Hoi,
The lack of options to vote for makes it a biased attempt at strong arming
into a specific directions. In my opinion as it is flawed it is hardly
relevant.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 14 March 2011 07:21, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Liam Wyatt wrote:
I presume you are raising this
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
The lack of options to vote for makes it a biased attempt at strong arming
into a specific directions. In my opinion as it is flawed it is hardly
relevant.
I'm not sure if other projects have the Requests for comment system (or
are familiar with it), but generally people
Ik denk dat dat niet helemaal eerlijk is om zo te stellen - als jij er
wat moeite voor zou doen, zou je de meeste andere talen ook prima
begrijpen. Hetzij door gewoon langzaam te lezen, hetzij door
vertaalprogramma's die op het internet beschikbaar zijn te gebruiken.
Het belangrijkste bij
--- On Sat, 26/2/11, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
From: John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com
Was: Re: [Foundation-l] Friendliness
(was: Missing Wikipedians: An Essay)
Was: Re: [Foundation-l] Friendliness
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hello,
The foundationsite says in the article peering that the foundation is
looking for free rack-space / routers.
What kind of facilities do they want? Is there a more detailed pages
with the wishes en needs for the foundation, or can that be geven here
on the list?
Best,
Huib
--
Verzonden
Thoughts?
The intention of this proposal, and this thread, is _not_ to improve
our processes/handling of BLPs, however that is one of the likely
outcomes of splitting BLPs to a separate project.
The intention of this proposal is to split English Wikipedia into more
than one project, so
Thoughts?
The intention of this proposal, and this thread, is _not_ to improve
our processes/handling of BLPs, however that is one of the likely
outcomes of splitting BLPs to a separate project.
The intention of this proposal is to split English Wikipedia into more
than one project, so
That was sortof the point behind proposed changes - some articles deserve
more scrutiny applied to edits.
However politics pretty much killed the idea on en.
On Mar 14, 2011 6:33 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
Thoughts?
The intention of this proposal, and this thread, is _not_ to
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 9:51 PM, Stephanie Daugherty
sdaughe...@gmail.com wrote:
That was sortof the point behind proposed changes - some articles deserve
more scrutiny applied to edits.
However politics pretty much killed the idea on en.
If there was a community/project devoted to
On 14 March 2011 10:50, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Stovepiping is already a problem. Breaking up the project in this way
would make a science of it, creating a plethora of petty tyrannies in the
style of Wiktionary and Wikipedia Commons but even less responsive.
Some
--- On Mon, 14/3/11, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
From: John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] breaking English Wikipedia apart
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Monday, 14 March, 2011, 10:33
Thoughts?
The
During the strategy taskforce, the quality team came to two conclusions that
are similar to some ideas in this thread, but avoid the issues mentioned.
We didn't consider breaking up the projects, but we did feel that the
concept of subject-related collaboration (ie WikiProjects) were not being
On 03/14/2011 11:50 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
Stovepiping is already a problem. Breaking up the project in this way
would make a science of it, creating a plethora of petty tyrannies in the
style of Wiktionary and Wikipedia Commons but even less responsive.
How are Wiktionary and Wikimedia
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
John, how would your proposal be realized, technically?
I presume BLPs would still be hosted on the same xx.wikipedia.org site, be
wikilinked to, and so on. Is that correct?
If so, how would the proposed spun-out BLP
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 05:35, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
The other thing we thought was that there is benefit in recognizing editors
whom the community agrees are competent, edit well sourced neutral good
quality material, and act well, across the board. ... If there were some way
to
Dear all,
I am just so sad for a wikimedian leaving which active on zhwiki commons.
User:JerryofWong, a wikipedia editor on zhwiki, a upload on commons. In zhwiki
VP, this user said
I can't access Internet any more. Stasi threaten me and asked my parents to
stop my internet
--- On Mon, 14/3/11, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
From: John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com
John, how would your proposal be realized,
technically?
This is explained in the first email in this thread.
Okay. Upon rereading I find you stated:
I recommend breaking enWP apart by
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 12:35 PM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
During the strategy taskforce, the quality team came to two conclusions that
are similar to some ideas in this thread, but avoid the issues mentioned.
[snip]
First, let me apologize beforehand for sounding too cynical, but I
have
Hello,
I think we should think a bit out of the box here. If we are thinking
about breaking the English Wikipedia apart, we might as well consider
other revolutionary ideas.
What we see here, in fact, is a slow but persistent collapse of
Wikipedia's management system. This is hardly
On 14 March 2011 12:51, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote:
Currently such pages tend to be locked to all but admins. That doesn't
work either - people just keep on their fighting on the talk page
until someone gives up, after which the page is unlocked and their
opponent can declare
On 14 March 2011 12:53, Dror Kamir dqa...@bezeqint.net wrote:
As a first step, I think it would be useful to appoint an ombudsman to
Wikipedia, either one to all of them or to each one. We can start with
the English Wikipedia. This ombudsman will be identified by her/his real
name and receive
First of all, I am not talking just about BLP. This is part of the
problem. I am also concerned about new editors who were treated badly
(that happens more often than you think), about unreasonable decisions
of admins etc. Secondly, such ombudsman should keep a certain distance
from
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 07:18, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
The main problem I've found is that aggrieved BLP subjects don't
understand that they can actually email i...@wikimedia.org and have
someone seriously look at the problem.
