3) disagree with the notion that other Wikipedias should
shift
closer to the German Wikipedia's generally-less-permissive
2009/3/3 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net:
With respect to biographies of living persons, unless there is sufficient
reliable published information about a person to flesh out a well
balanced article we shouldn't have one.
The question them becomes reliable. Reliable sources usually print
2009/3/3 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net:
With respect to biographies of living persons, unless there is
sufficient
reliable published information about a person to flesh out a well
balanced article we shouldn't have one.
The question them becomes reliable. Reliable sources usually
Are Wikia's lawyers as paranoid as Mike Godwin, or do they allow staff to
get involved in enforcing policy violations?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi,
I doubt that it is worth our while to discuss Wikia policies.. certainly
with loaded questions like this one. Then again, it might be considered a
compliment .. as paranoid as Mike Godwin .. I like Mike :)
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/3/3 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org
Are Wikia's lawyers as
Andrew Gray wrote:
2009/3/3 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2009/3/3 Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org:
Can I ask: does anyone reading this thread 1) think raising the notability
threshold is a bad idea, 2) believe defaulting to deletion upon request is a
bad idea, or 3) disagree
--- On Tue, 3/3/09, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:
From: Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living
people
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2009,
--- On Tue, 3/3/09, Aude audeviv...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Aude audeviv...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Request for your input: biographies of living
people
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2009, 2:52 AM
On Tue,
David Gerard wrote:
Michael, is there any reason not to put Anthony on moderation?
Actually, the problem is the thread, which is a complaint about Wikia
practices that is off-topic for this list. Anthony didn't start the
discussion, it's the thread that should be moderated.
--Michael Snow
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ray Saintonge wrote:
The English Wikipedia is probably the worst offender. Until that
is sorted out a Wikipedia wide policy is premature. The
qualities at the beginning of you paragraph are important, but a
level of common sense also needs to
2009/3/3 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net:
With respect to biographies of living persons, unless there is sufficient
reliable published information about a person to flesh out a well
balanced article we shouldn't have one.
This is an important principle, I think. Not necessarily in this form
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important.
However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the
CC lawyers? They wrote the license, so their
2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com:
Sure, the persons themselves can not be harmed, but our
deep understanding of the forces of history, and what force
personality, heredity, cultural context and up-bringing play
within it, is immeasurably impoverished by getting a view that
David Gerard wrote:
2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com:
Sure, the persons themselves can not be harmed, but our
deep understanding of the forces of history, and what force
personality, heredity, cultural context and up-bringing play
within it, is immeasurably
2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com:
Bear with me. I started with that, because that is something
at the periphery, easily overlooked. I will focus on the meat
of the issue in due time.
Then I ask you to get to the point and stay on it, because this needs
to be a thread
2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com:
I think it is very on point to mention that even if some
things were on that list, that would not make them
*more* acceptable to the community, just by virtue of
them being considered allowable by CC lawyers, if
they were infact contrary to
Michael Snow wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
Let me repeat that in a different way, for emphasis: I think that a
great number of our biographies, and bad in a particular way. Minor
controversies are exploded into central stories of people's lives in a
way that is abusive and unfair, and
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com:
I think it is very on point to mention that even if some
things were on that list, that would not make them
*more* acceptable to the community, just by virtue of
them being considered allowable by CC lawyers, if
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
That would not preclude an article about the movie, if notable, although
only a few films spring to mind. And the name of the actor can be
mentioned but ought not be a redlink, unless the person's private life is
notable
2009/3/3 Matthew Brown mor...@gmail.com:
I see no reason why having an article on someone need include
information not published in reliable sources. If they're well-known
for something in the public eye but details of their life elsewhere
are not prevalent, then that's how our article
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I'm making a point of replying to this before I read any of the other
responses to avoid being tainted by them.
Sue Gardner wrote:
* The editors I've spoken with about BLPs are pretty serious about them –
they are generally conservative, restrained,
David Gerard wrote:
2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com:
Sure, the persons themselves can not be harmed, but our
deep understanding of the forces of history, and what force
personality, heredity, cultural context and up-bringing play
within it, is immeasurably
Please join me welcoming the new members of the Usability Project Team.
Arash Boostani, a fourteen-year tech-veteran from Genentech, has joined
the project team as a Senior Software Developer. Arash also previously
directed the development team of an environmental non-profit directory
service
2009/3/3 Matthew Brown mor...@gmail.com:
I see no reason why having an article on someone need include
information not published in reliable sources. Â If they're well-known
for something in the public eye but details of their life elsewhere
are not prevalent, then that's how our article
2009/3/4 Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net:
How about something a little more helpful?
Uh, I think pointing out obvious problems counts, particularly when
the solution offered is to do the same things that are already
problematic twice as hard.
The hard part is to lead the community to a
Make something not only usable but cool! Good luck guys.
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Naoko Komura nkom...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Please join me welcoming the new members of the Usability Project Team.
Arash Boostani, a fourteen-year tech-veteran from Genentech, has joined
the project team
2009/3/3 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important.
However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the
CC lawyers?
We've been in repeated conversations with CC about the possible
attribution models. CC counsel
I realise, and beg of people not to actually believe I buy into this, but
when someone makes an accusation that someone is claiming to be a WMF
employee and claims that there is a conspiracy, I tend to bring it up. I beg
of people to not take me for an idiot.
- Chris
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 6:48
2009/3/4 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
2009/3/3 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important.
However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the
CC lawyers?
We've been in repeated conversations with CC about
They wrote the damned thing, so they are most likely to understand it.
From: geni geni...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2009 7:41:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey,
My is my live please give some information about trafic to my blog
http://jokarwilis2009.blogspot.com
--Original Message--
From: geni
Sender: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
ReplyTo: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re:
Anyone give me some idea abaut my blog .http://jokarwilis2009.blogspot.com
Because my blog is low trafic
--Original Message--
From: Erik Moeller
Sender: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
ReplyTo: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject:
48 matches
Mail list logo
