On 9 August 2010 20:45, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:
To address the comments made. The mediation committee does not have formal
means of enforcement. This is something maybe we should look at creating.
What is needed is a group of people who actively research the topic and come
to
On 6 August 2010 18:47, Michael Galvez michae...@gmail.com wrote:
3. We acquire dictionaries on limited licenses from other parties. In
general, while we can surface this content on our own sites (e.g., Google
Translate, Google Dictionary, Google Translator Toolkit), we don't have
permission
On 6 August 2010 20:14, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I sent this to an internal Wikimedia mailing list earlier today to surface
any bugs, and it seems to be working fine. So, please do fill out this
survey, if you've got time :-)
[X] I'd like us to have as long as five years to
On 3 August 2010 18:52, Gregory Kohs thekoh...@gmail.com wrote:
Will critics of less-than-best-practices within the Wikimedia Foundation be
considered for invitation to the Wikimedia Research Committee, or is there
some sort of loyalty litmus test going to be applied?
I've sent my
On 4 August 2010 19:11, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-July/060076.html
No detectable project participation. Thanks for your detailed response.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
On 3 August 2010 02:32, Brandon Harris bhar...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 8/2/2010 6:12 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
A lot of the complaints I heard regarding the Vector rollout were based in
the fact that the Wikimedia Usability team has subverted and bastardized the
term usability in an attempt to
On 3 August 2010 14:31, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/us/03fbi.html?hpw
The FBI sent a cease desist letter to the WMF demanding the removal
of the FBI seal from the English Wikipedia; Mike replied with, in the
words of the New York Times, a primer on the
On 3 August 2010 14:33, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 August 2010 14:31, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/us/03fbi.html?hpw
The FBI sent a cease desist letter to the WMF demanding the removal
of the FBI seal from the English Wikipedia; Mike
On 1 August 2010 04:08, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Jimmy O'Regan jore...@gmail.com wrote:
Open-Tran: http://open-tran.eu/
Is something like translatewiki.
Software here: http://code.google.com/p/open-tran/
They also provide their databases for
On 3 August 2010 22:05, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
No ethics here then.
Tell me, have you ever contributed *anything* to this list, or to a
Wikimedia project, that wasn't trolling?
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
On 3 August 2010 23:23, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 3 August 2010 22:05, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
No ethics here then.
Tell me, have you ever contributed *anything* to this list, or to a
Wikimedia project, that wasn't trolling?
How is it trolling
On 1 August 2010 03:30, Jimmy O'Regan jore...@gmail.com wrote:
Depending on the languages involved, the amount of resources available
for those languages, and having realistic expectations, a usable system
can be made in as little as 3-6 months by a single motivated volunteer,
with help from
On 31 July 2010 16:21, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
But all of the above are nice dreams about the future. Is there any
proven experience from the past that demonstrates why personal
meetings between Wikimedians are not just fun for them, but actually
beneficial to the
On 31 July 2010 16:32, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
OK, but how exactly? Why did people have to fly to another continent
to start a chapter in their own country? Did they use Wikimania as an
opportunity to talk to the people who started the pioneering chapters
(Germany,
On 31 July 2010 18:15, Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com wrote:
To answer the original post, many projects have resulted from random
talks at dinners during Wikimania, five-minute chats between sessions,
and people just getting to know each other. I wish I could take the
time to make a more
On 26 July 2010 20:08, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
failure
offer filtering. Frankly, we're already filtering content, even on
en.wiki, but only according to a default Western/American POV. We use
line drawings instead of photos in articles on sex positions.
And this was a
On 26 July 2010 20:40, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
If photos of Tienanmen protests are
forbidden in China, we should remove them for population from China.
I certainly hope you're saying this as an attempt at reductio ad absurdum.
- d.
On 26 July 2010 22:14, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I don't see anything
threatening about Mr. Harris evaluating the issues,
As has been pointed out several times already, the presumption that
there is a case to answer. (#5 on the original board resolution.)
I note also that
On 24 July 2010 18:39, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 July 2010 18:28, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
- That IPs are shown a mildly censored version, and that seeing the
uncensored version of Wikipedia requires registering an account and setting
the preferences up accordingly.
On 25 July 2010 00:46, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
Yes, the devil is in the details, and in working out the correct parameters
for default IP access. Each language version of any project could make its
own determination in this regard. Arabic, no Mohammed images; India, no sex
On 25 July 2010 01:07, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
This didn't save Encarta. They did this as a marketing move. They
threw neutrality out the window as a marketing move [1]. That this is
a blatant distortion was problematic enough that Britannica took them
up on it [2]. I recall
On 22 July 2010 12:59, R M Harris rmhar...@sympatico.ca wrote:
I’ve posted a series of questions for discussion on the Meta page that hosts
the study
(http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content.)
