On 14 December 2011 21:57, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 05:43:03PM +, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Presumably
there will be a more formal process to decide whether we actually go
ahead with it - has that started somewhere? If not, has anyone at
least figured
On 12 December 2011 15:26, K. Peachey p858sn...@gmail.com wrote:
It's been a requested feature for a while, Someone finally got around
to writing it (I believe it needed the Improved metadata handling
backend first) and implementing it, It wasn't a sudden oh lets write
this and enable it in
On 12 December 2011 16:18, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote:
For some unexplained reasons, the whole contents of my message is not
showing at
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-December/070807.html
. Here is another copy again:
It came to the list, but the archiving
On 12 December 2011 18:18, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Technically, nothing was messed up by the feature. Rather, the
software previously did not take EXIF rotation into account, and some
images had incorrect EXIF rotation information to begin with. Those
images are now shown in an
On 10 December 2011 14:53, Alasdair w...@ajbpearce.co.uk wrote:
Speaking personally, now that it has been more explained and developed, I
have no problem with the survey in principle,
Agreed, it's a proper survey by proper researchers and good in
substance, it's just been realised in a
On 9 December 2011 14:58, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't accept your false equivalence between Harvard/Science Po and
McDonalds, nor do I believe you misunderstood my point: that
advertising is commonly rejected for its potential for various harms,
while even those who object to this
On 6 December 2011 10:14, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote:
Hardly surprising or new, but something we need to be aware of:
Wikipedia is being edited by a large lobbying company, Bell Pottinger.
It removes negative coverage of its clients:
On 2 December 2011 11:00, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
A fourth area of contention is money and specifically whether this is a
legitimate use of the money donated to the movement. We've already had one
UK board member ask awkward question re this.
Wikimedia
On 2 December 2011 14:36, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
My reading of that is that the board has agreed to drop the idea of a
filter based on our category system, but unfortunately they haven't yet
agreed to drop the idea that someone controlling an IP could censor what
On 29 November 2011 12:03, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
What i found to be the best solution so far was the blurred images
filter. You can 'opt-in' to enable it and all images will be blurred as
the default. Since they are only blurred you will get a rough impression
On 29 November 2011 12:56, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
... And I still want to see the good reason for doing so. So far i
could not find one single reason that was worthy to implement such a
filter considering all the drawbacks it causes. That doesn't mean that
Yes.
On 28 November 2011 07:38, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
2011/11/28 Dirk Franke dirkingofra...@googlemail.com:
Seriously: Could we please create something like the Twitter Fail Whale?
Maybe a Sad Jimbo? Could help fundraising as well..
Scattered pieces of the puzzle
On 28 November 2011 02:12, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
Using phrases like some people, a few people is a pathetic representation
of the reality. It isn't a minority you want to address/oppose, but a huge and
strong entrenched core group. Pretending otherwise is just pure
On 28 November 2011 09:34, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote:
Our core mission is making information and knowledge available to
people who want it, not pushing it down their throats against their
will.
Show that there is a demand. Build a filtered Wikipedia and get rich.
(There must
On 28 November 2011 10:07, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote:
You're saying that anything that is not wanted by more than a few
people goes against our core mission?
No, and nor did I say anything that could reasonably be construed as that.
- d.
On 28 November 2011 10:51, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote:
I said that an image filter was not against our core mission. You
reacted to that by saying that I should show that there is a demand.
Then you added something about all the points refuted a thousand
times like this. Surely
On 26 November 2011 19:54, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
[snip long list of concerns with this latest attempt in practice]
I'm very curious what we try to achieve with this filter? Is it really
to get more readers or is it just to introduce a filter that is in some
way
On 26 November 2011 21:50, Möller, Carsten c.moel...@wmco.de wrote:
The only exeptable filter would be a _strictly_ personal one.
Stored on the users computer in an encrypeted file, which he can transfer
from one computer on his memorystick or CD to the other if logged in with the
same
On 19 November 2011 18:05, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/11/19 Mateus Nobre mateus.no...@live.co.uk:
+1.
always thought it.
There is actually such a wiki-project called WikiHow:
http://www.wikihow.com/Main-Page
It is, however, CC by-nc-sa - not actually free content. So
On 19 November 2011 14:09, Mateus Nobre mateus.no...@live.co.uk wrote:
Puts the neutrality of the Wikipedia into severe doubt, though. Parliament
speeches aren't particularly known for choosing a neutral point of view.
