On 21 September 2011 19:47, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Milos Rancic wrote:
Don't worry! Any implementation of censorship project would lead to
endless troll-fests which would be more dumb than Youtube comments.
The point is just to kick out them out of productive projects.
On 21 September 2011 21:20, Kanzlei kanz...@f-t-hofmann.de wrote:
This poll was not representative for wikipedia readers, but only for some
German wikipedia editors. Scientifically research found that Germa editors
are not representative for German speaking people but far more
On 21 September 2011 18:58, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 07:42:18PM +0100, David Gerard wrote:
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
On 19 September 2011 15:50, Fae f...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
All of these would be problematic; if these were the default criteria
for a school to enforce on their pupils when using school computers,
one could imagine images of many 18th century paintings or depictions
of gods being excluded
On 19 September 2011 16:14, Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:56 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
How much is mutilated? A scratch? Ten scratches? A hundred
scratches? St Sebastian?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sebastia.jpg
I'm
On 19 September 2011 18:24, Fae f...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Alternatively anyone who has common sense can take Wikipedia for
free and hack it about in their own time and cash in by selling it to
schools that would like to benefit from a *guaranteed* child friendly
and religiously tolerant
On 19 September 2011 18:57, Phil Nash phn...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
Hasn't this already happened, albeit on a voluntary basis, and with free
distribution?
http://schools-wikipedia.org/
If that were sufficient for whatever purpose the Board is thinking of,
this proposal wouldn't have
On 18 September 2011 14:38, Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com wrote:
At the beginning, I was quite neutral about a filter: I had no idea
how it would work, and I wouldn't use it, but what if somebody else
wants it?
But after reading nearly all comments on this list, I think that the
arguments for
On 17 September 2011 10:16, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 7:11 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
We need people to try the technical basics of a fork, i.e. taking an
en:wp dump, an images dump, ..
Is there an images dump?
If there isn't
On 17 September 2011 15:50, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
My first instincts for de.wikipedia would be to note down
de.wikipedia's usage statistics, get a bunch of techies together, and
all go have a nice chat with say hetzner.de, to figure out roughly what
things will cost. You
On 16 September 2011 09:40, Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 10:08, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
A strong majority of 86% percent voted to not allow the personal image
filter [2] , despite the fact that the board already decided to
On 16 September 2011 10:27, Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:23, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe it is a fair assumption that we have voted for developing
the feature,
Citation needed.
Well I am the universally official source for my own
On 16 September 2011 18:13, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
* It's likely that staff and Board already know that correlation
between the results of German Wikipedia referendum and global survey
could be drawn to support previous two conclusions. Thus, they don't
want to publish that
On 15 September 2011 19:26, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
Thirdly, there never has in the past been *any* hierarchy in
wikimedia, that is the beauty of it. And any attempt at empire
building, now, or in the future, is doomed to fail. There is a
governance structure, but
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/28644
FLAWLESS VICTORY! [*]
- d.
[*] I expect Geni to be along in a moment picking holes in this statement.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
On 15 September 2011 23:22, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote:
The judgement is a preliminary injunction prior to a hearing. Presumably the
respondents will present a case at the hearing - do we know if they will
present arguments that the CC-By-SA license is somehow
On 15 September 2011 23:48, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
If anyone knows of any other bugs/requests, please feel free to list them.
As the page notes, these rejections are rare, but in my opinion they offer a
fascinating look into the Wikipedia power structure.[1]
The community, God
On 14 September 2011 14:45, Sydney Poore sydney.po...@gmail.com wrote:
Besides your acknowledged bias towards confronting people with their bias
and forcing a discussion, it is also not very practical that we be the host
for discussions on talk pages continuously with large groups of people.
On 14 September 2011 21:02, Achal Prabhala aprabh...@gmail.com wrote:
It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that the world now follows the
Wikinews model.
No, you're describing bare skimming of the unedited social media pool.
Wikinews follows a process-heavy review model, so laborious that
2011/9/13 David Richfield davidrichfi...@gmail.com:
It's possible. The interface part is even quite easy.
The hard part is defining a data model to contain all the words in all
languages, with definitions in all languages, with morphology tables,
etc. Something like this is slowly being done
It may seem a big goal, but perhaps en:wp can emulate the success of
en:wn. Will we achieve the best-practice level of seven layers of
review? We can but hope.