David, in the BLP policy we advise people to contact
First of all, I am not talking just about BLP. This is part of the
problem. I am also concerned about new editors who were treated badly
(that happens more often than you think), about unreasonable decisions
of admins etc. Secondly, such ombudsman should keep a certain distance
from
On 14 March 2011 13:34, SlimVirgin slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 07:18, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
The main problem I've found is that aggrieved BLP subjects don't
understand that they can actually email i...@wikimedia.org and have
someone seriously look at
--- On Mon, 14/3/11, Dror Kamir dqa...@bezeqint.net wrote:
From: Dror Kamir dqa...@bezeqint.net
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] breaking English Wikipedia apart
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Monday, 14 March, 2011, 13:27
First of all, I am not talking just
about BLP. This is part of
On 14 March 2011 13:46, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
Having a single person would not work, as people would assume that a single
person may have their own personal biases affecting their judgment.
An elected committee might work, and I do think we should look at empowering
such a
On 14 March 2011 09:53, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 March 2011 13:46, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
Having a single person would not work, as people would assume that a
single
person may have their own personal biases affecting their judgment.
An elected
On 14 March 2011 15:01, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
David, I strongly object to your continued twisting of my words,
The link to your precise words is there. It's what you actually said.
Or are you claiming those links are not to your words?
- d.
On 14 March 2011 11:03, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 March 2011 15:01, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
David, I strongly object to your continued twisting of my words,
The link to your precise words is there. It's what you actually said.
Or are you claiming those links
Hi there,
I personally welcome multilingual mailinglists, officially including
it, but not sure if the community at large welcome such regardless its
efficiency in general. I use my twitter account for speaking in
Japanese and mostly, and have seen many non Japanese people including
Wikimedians
On 14 March 2011 15:21, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
But for the second time now, you are derailing a discussion on one topic (in
this case, whether there is a benefit in breaking up large projects, and in
the prior case, how to attract and retain female editors) so that you can
focus on
On 14 March 2011 11:29, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 March 2011 15:21, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
But for the second time now, you are derailing a discussion on one topic
(in
this case, whether there is a benefit in breaking up large projects, and
in
the prior
--- On Mon, 14/3/11, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] breaking English Wikipedia apart
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Monday, 14 March, 2011, 13:53
On 14 March 2011 13:46,
Hi, HW and all others,
I am trying to contact Jerry for verify his safety. As far as the
community know, he is safe.
Because he is a Middle School student. I will verify the situation
again by myself.
As you know, it is a sensitive period for all Chinese netizens recently.
The NPC [1] and CPPCC
The contradiction resolves in that routinely means commonly not
automatically. Your 2nd paragraph says it -- a carrot that required the
acquisition of editorial skills that were within the reach of just about
anyone who applied herself, and which passed the scrutiny of the community
as good
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.comwrote:
(snip)
First, let me apologize beforehand for sounding too cynical, but I
have many years of experience with Wikipedia, and I have seen many
attempts to deal with trolls, POV pushers and otherwise substandard
editors
To clarify/correct this - the idea was not that they can be given the role
of resolving disputes. Rather, their conduct in helping (as ordinary
editors) to resolve disputes, can be relied upon.
They will follow (as editors) dispute resolution, focus on project-related
issues, look at the topic
--- On Mon, 14/3/11, HW waihor...@yahoo.com.hk wrote:
From: HW waihor...@yahoo.com.hk
Subject: [Foundation-l] Sad for a wikimedian leaving on zhwiki
To: foundation mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Monday, 14 March, 2011, 12:41
Dear all,
I am just so sad for a wikimedian
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 10:24, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
The contradiction resolves in that routinely means commonly not
automatically. Your 2nd paragraph says it -- a carrot that required the
acquisition of editorial skills that were within the reach of just about
anyone who applied
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 02:10:39 +, Virgilio A. P. Machado
v...@fct.unl.pt wrote:
I regret to inform that there is indeed an article on Zick Rubin on
Wikia, like Zick Rubin writes: I was alarmed to find the following
item, from a Wikia.com site on psychology
Arabic Wikipedia has a fair-use policy, but it is more strict than en.wp.
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Hans A. Rosbach
hans.a.rosb...@gmail.comwrote:
On 13 March 2011 22:14, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 13 March 2011 18:25, Hans A. Rosbach hans.a.rosb...@gmail.com
[Apologies for cross-posting; this same e-mail is being sent to wikipedia-l,
WikiEN-l and foundation-l]
Hi everyone,
We are a research group conducting a systematic literature review on
Wikipedia-related peer-reviewed academic studies published in the English
language. (Although there are
David, I strongly object to your continued twisting of my words, and your
personal crusade to turn the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee into
a
personal attacks police force. That was never the intended scope of
the
committee, and it remains outside of its scope. We're currently
Hi all,
Just a quick heads up that Sue Gardner will be holding an IRC office hours
Friday the 18th at 04:00 UTC
(conversionhttp://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?hour=04min=00sec=0day=18month=03year=2011)
in #wikimedia-office. We set it then to make it easier for those of you in
I may sound negative, as said, I know much has been tried, and little
succeeded. I do really hope this does work, and am well willing to
think along to try to make it that way. In fact, it is not that far
from ideas that I have developed myself or with other users on IRC as
well - although I was
On 14 March 2011 13:34, SlimVirgin slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:
David, in the BLP policy we advise people to contact info-e...@wikimedia.org.
