On 5 March 2011 21:48, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
The notion that everyone working on Wikipedia and MediaWiki is a volunteer
is a fallacy.
The one thing I have been advocating is that the different languages and
scripts are performing technically on a level playing
On 5 March 2011 23:06, Philippe Beaudette phili...@wikimedia.org wrote:
It seems to me that we spent a year building a strategic plan, which
included huge business planning components for exactly this conversation
Yes, you'd think lots of smart people had not only thought about this
On 4 March 2011 11:05, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote:
No one ? I would not say so. I would rather say that 75.8% (1) want to
attack moral rights, which are not French only (3), and, as I showed
in my previous mail, are a value taken into account in Wikimedia
projects in such documents
On 2 March 2011 01:26, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net
wrote:
on 3/1/11 7:08 PM, Michael Snow at wikipe...@frontier.com wrote:
This explanation is quite insightful, I think. The challenge described
Michael,
On 1 March 2011 20:44, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
It's not really about my personal preferences (I originally asked how this
job opening fits within Wikimedia's strategic plan or mission). You've
chosen to side-step the actual questions being asked here (twice now). Based
on my past
On 1 March 2011 23:41, The Mono m...@mono.x10.bz wrote:
We think so little about our community that we have to hire someone to
figure out how to explain it.
I expect your volunteer efforts were factored into the decision.
- d.
___
foundation-l
On 27 February 2011 13:57, dex2...@pc.dk wrote:
There are very legitimate and valid concerns regarding privacy and
responsible conduct for both the Foundation and the community, and I
always welcome a further inquiry into the needs, requirements, and
possible shortcomings of the idenfication
On 27 February 2011 14:53, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote:
The Upload wizard distorts competition in favour of Creative Commons,
for the purpose of creating a monopoly (0).
Your proposal falls at this assertion.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing
On 27 February 2011 14:58, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote:
Creative Commons is shark-friendly. GFDL is small-fish-friendly. This
is why they don't have the same spirit.
As I noted, the author of the GFDL says you're wrong on this one.
Are you seriously asserting that Richard Stallman
On 26 February 2011 16:32, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I will go one step further.
What is Wikibooks at all?
The scope, content, purpose were really poorly defined.
Something to large for Wikipedia doesn't really cut it in my mind.
When our Wikipedia article on Marilyn Monroe can be 25 screen
On 27 February 2011 20:37, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
So what we should have created it not Wikibooks with which to start, but
Wiki...How or WikiChapter or something small, that a person could actually
accomplish.
Arguably we could have started wikihow.com ... which is CC by-nc-sa,
rather
On 26 February 2011 13:52, Aaron Adrignola aaron.adrign...@gmail.com wrote:
I was given permission to forward any portion of an email I received from
MZMcbride, and this is a relevant portion:
Sure, but there is a more fundamental question about what the goal and
mission actually is. I see it
On 26 February 2011 16:43, Pronoein prono...@gmail.com wrote:
What bothers me is that you talk about in terms of us and them as if
they were aliens. It's good to ask about the ideals of a community, but
it's even best when you share their ideals.
The ideal is tuna too in this context.
I
On 26 February 2011 22:58, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
I think we really need the actual threat and threat model detailed.
Expanding the identification policy without a thorough grounding risks
it turning into worse security theatre - a completely lost purpose.[1]
I have no
On 27 February 2011 03:55, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Expanding the identification policy without a thorough grounding risks
it turning into worse security theatre - a completely lost purpose.[1]
[1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/le/lost_purposes/ - a great blog recently
recommended
On 22 February 2011 21:38, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:
+1 :-)
I spent some time this weekend on New User Contributions on the
English Wikipedia, reading the talk pages of new people who'd been
trying to make constructive edits. I was trying to imagine the world
through their
On 21 February 2011 13:14, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote:
For the time being, the less bad licenses for videos are the Licence
art libre with specify to the recipient where to access the
originals (either initial or subsequent) (1) (but it is not clear if
the word recipient applies only
On 21 February 2011 13:14, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote:
For the time being, the less bad licenses for videos are the Licence
art libre with specify to the recipient where to access the
originals (either initial or subsequent) (1) (but it is not clear if
the word recipient applies only
On 20 February 2011 13:09, aude aude.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Section 508, widely used beyond government, is a benchmark to allow us
to assess how we do in this regard.
Yep. 508 compliance for software is considered simply good practice,
even if you don't *have* to apply it.
Since the US gov
On 20 February 2011 13:56, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de wrote:
while I totally agree with you about the usability part, what I want to
say in my last mail is that there is no need for put the US government
into your argumentation for it.