Please feel free to visit the page and contribute to the
I've found a shared Google Doc surprisingly usable in practice. (Even
shows changes in slightly-behind-real-time!) Lacks history, though.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
On 22 July 2010 16:32, R M Harris rmhar...@sympatico.ca wrote:
May I just reply to thank Excirial for the excellent suggestions
re:formatting contained in his thoughtful reply (I'll look them over
carefully) and just to note a couple of things. I'm well aware of the
long-standing debates
On 22 July 2010 20:10, Excirial wp.excir...@gmail.com wrote:
I would, however, strongly support a system that gives users
a choice to censor if they wish. It should be possible to categorize commons
in such a way that certain images can be blocked. For example, a user might
choose to block
On 22 July 2010 21:01, teun spaans teun.spa...@gmail.com wrote:
I think I am completely factual. After I wrote this, I went to the
questionlist and found the cry we dont censor in one of the
reactions. Which proves my point, I think. You yourself use that term
in your email.
Well, we don't.
On 23 July 2010 00:06, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Actually I think there is one issue that has still not been well
discussed, and which I think it should be possible to build consensus
around (but maybe I'm naive): The issue of context for controversial
images. For example,
On 16 July 2010 13:17, Manuelt15 Wiki manuelt15.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Only wanted to notify you that the Acehnese Wikipedia
http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ôn_Keuëhttp://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%94n_Keu%C3%AB
have plans about boycotting Wikipedia, as they say in this statement
On 16 July 2010 14:44, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
The Acehnese Wikipedia is a young project. They are entitled to their
mistakes. It is for this reason important that we first talk with them about
what it is that they do. We should not start talking TO them about what
On 16 July 2010 17:58, Excirial wp.excir...@gmail.com wrote:
If a culture sees these images as highly offensive, and if the main
complement of editors / readers agrees with this i wouldn't object to such a
rule, as long as it remained in their local Wiki, with no attempts to force
it on other
On 16 July 2010 18:51, Lars Åge Kamfjord lars@kamfjord.org wrote:
I removed the template from the main page after a short discussion
among stewards. If they don't want the images to be on Wikipedia;
advertising where the images can be found on the main page is not the
best way of doing
On 16 July 2010 19:08, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote:
Sod? Is every single rule on Wikipedia completely determined by NPOV?
If not, then there apparently is some leeway, some possibility of
having different rules. And if that is the case, then isn't the
Wikipedia thing to do to
On 16 July 2010 19:14, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote:
Er, en:wp, and other languages, are outstandingly owned by the
Western democratic cultures of the US and Europe.
It's what makes us able to show pictures that those of another culture
might be willing to kill someone for.
They do,
On 16 July 2010 22:57, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote:
The prohibition against illustrating Mohammed in (some?) muslim
culture is no more a personal opinion than a decision we would make
not to show, for example, certain sexual imagery or images of
violence; there's certainly imagery in
I am at the Sunday pre-Wikimania meet up, and have had several people
tell me I'm being a major dick, and that even if they're wrong then
I'm wronger. And they're right. So I hereby admit to being wrong both
in what I asked and how I asked it, and beg your forgiveness. And I
bet you don't see
On 4 July 2010 21:20, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote:
No, which makes it especially worth appreciating, on three levels.
First, is says something good about the person. Second, it can really
move a discussion along. And third, it serves as an example for future
discussions, like
On 3 July 2010 17:35, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 2:49 AM, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
David Gerard writes:
http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2007/04/10/disaster-recovery-planning/
Can we reasonably say that everything else on the list
On 4 July 2010 02:03, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote:
On 07/03/2010 04:47 PM, David Gerard wrote:
Well. not really. He's asking the same question Greg Maxwell and I
asked last month about the language list defaulting to open rather
than closed: If a wiki voted for it, would
On 26 June 2010 11:53, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
The point of my post was, of course, that ASCAP are attempting to
apply pressure to Congress to outlaw the licence most Wikimedia
content is released under (by its creators).
They want to stop the actual creators of content from
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/ascap-assails-free-culture-digital-rights-groups/
They're actually gathering money to fight free content.
We may need to do something about this.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
On 25 June 2010 23:15, James Alexander jameso...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 6:04 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/ascap-assails-free-culture-digital-rights-groups/
They're actually gathering money to fight free content.
We may
On 25 June 2010 23:46, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Exactly how does Creative Commons steal music lyrics? I'm not following you.