- d.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com
Date: 13 September 2011 17:18
Subject: [Wikitech-l]
On 12 September 2011 06:49, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote:
Only countries which have lists of monuments compiled by the government
and having the status of the law are eligible for WLM. This is in some
sense POV but no more POV than say writing articles of members of
parliament
[subject changed]
On 12 September 2011 08:46, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote:
Right, but we do have this systemic bias already in place: in ALL our
projects, the articles on localities in Sweden are longer and better
written (and better illustrated) than the articles on
On 12 September 2011 21:50, Tempodivalse r2d2.stra...@verizon.net wrote:
I thought the Wikimedia community should know that a large portion of
WIkinews' contributor base has forked into its own project
(http://theopenglobe.org) after becoming deeply dissatisfied with Wikinews.
The new wiki
On 12 September 2011 22:57, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
From Wikimedia's perspective, I think this is one down, several hundred to
go. Wikimedia has made it clear that its singular focus is the English
Wikipedia. All other Wikipedias are peripheral; all other project types are
On 12 September 2011 23:17, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 12, 2011 11:10 PM, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com
wrote:
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,
On 11 September 2011 17:22, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 09:38:38AM -0700, Sue Gardner wrote:
I wrote the questions, with Phoebe and SJ, in Boston at the Wikipedia
in Higher Ed conference.
It's not a secret -- I wrote about it here:
On 10 September 2011 01:15, Phil Nash phn...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
But changing, and toughening up the TOS is sending the right message to the
wrong people. Any technically savvy journalist is going to realise the
weakness in doing that, and any committed troll/vandal/disrupter is going to
On 10 September 2011 09:34, Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/9/10 Philippe Beaudette phili...@wikimedia.org:
I do not yet have a full feed that meets our needs for analysis beyond
what's already done.
We should have started by this before organizing a referendum.
I've asked only
On 10 September 2011 06:33, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com wrote:
I also enjoy the photo with the guy pointing at the storyboard, and under
awarness it has the point put a face.
Something like http://v.gd/XH404Q ? Works a couple of months a year ...
- d.
On 10 September 2011 12:14, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
And while I think that such tool would include other cultures as well
(there are other cultures in the world, besides Christian and Muslim
right-wingers), motivation for this filter didn't come from Muslims or
indigenous people
On 8 September 2011 21:43, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 6:39 AM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
A more plausible option is to make WMF more conspicuous. Right now it's
almost unknown that WP is part of a wider project.
Wikipedia | Wikiquote | Wikispecies | ...
On 9 September 2011 12:54, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
After that, we get back to the side effects of regular (non-wikipedia
kind) filters. This information is well documented all over the net.
You'll discover that not just images, but also the pages those images
are on will not
On 7 September 2011 09:15, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
We need to stop wasting time and energy on personal wishes of two
Board members. As it isn't about removing the content, any solution is
better than wasting willingness on one nonconstructive and decadent
project. If that time
On 7 September 2011 15:40, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
I confess to not being on top of the exact mechanics of this proposal...
but why can we not be using normal categories?
Ok so for ease of use it is sensible to consider pre-made bundles of
commonly filtered images
On 7 September 2011 15:55, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com 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. Ultimately it is just a collapsing tree problem, and they are ten a
On 7 September 2011 22:26, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Turning off images should be, and can be, done by the user-agent.
We have a help page describing how to do this.
That would be the page with the great big this page is out of date notice
at the top, giving instructions that are not
On 6 September 2011 12:56, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com 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
the net does allow very quick rewrite expansion for a developing story.
On 5 September 2011 14:59, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
What I'd expect now from the committee/WMF is an acknowledgement that
the image filter is nowhere near the no-brainer they imagined it to be,
and a commitment to not do any further work towards implementation until
a real
On 5 September 2011 19:08, Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com wrote:
It provides a quite satisfactory 'yes' in answer to the question of
whether it is worth the devs' time coding beginning development. We're
merely talking about a proposed software feature here.
I didn't see that question
On 5 September 2011 21:23, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 5, 2011 9:19 PM, Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com wrote:
The first question asked people how important they considered it to be
that the projects offer the feature. The perceived importance of
offering a new
On 5 September 2011 21:35, Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com wrote:
The referendum was pretty clearly predicated on the basis that the
feature was going forward:
The Board of Trustees has directed the Wikimedia Foundation to
develop and implement a personal image hiding feature.