Government use of MediaWiki is strongly to our
On 20 February 2011 15:52, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/2/19 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
You do not understand the licenses. There are also country versions of
3.0, and each is explicitly interchangeable with each of the others.
3.0 is not as thoroughly internationalized
On 20 February 2011 16:18, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote:
I presume that the people who created
http://creativecommons.org/choose/ know what they are doing and that
their view on licensing does make sense, to some extent.
You also presume that CC by-sa is a non-free licence.
Further,
On 20 February 2011 17:26, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote:
Software is a specific sector of content creation. Perhaps it is
possible to gather software creators around a table, possibly with a
few lawyers nearby, and ask them to create the single ultimate license
that will fit all the
On 19 February 2011 10:31, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote:
A) Internationalisation. The CC 3.0 license is an unported license.
This means English-based, English speaking countries' jurisdictions
bases, English Common Law based. The 3.0 version is a disappointing
regression from the
On 19 February 2011 10:41, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote:
Maximising reusability is not the same as maximising usability.
This is a nice-sounding phrase, but its meaning is entirely unclear.
And maximising usability would mean rationalising the list of licenses
anyway. Paralysis of
On 19 February 2011 10:54, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote:
Everything that affects internationalisation should result into a
e-mail from me.
CC licensing does not affect internationalisation in any way whatsoever.
The GFDL has set a certain balance of power. This balance of power is
On 19 February 2011 11:08, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote:
I am talking about biodiversity. You are talking like Monsanto who
wants all the farmers on earth to use the same seeds.
You are putting words together in patterns but don't appear to
understand what the sentences you thus
On 19 February 2011 11:58, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/2/19 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
On 19 February 2011 10:54, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote:
Everything that affects internationalisation should result into a
e-mail from me.
CC licensing does not affect
On 19 February 2011 12:56, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/2/19 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
Please detail the legal problems in question. So far you're making
blank assertions which contradict pretty much everyone else's
understanding of them.
In my view, the existence
On 18 February 2011 01:25, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
interests being trampled without much thought was David Gerard's posting his
take on the copyright considerations at en.WS with regard to the UK law
prohibiting Fox Hunting link to the foundation-l archives. Of course
On 18 February 2011 13:41, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote:
Having a choice of possible licenses is a richness. Because specific
licenses might be more suitable to some specific needs than other
licenses. Because they don't offer the same sort of protection in a
variety of circumstances.
On 18 February 2011 15:15, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
While it is likely that they will achieve $50.000 somehow [1], it
would be good that WMF (1) donate them some sum of money and (2) to
cover the remainder, if they would have any.
It's a good cause, but doesn't look on the
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12355740
The Dalits (Untouchables) see English as utterly necessary to breaking
out of their current sociocultural trap, and never mind the local
languages.
That said, education is good. What can we do that might help people along?
- d.
On 16 February 2011 19:41, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Christine Moellenberndt wrote:
On 2/16/11 9:16 AM, McGuire, Jill wrote:
Does Wikimedia have a VPAT for 508 compliance?
Answered off-list.
What was the answer?
Or, as probably everyone is wondering by now: what makes this an
On 16 February 2011 20:58, aude aude.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you for running this service! I use it all the time for including
wikipedia links in Twitter.
+1
It would be nice if it was officially supported by WMF or you were given
resources necessary to maintain the service.
+1
On 14 February 2011 04:37, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
I couldn't see the 'Iceland is a province of Finland' edit over on
Conservapedia on pages Finland, Iceland or Icelandic.
If the edit is found, the anonymity of 'Editor' is blown.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law
-
On 11 February 2011 11:30, Mingli Yuan mingli.y...@gmail.com wrote:
So I just want to know the possibility that foundation can support it or
not?
And how should I improve the work to make foundation accept this service?
A URL shortener is a very good idea.
Even for English, there's
On 9 February 2011 19:33, Strainu strain...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway, was there an event prompting this change or you just thought
it was a great idea to get some IDs from the volunteers?
Yes. The previous arrangement was pretty much security theatre. I
emailed a scan of my driver's licence -
2011/2/7 Jon Harald Søby jhs...@gmail.com:
It will be better ideologically, and it will also be pointless, as no-one
outside the geek squad (that's us co) know what it is or use it. The goal
of Twitter Facebook sharing would be to advertise the content to the
public, and the effect would be
...@gmail.com,
thewub.w...@gmail.com
Hi David Gerard,
I totally understand your concern about Wikipedia getting proper
credit on wiki books! And I understand how annoying it is when that
doesn’t happen.