Is i...@wikimedia.org a better address, or do they end up in the same place?
Basically, the same place. info@ means it gets manually sorted to the
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 13:22, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 14 March 2011 13:34, SlimVirgin slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:
David, in the BLP policy we advise people to contact info-e...@wikimedia.org.
Is i...@wikimedia.org a better address, or do they end up in the same place?
On 14 March 2011 19:29, SlimVirgin slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks, Andrew. I think I'll add that second email address to the policy.
In fact, if i...@wikipedia.org doesn't exist then it should be created
to point to i...@wikimedia.org - so that it can be communicated
verbally with
--- On Mon, 14/3/11, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com
In the end, A got a long-term block -
not for POV
editing, not for doing original research, not for
misrepresenting his
sources - he could have gone on with all those without
strong
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 March 2011 09:53, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
David, I strongly object to your continued twisting of my words, and your
personal crusade to turn the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee into a
personal
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
That's precisely the problem. Being able to remove the right to edit BLPs
from a user, irrespective of whether they have been uncivil etc., just
based on the nature of their edits, is the only thing that will solve it.
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 8:57 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com
wrote:
That's precisely the problem. Being able to remove the right to edit
BLPs
from a user, irrespective of whether they have been uncivil etc., just
based on the nature of their edits, is the only thing that will solve
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 11:24 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
I can see where this ends: biased editors in control; no discussion, no
appeal, disagree and you're history.
That is indeed a risk. There seems to be no way out. Either you treat
trolls as deccent editors, or you treat
This is getting kind of stuck on the specifics of BLPs being separated (or not).
Can we step back and address the generic idea again. A restatement of
the intended benefits and advantages of splitting the project would be
appreciated.
--
-george william herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com
2011/3/11 Dario Taraborelli dtarabore...@wikimedia.org:
The simple answer: Maybe, but how could i know that?
The smartass answer: Maybe, but how could i know that after clicking
'Next' i wouldn't be presented with a stupid JavaScript error message,
punishing me for clicking 'Next' before
News and notes: Foundation reports editor trends, technology plans and
communication changes; brief news
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-03-14/News_and_notes
In the news: Paying US$1,000 to correct a Wikipedia error; brief news
Let's assume that you don't know English. I don't know Dutch and
Google Translator is my only option. (Similarities with English are
not so big, while my knowledge of German is so poor, that it's not
useful at all.)
2011/3/14 Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org:
Ik denk dat dat niet helemaal
Fra: George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com
Til: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Dato: Man, 14. mar 2011 23:31
Emne: Re: [Foundation-l] breaking English Wikipedia apart
This is getting kind of stuck on the specifics of BLPs being
separated (or not).
Fra: Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com
Til: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Dato: Tir, 15. mar 2011 04:19
Emne: Re: [Foundation-l] multilingual mailing list
2011/3/14 Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org
[mailto:lodew...@effeietsanders.org]:
Het
I've been involved with open access journals as a professional
activity from the start of the movement, long before I joined
Wikipedia. There has been only limited success. Though there are
almost ten thousand open access journals, 95% of them are either very
small or very unimportant, and in
I understand. Thank you so very much for clearing the
misunderstanding. No need to apologize. I write things that people
don't understand more often than not. Not only you were very kind,
which I appreciate very much, but you're absolutely right. Zick Rubin
has also authored several books.
I agree with helping wikiprojects collaborate but couldn't disagree more
with making them more powerful or in charge of certain wikis. It seems like
at some point, anecdotally pegged as somewhere in early 2006 from those I've
discussed this with, we as a community stopped enculturating our new
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 2:35 PM, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote:
And with respect to BLPs, the biographical information about living
people permeates most areas of the Encyclopedia, not just the articles
with a living person's name as the title.
Another good reason to drop the B and
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Stephanie Daugherty
sdaughe...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
Of course we would expect that providers and universities will only be
able
to provide a limited number of users with access. But access
By the way, I did check with one of the schools I attended, Sturm College
of Law, and found their access policy for alumni is quite liberal. I'm
too far away to check books out, but it looks like I can do quite a lot
on-line; probably quite a bit more than I have to time to use.
Their policy is
An interesting survey by an Italian researcher.
Bye.
E.T.
-- Forwarded message --
Object: A survey about some sociological issues related to copyright
in the digital age
By this message I would like to introduce a survey that I recently
created in order to go more in depth with
The big wikipedias would benefit in numerous areas by being
project-driven to a much larger extent. Let a newcomer join one or more
projects instead of the huge Wikipedia - let the project welcome her,
discuss what contributions she wants to make and what she is able to do,
hand out tasks
68 matches
Mail list logo