The Italian parliament quickly changed its mind cause they can't make new
2011/11/4 David Richfield davidrichfi...@gmail.com:
I'd disagree. Newbie treatment is important, but having quarter of a
million articles without a single reference is also important given WP:V.
It's also valuable to avoid giving undue weight to WP:V.
My opinion (and it's just an opinion)
2011/11/3 David Richfield davidrichfi...@gmail.com:
This should be kept in mind (particularly for bot design) when many new
articles such as biographies are *incorrectly* tagged for speedy deletion
or as unsourced when sources are present in the article, they just do not
use the citation
On 3 November 2011 09:31, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
Also can the expression citation needed be changed to something that
is more inviting to newbies, like Please add citation?
We may be late for that - citation needed is entering English.
- d.
On 3 November 2011 09:45, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, no newbie will wake up and say: I want to place references in
Wikipedia articles today - they do because one of us asked them to do. And
all (maybe not all but most of) us know the software, and don't cost more
of our
On 3 November 2011 12:22, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
Perhaps this could be part of the article feedback tool: is this article
missing a source? could you tell us what it is? - this would automatically
dump a new section on the talk page with whatever they type in, along with
a
On 3 November 2011 12:53, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
I
wish we didn't always have to dispense with this tired argument that
making editing easier will inundate the projects with idiots. Easy and
open editing is the ethos that built the whole project.
Yes. All arguments of this form are
On 3 November 2011 13:27, Fae f...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
On 3 November 2011 12:27, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Backlogs as a concern translate directly to newbies are inherently a
problem.
I don't get the point being made here,
People who say But x would lead to a backlog
On 2 November 2011 12:11, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
Well, you'll hear no such thing from me (and I'm arguably one of the
more verbal opponents of the image filter as originally proposed). This
neatly sidestep all of the fatal flaws with filters where moral
judgments are
On 2 November 2011 21:28, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
To explain what I mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:QUICKREF
YES. We need this horribly urgently.
It should also pop up when someone clicks on a [citation needed] tag
- that's a blue link that looks like a direct invitation,
On 2 November 2011 21:41, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
I knew it looked so obvious someone must've already tried to do it.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ProveIt.jpg and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ProveIt_GT. This is a GUI reference
adding interface that shows up while
On 1 November 2011 23:39, Mateus Nobre mateus.no...@live.co.uk wrote:
If the sources are so important to Wikipedia, this has to be easier to
newbies.
The essential problem is that the Wikipedia community is newbie-hostile.
Not actively - mostly - but passively. They view newbies as trouble
On 30 October 2011 16:44, Brandon Harris bhar...@wikimedia.org wrote:
(One of my favorite things about talk pages is that, for most people,
*there is no talk page button*. There's a Discussion tab. So when
someone says Hey, just leave me a message on my talk page and I'll help
you
On 31 October 2011 11:04, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect our main newbie problem is Wikipedia's utter opacity.
Outsiders have *no goddamn clue* how this thing is even supposed to wo
work, let alone how it actually does.
- d
I’ve been into Wikipedia for several years, and all my friends know
this. I *still* find myself having to explain to them in small words
that that “edit” link really does include them fixing typos when they
see one.
So my suggestion: tiny tiny steps like this: things people can do that
have a
On 31 October 2011 11:55, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
What's the impact of changes like
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Taglinediff=20130615oldid=17050524
?
(Probably minimal, readers don't actually read our invitations to edit
anyway, usually.)
Do
On 31 October 2011 12:30, Oliver Keyes scire.fac...@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure about that specific change, but one illustration might be the
Article Feedback Tool, which contains a you know you can edit, right?
thing. Off the top of my head I think 17.4 percent of the 30-40,000 people
who use
On 31 October 2011 13:01, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I imagine for the other 14.6 percent the
process goes something along the lines of oh, it says I can make the
changes myself, lets do thaWAUGH, WHAT IN CTHULU'S NAME DOES ALL THIS TEXT
MEAN
I've been editing nearly 8 years
On 30 October 2011 10:15, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote:
Along the same line of reasoning, I see
that 99% of admins use template warnings which I hate and I never used any
template warning except for copyright violation when I was still an admin.