What Charlotte was investigating, as I understand it, was why Amazon
in the UK had dropped
On 30 January 2011 16:00, Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 11:28 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Suggested principle: stuff should go on meta unless there's a very
good reason for it not to. The strategy and usability stuff should
have been
On 29 January 2011 06:00, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs wrote:
Дана Saturday 29 January 2011 01:39:26 David Goodman написа:
A wonderful precedent for other approaches to press agencies--it will
perhaps work best for those agencies that have an appropriate
special concern for the area
On 29 January 2011 16:20, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Having many wikis is an ongoing source of irritation for many, and it
would be great to resolve this issue. Are there good arguments *for*
having separate sites? Or at least for not recombining them into meta
with a redirect
[To WMUK-l for local interest, and foundation-l as the issue's been
discussed there at length.]
Just spoke to a researcher, Charlotte something, for BBC 5 Live
Investigates, Sunday 9pm, this item likely to go out 9:45pm or so.
This was just for her research, it wasn't a recorded piece.
The
On 28 January 2011 12:24, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
The Wikimedia movement does not have and should not have a position on
the current situation in Egypt. While you view your suggestion as us
taking the side of free information, it would be perceived as taking
sides in the
On 28 January 2011 12:47, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
2011/1/28 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
The idea of getting samizdat copies of Wikipedia into Egypt appeals.
Airlift in current-article dumps of ar:wp and en:wp on SD cards by the
thousand?
Don't forget
On 28 January 2011 13:28, SlimVirgin slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:
I think there's a sense of annoyance among writers whose work is being
copied that the books are so expensive -- sometimes around $50 for a
10,000-word article -- and that the ads for them on Amazon don't make clear
enough that
On 28 January 2011 14:12, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/1/27 Jesse (Pathoschild) pathosch...@gmail.com:
These messages are available to all wikis
(including non-Wikimedia wikis), instead of just one wiki.
That means contributing as a volunteer to a variety of websites with
On 28 January 2011 15:08, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote:
Let's imagine a group with non-democratic values provides translators
to Translatewiki.
You really don't understand that for any purpose bit, do you?
If you don't want to contribute to a project (Wikimedia,) whose works
On 28 January 2011 15:49, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 January 2011 15:08, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote:
Let's imagine a group with non-democratic values provides translators
to Translatewiki.
You really don't understand that for any purpose bit, do you?
If you don't
On 28 January 2011 18:44, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 January 2011 13:56, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah. The problem is there's no direct action we can really take
without hampering the good reasons for reuse of our material. Or just
scaring people off. I think the best
On 28 January 2011 19:04, Peter Coombe thewub.w...@googlemail.com wrote:
From March 1st it might be worth contacting the UK Advertising
Standards Authority, as their remit is being extended then:
http://asa.org.uk/Regulation-Explained/Online-remit.aspx
Oh, I *like* that one. That and some
On 27 January 2011 20:30, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 January 2011 23:41, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 January 2011 22:54, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Jimmy has previously made way too many off-the-cuff remarks that have gotten
him into hot water
On 26 January 2011 07:24, Jimmy Wales jwa...@wikia-inc.com wrote:
On 1/21/11 5:46 PM, David Gerard wrote:
No-one is in fact obliged to respond to you on foundation-l, indeed
many WMF employees and WMF and chapter volunteers don't read it,
referring instead to it as troll-l. It would be nice
On 26 January 2011 22:54, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Jimmy has previously made way too many off-the-cuff remarks that have gotten
him into hot water to repeat that mistake again, surely.
*cough*Sarah Palin*cough*
- d.
___
foundation-l
On 25 January 2011 11:26, Alison M. Wheeler wikime...@alisonwheeler.com wrote:
I would think it likely that as the BBC have already made the decision, in
principle, to send h2g2 on its way then expanding the licence to drop any NC
requirement would be a highly probable parting gift.
On 24 January 2011 16:09, Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12265173
Anything worth salvaging?
Is it even under a CC-ish licence?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/forums/A639056/conversation/view/F77636/T8018187
However, H2G2 is unusual.
On 21 January 2011 17:36, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Your commitment to openness and transparency is ready to be transferred to a
Twitter account. You'll have to work with Erik to make all of his openness
and transparency fit. (In all seriousness, thank you, Erik, for the
reports.)
On 21 January 2011 21:11, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
To try to answer your concern, somewhat, as I understand it, rather
than just tut at your tone (which is of course an annoying thing to
do):
The Advisory Board is basically specialist volunteers who’ve signed up
to be bothered about
On 20 January 2011 11:00, Achal Prabhala aprabh...@gmail.com wrote:
Now to the project. I see that neither of you gentlemen has any thoughts
on it, and I welcome your engagement. The problem with oral knowledge
vs. published knowledge is an old one, and there are many interesting
ways in
On 15 January 2011 16:24, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 January 2011 15:26, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il
wrote:
Now, fight.