[The
On 5 September 2011 22:09, Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com wrote:
It indicated importance. The mean response to the first question of 5.7 and
the medium response of 6 points to the community considering it moderately
important that the feature be offered, which suggests moderate dedication
On 4 September 2011 05:33, Philippe Beaudette pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote:
The committee running the vote on the features for the Personal Image Filter
have released their interim report and vote count. You may see the results
at
On 4 September 2011 13:48, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
The Foundation needs to be mature enough to admit that they've screwed up
this survey, apologise and try again. Next time, start by figuring out what
you want to achieve by asking the questions and then choose the
On 4 September 2011 14:08, Ziko van Dijk zvand...@googlemail.com wrote:
Frankly, I am quite unhappy about the referendum and share the
concerns expressed by Thomas. I think that the Foundation did not take
those Wikimedians serious who are opposed to the filter. The
Foundation avoided the
2011/9/4 Jon Davis w...@konsoletek.com:
Walker, Wikipedia Ranger?
http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2010/11/24/jimmy-wales-facts/
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
On 4 September 2011 20:42, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 September 2011 20:11, church.of.emacs.ml
church.of.emacs...@googlemail.com wrote:
That is where I disagree. The personal image filter doesn't make much
sense in German Wikipedia, since the German culture is generally
On 4 September 2011 20:57, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
I never said there was anything wrong with the German Wikipedia. I was
suggesting that swastikas might be something German people would want
to filter out, even if none of them are offended by sex, violence, or
images of
On 4 September 2011 21:16, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 September 2011 21:12, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
The trouble is that at its edges, education is fundamentally
disconcerting, upsetting and subversive. And that this is a matter
only of degree, not of kind
On 4 September 2011 21:20, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com wrote:
swastikas are not problem, but scorpions seem to be recently, haha:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer
* http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer
Well, en:wp allows fair use, but de:wp doesn't. Which averts
On 4 September 2011 20:28, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 09:16:42PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
I agree, and I would never turn on such a filter. That doesn't mean
that other people shouldn't be allowed to if they want to.
Right, but then they won't be
On 4 September 2011 20:38, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 09:29:25PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
They won't be educated *as much*. They can still be educated. If they
don't use Wikipedia at all because of fear of seeing things they don't
want to see (or,
On 4 September 2011 21:36, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 22:22, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 September 2011 21:20, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com wrote:
swastikas are not problem, but scorpions seem to be recently, haha:
* http
On 4 September 2011 21:44, Michael Dale md...@wikimedia.org wrote:
It will be a lot easier to import from YouTube once Timed media handler adds
support for webm to commons. If you check out the wikivideo-l and commons
lists for some recent example YouTube to commons scripts. I know this is
On 4 September 2011 21:18, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
I really wish people would read previous discussions.
But it's all LOL so simple if you don't.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
On 4 September 2011 22:18, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com wrote:
I really wish people would read previous discussions.
Don't be passive aggressive ;)
I think it's an entirely reasonable statement, given what Kim's cited
in his reply is stuff that came up in the last week.
- d.
On 4 September 2011 22:50, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 September 2011 21:18, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
I really wish people would read previous discussions.
I read the discussions, I just don't see any merit in the arguments.
Of course the labels are
On 5 September 2011 00:26, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
Please define censorship because I think the word must mean something very
different to you than it does to me. To me it means one person stopping
another person from seeing something the first person doesn't want the
On 3 September 2011 10:51, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
The organization itself is not the objective.
+1
What things could WMF do to make itself obsolete as quickly as
possible, in as many individual areas as possible?
- d.
___
On 3 September 2011 11:14, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 September 2011 11:03, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 September 2011 10:51, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
The organization itself is not the objective.
+1
What things could WMF do to make
On 3 September 2011 21:45, Jimmy Wales jwa...@wikia-inc.com wrote:
I was mentioned in a leaked US diplomatic cable - with my name spelled
wrong!
http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2008/11/08SANTIAGO1015.html
You'd think the founder of Wikileaks would be better known
ducks
- d.
On 2 September 2011 20:11, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com wrote:
I can not help commenting a bit more on the matter of conflict of
interest. I think I can probably say more on the matter than most
people here.