In my opinion, getting a
http://www.good.is/post/the-most-important-occupy-wall-street-photographer-you-ve-never-heard-of/
An interview with David Shankbone that's actually about the joys of
contributing good, useful, original free content to the general
commons. A very good advertisement for the concept.
You may not
On 28 October 2011 13:48, Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 04:05, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
as I did. We both spend a lot of time making sure Wikipedia is always
up and available for people to read, so it's painful to see a small
proportion of a
On 28 October 2011 20:08, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
I have the impression that most opposition comes from people with an IT
background. That is to say, people who have tried to figure it out, and have
had
some trouble finding a solution. (I may be biased, since that's my own
On 26 October 2011 11:04, Oliver Keyes scire.fac...@gmail.com wrote:
So, on Thursday we're going to be holding an Office Hours session on IRC to
discuss the Article Feedback Tool and what we're planning to do with it -
namely, scrapping it and replacing it with an entirely new version ;).
On 26 October 2011 08:31, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/29993
Creative Commons, those nice people who make all this sharing stuff
possible, are having their annual fundraiser.
I see they use testimonials too. We should probably offer one. I'd
On 25 October 2011 17:52, Andreas K. jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
For those interested, there is a current request for arbitration on English
Wikipedia related to the board resolution on controversial content, which
contains some further views and discussion. I have summarised my view that
our
On 23 October 2011 09:16, Peter Damian peter.dam...@btinternet.com wrote:
Edward
Is Edward Peter Damian, or someone else?
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
On 23 October 2011 10:01, teun spaans teun.spa...@gmail.com wrote:
I completely agree :)
So you can address my answer, even as Nikola didn't quite.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
On 23 October 2011 11:50, Fae f...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
How about the fact that newspaper websites regularly include shocking
images of violence and death on their main pages and have few
complaints as they rely on editorial control rather than built-in
software tricks? This is a solution
On 23 October 2011 12:30, Fae f...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
PS clear failure looks like an opinion, not a statement of fact.
Presumably this relates to an official position of the WMF?
An opinion held by several staff on the matter, including the
Executive Director. I consider this
On 23 October 2011 15:36, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
One open problem is the so called logic/brain of the system. Until we
have an exact description on how it will exactly work, we know neither
it's strong points nor it's weak spots. Until i see an algorithm that is
On 23 October 2011 13:12, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree. There is no way a derivative work being PD invalidates the
underlying copyright. That would be ridiculous. It would undermine the whole
concept of derivative works.
The deletion discussion was reopened by Anthony
On 22 October 2011 20:58, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
If not, would
you be interested in organizing some community discussion on whether
there are solutions within the scope of the resolution that the dewiki
community would find acceptable, or whether the prevailing view is
that
On 22 October 2011 22:23, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs wrote:
I wanted to say this for a long time, and now seems like a good
opportunity. I see this as a tyranny of the majority. I understand that
a large majority of German Wikipedia editors are against the filter. But
even if 99.99%
On 22 October 2011 22:51, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
What approaches do you have in mind, that would empower the editors and
the readers, aside from an hide/show all solution?
And, in detail, why is a hide/show all solution inadequate? What is
the use case this does
On 22 October 2011 23:36, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
A show/hide all images function is likely too drastic to serve some of
these use cases well. So for example, if you're at work, you might not
want to have autofellatio on your screen by accident, but you'd be
annoyed at having
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%22Appreciate_America._Come_On_Gang._All_Out_for_Uncle_Sam%22_%28Mickey_Mouse%29%22_-_NARA_-_513869.tif
Holy shit.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
On 23 October 2011 00:11, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 22, 2011 4:05 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%22Appreciate_America._Come_On_Gang._All_Out_for_Uncle_Sam%22_%28Mickey_Mouse%29%22_-_NARA_-_513869.tif
Holy shit
On 23 October 2011 00:19, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
I am *amazed* that it took a whole month for someone to mention it on
[[:en:Talk:Mickey Mouse]], and another half an hour before someone
(me) replaced the image in the article itself ...