First review the discussion that has already taken place at WT:RFA
All five years of it going in circles, you mean?
Tell me, what would be
On 15 January 2011 16:55, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 January 2011 16:40, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 January 2011 16:24, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 January 2011 15:26, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il
wrote:
Now, fight.
First review
On 14 January 2011 12:11, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
There is a correlation between broadband and age, as well, I believe.
The elderly (when they have an internet connection at all) are more
likely to use dialup than the general population (I think - I haven't
looked at the
On 10 January 2011 11:50, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote:
We need a Free Knowledge Song, similar to the Free Software Song[1][2]. It
is cool to sing it in these events.
I would suggest that we need one that is *completely different*.
Either that or ear plugs. At least RMS is unlikely to be
On 5 January 2011 21:51, Virgilio A. P. Machado v...@fct.unl.pt wrote:
Is this supposed to be funny?
Time to address this matter to the list moderators.
I would say that posting about an RFA on Meta is not specifically
off-topic for here, but I wouldn't like it to happen for *every* RFA.
It
On 6 January 2011 00:45, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
The anniversary is not just about English Wikipedia. If this was just
English Wikipedia's celebration, there certainly wouldn't be more than 100
events organized in dozens of countries and on every continent except
On 6 January 2011 00:56, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
It may be a bit late to ship t-shirts to Antarctica and, they are likely to
be not warm enough.
We're talking about the finest mad scientists of the modern era.
No-one goes to Antarctica without being a genuine paid-up
On 1 January 2011 10:40, Domas Mituzas midom.li...@gmail.com wrote:
There is no reason that they would have to resort to seeking large donations
from
extremely wealthy private interests.
They already do, don't they?
I understand that for the current fundraiser, it was in fact an
explicit
On 2 January 2011 00:09, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with the rest of your email, though. The WMF's increased
budget is justified. That money is going on worthwhile things. That
doesn't, however, mean that we should raise that money by whatever
means necessary.
We
On 30 December 2010 08:55, Stephanie Daugherty sdaughe...@gmail.com wrote:
Any solution that calls for endless templates is a bad one socially as
well as technically, and at the point where you even consider
something on that scale you should probably be consulting developers
for a better way
On 29 December 2010 05:13, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
You inexplicably posted this to foundation-l, so let's look at this from an
organizational/political standpoint.
I deliberately posted it there because what I'm asking for is broad
and difficult organisational commitment. And
On 29 December 2010 11:03, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
The way I read this, you're almost suggesting that Wikia is a competitor to
Wikipedia. Of all the sites on the Web, I think it's reasonable to say that
Wikia is one of the few that inherently was not designed to be a competitor
to
[crossposted to foundation-l and wikitech-l]
There has to be a vision though, of something better. Maybe something
that is an actual wiki, quick and easy, rather than the template
coding hell Wikipedia's turned into. - something Fred Bauder just
said on wikien-l.
Our current markup is one of
On 28 December 2010 16:06, Victor Vasiliev vasi...@gmail.com wrote:
I have thought about WYSIWYG editor for Wikipedia and found it
technically impossible. The main and key problem of WYSIWIG are
templates. You have to understand that templates are not single
element of Wikipedia syntax, they
On 28 December 2010 16:54, Stephanie Daugherty sdaughe...@gmail.com wrote:
Not only is the current markup a barrier to participation, it's a barrier to
development. As I argued on Wikien-l, starting over with a markup that can
be syntacticly validated, preferably one that is XML based would
On 20 December 2010 02:31, Noein prono...@gmail.com wrote:
On 19/12/2010 23:07, Fred Bauder wrote:
There can be no viable
alternative to Wikipedia.
What?
This is a perennial thread on wikien-l. There's basically no way at
this stage for someone to be a better Wikipedia than Wikipedia. So
On 20 December 2010 17:15, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
On 19/12/2010 23:07, Fred Bauder wrote:
There can be no viable alternative to Wikipedia.
This is the type of thinking that sets you up to being blindsided.
In this case, that sounds like a feature, not a
On 20 December 2010 19:47, Noein prono...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there a general consensus about achieving a monopoly as a good goal.
Is this part of some public strategy? Is this the position of WMF? Of
chapters?
I thought I heard some weeks ago on that mail list that diversity is
good. That
On 20 December 2010 22:46, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
The network effects are massive. Simply wanting doing something better
doesn't work. What does work is Wikia wikis such as Lostpedia that will
draw a small crowd.