If I could +1 this message I would.
Our bylaws were changed a few years
On 30 August 2011 10:11, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 1:04 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
But then, central planning is famous for its notable successes in economics.
Ok, but is WMF an economic institution?
I was hoping to make a more general
On 29 August 2011 11:51, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
That will make significant overload in WMF's processing capabilities.
Can't wait to see how WMF would analyze programs of any larger
chapter; and chapters tend to be larger and larger. Ultimately, that
will lead into even more
On 28 August 2011 14:40, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Has it been worked out how many chapters will be affected by this
change?
All except WMDE.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
On 29 August 2011 00:29, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Which other criteria are so onerous that folks are reacting
like the letter indicts the entire system of chapters?
Because that's its effect: The entire system of chapters, except
WMDE, is hereby recentralised. Thanks for your hard
On 27 August 2011 09:04, dgge...@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 26, 2011 11:12am, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 August 2011 16:06, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote:
This labeling is proposed to be done on the basis not of the regular
commons categories, but of special ones
On 26 August 2011 08:55, Bishakha Datta bishakhada...@gmail.com wrote:
Are we truly on a slippery slope with 'informative labelling' with neutral
language? Or can this be considered another aspect of curation?
We have a category system. Modulo idiots (the danger of a wiki is that
people can
On 26 August 2011 16:06, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote:
This labeling is proposed to be done on the basis not of the regular
commons categories, but of special ones designed for the purpose; not
on the regular WP editors, but a special committee.
Ooh, *really*. Then this initiative
On 19 August 2011 20:50, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
I was oh so very pleased to learn that I get to give my opinion on
insignificant implementation details of a feature that stands in
opposition to everything Wikipedia stands for which is going to be
committed against us
On 16 August 2011 09:06, Domas Mituzas midom.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway, we should definitely build something like that, just don't pay
attention to suicide rate.
:-) I am quite cognisant that the likely number of people wanting to
build a full fork of Wikipedia may well be *zero*. I
On 16 August 2011 09:18, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
(BTW - we *do* have someone making sure the Internet Archive - or a
similar organisation, if there are any similar organisations - has a
full collection of all our backups, so if Florida was hit by a meteor
tomorrow people would
On 16 August 2011 10:59, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
That leads us to the serious dead end: We want forkability because of
our principles. We could potentially lose parts of our movement.
According to our principles, the only way to protect the movement is
to be attractive to
On 16 August 2011 14:37, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I think that we should have some other reason for being attractive to
our editors apart from fear of forking. Say, some sort of goal or
mission statement, which is helped by having a strong WMF.
One problem with using fear
On 16 August 2011 20:39, Wjhonson wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I don't believe your claim that you can take something which is PD, make an
exact image of it, slap it up in a new work of your own (enjoying copyright
protection automatically) and then claim copyright over that PD image in your
2011/8/15 David Richfield davidrichfi...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 6:04 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 12/08/11 20:55, David Gerard wrote:
THESIS: Our inadvertent monopoly is *bad*. We need to make it easy to
fork the projects, so as to preserve them.
I must
On 15 August 2011 07:51, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
So you're worried about a policy change? What sort of policy change
specifically would necessitate forking the project? Is there any such
policy change which could plausibly be implemented by the Foundation
while it remains
http://blog.okfn.org/2011/08/15/austria-adopts-ckan-and-cc-by-as-nation-wide-defaults/
CC-by to be default licence for government data.
Anyone from .at in the house who could comment on this?
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
On 15 August 2011 14:22, church.of.emacs.ml
church.of.emacs...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 08/15/2011 02:50 PM, David Gerard wrote:
http://blog.okfn.org/2011/08/15/austria-adopts-ckan-and-cc-by-as-nation-wide-defaults/
CC-by to be default licence for government data.
Wow, this is awesome! I
On 15 August 2011 20:02, Gustavo Carrancio gustavoca...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, leave and forking is our main problem. Sure. I think that to make easy
to fork will be something like to show the exit way to some people well,
let me think one minuteYes! excelent!
Although it's not a
On 14 August 2011 13:46, Krinkle krinklem...@gmail.com wrote:
The thread is about one of the following:
* .. the ability to clone a MediaWiki install and upload it to your own domain
to continue making edits, writing articles etc.