And I've just done a version without
On 23 October 2011 01:21, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On what grounds is it out of copyright? Doesn't a derivative work
carry (at least) two copyrights, the one on the original work, and the
one on the derivative (which extends only to the material contributed
by the author of such
On 20 October 2011 16:02, Andreas K. jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Not everybody uses the Internet in the same way. Many younger users are
fairly inured to porn and gore, having seen it all before. But a lot of the
people who have something to offer Wikipedia in the, you know, *educational*
On 19 October 2011 10:07, Andrew Garrett agarr...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but that is not proof of what we as a community understand the
principle to mean, it means the board is on crack.
That's not a
On 19 October 2011 14:14, Andrew Garrett agarr...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Well, let's make sure that in any implementation of an image filter
that does go ahead, we've thought through and addressed each of those
consequences. You won't find any argument from me on that.
--
Andrew Garrett
On 18 October 2011 15:17, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote:
He did it 5 times from 2005 to 2008, and I never saw a sex article on it. In
fact we used to joke that pt.wiki is made only by French villages and
asteroids (because EVERYONE get one of them in their 15 articles) ;)
en:wp was
On 18 October 2011 15:40, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
I'll admit it: If you were to propose a method for filtering NSFW
article topics, I would stop and stare at the train wreck. It's an
embarrassing character flaw, but I know I wouldn't be able to avoid
watching the carnage and counting
On 16 October 2011 14:40, ??? wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Don't be an arsehole you get the same sort of stuff if you search for
Presumably this is the sort of quality of discourse Sue was
complaining about from filter advocates: provocateurs lacking in
empathy.
- d.
I love Cracked. It's Wikipedia with dick jokes.
http://www.cracked.com/article_19453_6-reasons-were-in-another-book-burning-period-in-history_p2.html
To be ha ha only serious for a moment, this touches on why we all
bother doing this.
(But an image filter definitely needs money spent on it.)
On 12 October 2011 14:09, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
We already have bad image lists like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Bad_image_list
If you remain wedded to an abstract philosophical approach, such lists
are not neutral. But they answer a real
http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/0,1518,791316,00.html
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 10 October 2011 11:17, Hubert hubert.la...@gmx.at wrote:
Am 09.10.2011 16:35, schrieb Anneke Wolf:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gewalt
dear Anneke,
+1
and see the basic difference and the disaccordance in understanding and
meaning of violence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence
I
On 10 October 2011 18:37, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
I think that having the image blurring system, combined with an option to
unblur,
would get us very far towards the stated board directive, and I don't think
many in the community would object, and we could reach consensus
On 9 October 2011 14:18, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 October 2011 13:55, Ting Chen tc...@wikimedia.org wrote:
The majority of editors who responded to the referendum are not opposed
to the feature. However, a significant minority is opposed.
How do you know? The
On 9 October 2011 22:03, Bob the Wikipedian bobthewikiped...@gmail.com wrote:
The fact
is that a majority of the community expressed it was either a good idea
or something important to them (interpret that however you care to), and
Wikimedia finds it important to please the majority of their
On 6 October 2011 12:49, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
But all users would need to do so, because a random user or sysop could
be asked to publish the correction/statement. On wiki there was a
discussion about how to globally implement such a switch to clandestine
accounts...
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Sondage/Installation_d%27un_Filtre_d%27image
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 30 September 2011 01:56, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 2:46 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
http://achimraschka.blogspot.com/2011/09/story-about-vulva-picture-open-letter.html
He's the primary author of [[:de:Vulva]], and Sue called him all
On 30 September 2011 13:40, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
First attempt at labeling content was made by Uwe Kils, and his class
of students collectively logging as Vikings or something of the sort
tagged content not suitable for teenst. Jimbo banned them, but an
http://wikitrekk.blogspot.com/2011/09/out-of-blue.html
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 30 September 2011 19:41, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
Then, there also Kim's challenge to break such a filtering system.
Kim doesn't need to do a damn thing. There are enough *actual* trolls
on the Internet to mess with it just for the lulz.
- d.
http://www.berlios.de/
Is there anything we could do to help? Is this too far outside our area?
I recall how useful and helpful BerliOS was back in the olden days
when it was Wikipedia's downtime backup and news source ... before
Wikipedia going down knocked over BerliOS too.
- d.