Yeah. The small, specialist approach is clearly something
On 20 December 2010 01:24, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
http://knowino.org/wiki/Welcome!
Anything particularly notable about this site? It looks like another drop in
the sea of Wikipedia clones.
Not vastly, except that it's actually a fork from Citizendium rather
On 15 December 2010 17:39, ResearchBiz research...@gmail.com wrote:
True to FT2's vision, this story has already been picked up by the major
media!
http://www.examiner.com/[spam url snipped]
examiner.com is basically a paid blogging host with the only relation
to media being a news-site-like
On 12 December 2010 16:20, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
We might suppress a leak made directly into Wikipedia, for example
information about a troop movement, but once something has been published
on a thousand mirrors there is little point. I don't think links on
Wikipedia to
On 12 December 2010 20:25, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
The information is classified; republishing it is a crime in the United
States; Wikipedia is hosted in the United States.
As Daniel Ellsberg found out. Oh, wait.
That is: your claim is remarkable; please back it up.
- d.
On 10 December 2010 08:45, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
Apart from summarising COM:PORN*, all that the draft sexual content policy
was meant to do, actually, was to address two cases:
* Material that is illegal to host for the Foundation under Florida law
* Sexual images of people
2010/12/9 Huib Laurens sterke...@gmail.com:
I switched the option on to get notification when my emails get to the
list... But that seems to stopped working today?
Gmail is helpful and won't show you a copy of any email you sent.
And there's no way to get it to.
- d.
On 8 December 2010 15:26, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
Yes, but that may also exclude sites that are useful and original, but
happen to mention Wikipedia.
Add -quoted sentence from article intro to the search?
- d.
___
On 6 December 2010 09:02, private musings thepmacco...@gmail.com wrote:
I thought I'd note for those interested in the latest from the
community side of the 'controversial content' discussions - the
Commons 'Sexual Content' proposal has just gone into a polling stage
for the second time;
On 7 December 2010 01:00, Muhammad Yahia shipmas...@gmail.com wrote:
Wouldn't an RFC on meta be the appropriate channel to voice both issues?
This is Virgilio's pet around-and-around topic on this list.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
On 30 November 2010 22:53, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/opinion/30zhuo.html
For added self-referentiality, you can't read this article unless you
identify yourself to the NYT.
- d.
___
foundation-l
On 29 November 2010 19:39, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I suspect you are the only person on this thread who considers that
you are asking for something substantive and important.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
On 24 November 2010 10:24, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
Fine grained control over which banners appear on which pages would
also result in the community being extremely worried that WMF is
gearing up to run ads on content pages.
If the community has that level of assumption of bad
On 22 November 2010 11:10, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
Glad to read this question here, have often wondered about this myself.
User:Emelian1977, an African American PhD student named Brenton Stewart,
conducted a survey of Black American Wikipedians in 2008. I can only find a
short
On 22 November 2010 07:26, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
What are some examples of particular current problems that you feel
this position would fix?
I'm not sure I agree that this position is designed to fix any current
problems. The task of fixing the problems
On 22 November 2010 03:18, Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com wrote:
BTW, I am looking for financial support, or some free hosting solution.
My idea was and still is that this project should be managed by a community,
not by myself alone. I am open to any proposition.
Sounds like something that
On 21 November 2010 04:21, Noein prono...@gmail.com wrote:
I was used to more respectful manners from you, David.
I'm afraid I have little respect for the ideas you're expressing here
because they seem silly, and more silly the more you explain of them.
I could of course be wrong, but you're
On 21 November 2010 01:27, Noein prono...@gmail.com wrote:
I hope that you don't feel threatened by novelty. Please don't close
your mind to my ideas just because you've never heard of them. The
Wikipedia idea begins by Imagine.
You seem to have been presenting your disagreements as if you
On 18 November 2010 11:30, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Any one signed up yet?
http://www.ereleases.com/pr/visibility-wikipedia-easier-43135
Founder:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Konanykhin
I don't see what could possibly go wrong with this idea.
- d.
On 18 November 2010 21:28, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com
wrote:
It looks to me like they just get paid to get volunteers to work. Nice
scheme. So it's not technically paid editing :)
That sounds similar to
On 18 November 2010 22:37, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
Someone on another list discussing this suggested the WMF marketing
monitoring the article about you as a service ...
Which list is this?
Comcom. Idle chitchat, not a serious suggestion. (I certainly hope.)
It would be
On 18 November 2010 23:09, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
Am I 'paid editing' when I write articles during 9-5 ? Is that bad?
The problem with paid editing is when it violates content guidelines,
such as NPOV.
Someone paid to improve the area of linguistics in general? (This has
401 - 500 of 999 matches
Mail list logo