* .. getting better dumps of Wikimedia wikis in particular
[posted to foundation-l and wikitech-l, thread fork of a discussion elsewhere]
THESIS: Our inadvertent monopoly is *bad*. We need to make it easy to
fork the projects, so as to preserve them.
This is the single point of failure problem. The reasons for it having
happened are obvious, but it's
On 12 August 2011 13:07, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote:
I do agree that the monopoly, at least in this case, is a bad thing, but I
do not see why stimulating creation of the forks would be the best way to
create competition. As far as I am concerned, the only real competition to
On 12 August 2011 13:37, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote:
My point is that making it easy to fork does not create good competitors.
Good competitors come from elsewhere. And they will come, if we do not
deploy WISIWIG, not lower the entrance barrier for novices, not make it
harder
On 12 August 2011 20:53, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 August 2011 20:24, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
We still have wide gaps in knowledge coverage. Not in the most common
areas, but in many specialized areas, where they're not heavily
geek-populated.
Yes but those
On 12 August 2011 20:37, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I have mixed feelings about him leaving. I don't know everything he did
on-wiki, but I know enough to respect his contributions, and I also found
his e-mails (both on-list and off) enormously thoughtful and valuable. I am
sad
On 10 August 2011 21:30, Jimmy Wales jwa...@wikia-inc.com wrote:
On 8/9/11 1:46 PM, David Gerard wrote:
(I don't think that is the intent - apparently WMF feels like it can
mess people around and still get 100% from them. I do consider that
the problems really haven't been considered.)
I
On 9 August 2011 05:13, Kirill Lokshin kirill.loks...@gmail.com wrote:
This is all very true, and very insightful; but what does it have to do with
chapters?
That the message from WMF is about a decentralisation not working from
their perspective, so recentralising fundraising.
On 9 August 2011 16:36, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote:
So I simply do not accept that the right thing for the movement is for
donations to be received by the Foundation and then passed on to the
chapters. Chapters in my view have an important role to play in maximising
the
On 9 August 2011 18:29, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 August 2011 08:18, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 August 2011 05:13, Kirill Lokshin kirill.loks...@gmail.com wrote:
This is all very true, and very insightful; but what does it have to do with
chapters?
That the message
On 6 August 2011 00:26, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
And in doing so, the WMF wont have the benefit of the donations that
are made because the donor responds well to the fact they know in
advance that the money goes to a local organisation - an organisation
which is accountable to
The great thing about an oral history citations project is that it is
a first and active method to remedy one of the big problems with
English Wikipedia: the epistemology - how we decide we know what we
know - really is completely and utterly broken at the edges.
(I realise this is foundation-l,
On 29 July 2011 11:25, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
At times I wonder if some Wikipedians have ever heard of epistemology.
Larry Sanger was no great shakes as a philosopher, but at least he'd
heard of the stuff.
Here's essays from Tom Morris (another philosopher):
On 29 July 2011 10:50, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Thus we end up with blithering insanity like the phrase reliable
sources being used unironically, as if being listed on WP:RS
*actually makes a source humanly reliable*. This is particularly
hilarious when applied to newspapers
On 29 July 2011 11:58, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
While some editors do tend to argue binary options over sources, in general
this is not the case (and if you are observing it as so, it's probably one
of the battlefield areas where such things do occur).
They do tend
On 29 July 2011 17:39, Wjhonson wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I would agree with Ray that we should quote Latin texts in Latin, Spanish
texts in Spanish no matter what language-page we are using. IF the text is
that important to English speakers then there should be or probably will soon
be, a
On 29 July 2011 19:19, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote:
Why can't you do both?
Provide the original text in the original language in the citation, followed
by a translation. Any bickering over the quality of the translation can be
dealt with through consensus on the talk page,
On the subject of organisations that attempt to enclose the public
domain: Do we have the proceedings of the Royal Society 1600-1923 on
Wikimedia servers, as we quite definitely should? What's in progress
along these lines?
- d.
___
foundation-l
On 20 July 2011 17:54, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
But in more general terms, why do you specifically feel JSTOR are a
problem needing dealt with? They do a lot of things right with their
Game-theoretic considerations: 1. to discourage others (this is quite
important) 2. to
201 - 300 of 999 matches
Mail list logo