On 30 September 2011 20:04, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote:
On this score, it seems likely that we are failing to live up to one of
our core principles, that of neutrality. I think we need significantly
better editorial judgment applied to many of these articles to address
it. That
On 29 September 2011 06:41, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com wrote:
http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/
Pretty sound blog, no matter which position you take. Naturally, please
discuss the blog on the blog and not thread this too much back to
conversation
On 29 September 2011 07:40, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 1:30 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
This post appears mostly to be the tone argument:
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument
- rather than address those opposed to the WMF
On 29 September 2011 06:41, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com wrote:
http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/
Pretty sound blog, no matter which position you take. Naturally, please
discuss the blog on the blog and not thread this too much back to
conversation
On 29 September 2011 23:45, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 September 2011 22:46, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 September 2011 06:41, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com wrote:
http://suegardner.org/2011/09/28/on-editorial-judgment-and-empathy/
Pretty sound
On 29 September 2011 23:53, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
Not dealing with pending comments promptly doesn't sound like
arbitrary filtering to me...
Note comments from others in this thread experiencing the same.
- d.
___
On 30 September 2011 00:28, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Well, when every thoughtful comment you have on a topic is met with
nothing more than chants of WP:NOTCENSORED!, the tone argument seems
quite valid.
Really, every single response to every single comment?
It suggests
On 26 September 2011 14:23, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
BTW I was sorry to hear about your problems on EN wiki, I don't know the
I should point out that block, or even ban, status has never been a
barrier to participation on this list.
- d.
On 24 September 2011 22:40, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
The last I heard the German people, as expressed through their
lawmakers, DO NOT want their kids looking at porn or images that are
excessively violent. They go so far as periodically getting Google to
filter the search
On 24 September 2011 23:00, Phil Nash phn...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
The IWF just did not understand how access to Wikipedia works; a strange
situation, given their mission. And it wasn't helped by their publicity at
the time, IIRC. Fortunately, they seem to have shut up since then, and
On 23 September 2011 11:38, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
Wikipedia was also briefly blocked in Pakistan, because of the Mohammed
cartoon controversy. So there might be a scenario where countries like Saudi
Arabia and Pakistan figure out how to block access to adult images and
On 23 September 2011 14:01, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com wrote:
And all the data in the world right now is not going to change the way I
feel, and this stuff just frustrates me.
I too heartily endorse MPOV as a foundational Wikimedia principle.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/MPOV
On 23 September 2011 14:57, Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com wrote:
The dewiki poll had 300 participants, the one on meta over 23,000.
There was a poll on meta which asked do you want the filter? I'd
love a link to it.
- d.
___
foundation-l
On 23 September 2011 16:17, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
Obviously, majority of those who have small number of edits --
who represent specific part of readers, those who have opinion toward
Wikipedia articles, but who don't want to spend their time on editing
Wikipedia -- they are in
On 22 September 2011 12:19, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
So is there a simpler way to do this, is there some flaw in this that would
prevent it working, or is this the flying unicorn option?
I believe it was envisioned as working for anonymous casual readers as well.
On 22 September 2011 12:50, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote:
Teachers are wary of Wikipedia, and one of the reasons (justifiable or
not) is that our content is too adult. I recall hearing anecdotes of
Wikipedia reading being blocked in some schools because of this.
Having a safe version
On 22 September 2011 15:43, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote:
I hope my redaction is good enough to explain my opinion about this topic.
Please, if you find errors, fix them, I'm not very fluent in English.
Thanks.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:There_is_a_deadline
Slightly
On 21 September 2011 11:41, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
While surveys show that a small majority finds this option
(marginally) acceptable, current best analysis suggests that this
particular option may not be implementable within the intersecting
frames of the wikimedia
On 21 September 2011 14:14, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
The real problem here is that if there was a real market for stupid
sites like that, they would already be there. And they are not, which
does seem to point to the conclusion that there isn't a real market
for such
On 21 September 2011 15:43, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
They want that censoring tool and I think that they won't be content
until they get it. Thus, let them have it and let them leave the rest
of us alone.
Ah, you didn't read the bit of the report that specifically said a
On 21 September 2011 16:37, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
But since Flickr has already proven that something like this can work in
practice, can we agree to classify Image filters as one of those things that
work in practice but not in theory? Then we can concentrate on
On 21 September 2011 18:41, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
David's Magical Flying unicorn ponies work very well thank you in
the frame of fairytale fiction.
Originally from discussion of an actually impossible project at work.
Look, we've specified a magical flying unicorn pony
101 - 200 of 999 matches
Mail list logo