It only relates to it if someone is trying to derail a thread.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
On 23 June 2010 21:31, Mariano Cecowski marianocecow...@yahoo.com.ar wrote:
--- El mié 23-jun-10, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net escribió:
I always think than not using reCaptcha is a shame, as it's
a nice way to get people to proofread text in a reasonably
efficient way. It would be really
On 24 June 2010 19:28, Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net wrote:
That's the meaning, definitely, same as it was in the previous board
statement. I would observe, too, that for material on user pages, if
you're even going to ask whether it's educational, what is it going to
educate people
On 24 June 2010 19:50, Victor Vasiliev vasi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/24/2010 10:40 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
I recommend that people not confuse educational with pedagogical or
try to divorce its interpretation from the context of the particular
project. Historical records have educational
On 23 June 2010 15:34, Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Tisza Gergo gti...@gmail.com wrote:
Magnus Manske magnusman...@... writes:
Basically, this will (on the search page only!) look at the last query
run (the one currently in the edit box),
On 19 June 2010 19:00, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Ryan Lomonaco wrote:
A housekeeping note: Gmail has been marking some list messages as spam for
the past five days or so.
Google is evil.
Your message ended up in my Gmail spam ;-p
- d.
On 22 June 2010 14:06, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
There is a major problem with latin names in a number of taxa. It seems that
if tehre are 5 consecutive wet days in Summer a couple of researchers put
their heads together and concoct new names, move things about, split, or
combine
On 22 June 2010 15:20, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
The common name in any language has more stability as far as the lay person
is concerned. the lay person shouldn't have to first find the latin name of
an organism when looking it up:
On 17 June 2010 21:07, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't the quote backwards? The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works
in practice. It could never work in theory?
I vaguely remember it on wikien-l many years ago. I have no idea if
that was its first use.
- d.
Here's the phrase in a 1988 sociology paper:
http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pdf_extract/1/1/19
I'd call it a pretty obvious play on words, though, so I really doubt
we got it from that.
Anyone got a complete wikien-l archive to grovel through?
- d.
On 15 June 2010 00:17, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
You are claiming the law is complicated. But the facts are
plain and simple, and no amount of FUDD is going to support
a view that there is any reasonable justification (by moral
or juridifical standards) to claim WMF is
On 15 June 2010 00:25, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not suggesting we should claim a trademark on the word wiki (it
wouldn't stand up). I'm suggesting that wiki when used as the name
of an encyclopaedia is sufficiently similar to Wikipedia to cause
confusion in the market
On 10 June 2010 17:54, Excirial wp.excir...@gmail.com wrote:
This has been discussed many times on many occasions.
It comes up every year or two, in accordance with the typical 18-24
month cycle of Wikipedia contribution. The discussion is pretty much
the same every time.
- d.
On 7 June 2010 14:55, Victor Vasiliev vasi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 5:42 AM, Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net wrote:
If you don't know the history of racial issues in the US, you might not
realize just how serious a subject lynching is. In that cultural
context, it is not
On 7 June 2010 16:52, Eugene Eric Kim ee...@blueoxen.com wrote:
Good design isn't just about following the user path; it's also about
guiding the users in a way that's appropriate to the mission of the
work.
This appears to sum up the problem with this change: the usability
team focused on
On 5 June 2010 19:03, susanpgard...@gmail.com wrote:
Austin, think about who everyone is. The folks here on foundation-l are
not representative of readers. The job of the user experience team is to try
to balance all readers' needs, which is not easy, and will sometimes involve
making
On 5 June 2010 19:40, Aphaia aph...@gmail.com wrote:
What is the good reason usability team thought data from English
Wikipedia visitors' behaviors and alone were enough to design for all
other 200+ languages' readership? It looks me an obvious mistake in
opposition of your statement.
On 4 June 2010 13:00, Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/6/4 Jon Harald Søby jhs...@gmail.com:
When you are monolingual and are already on your
native language Wikipedia there isn't really a lot of use in going to
another language.
What's more, when that language is the one with the
On 4 June 2010 19:58, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps a suitable compromise can be devised, but in the meantime, the
only appropriate solution is to display the interwiki links by
default. It's unfortunate that this fix was reverted, let alone in
the name of usability.
On 3 June 2010 16:14, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
If you can link in your notifications to a handy guide to contesting a
DMCA takedown notice, that would probably answer the concerns in this
thread. It's clear that people weren't sure if they could re-add
things at all, ever, after
On 3 June 2010 21:42, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org wrote:
There are several handy online guides for how to file DMCA
counter-notices. It is very easy and doesn't require hiring a lawyer.
The only catch is that by filing the counter-notice you are putting your
money where your mouth is
On 3 June 2010 20:40, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
Self-deprecating humour is another great weapon. It is very difficult to
understand when you believe that you are in the most powerful nation in
the world.
Americans understand humor, whereas Canadians understand *humour*.
- d.
On 3 June 2010 19:04, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Yes, we discussed this internally as well as a better path to exposse
Wikipedia's multilingual nature than to dump a long list of native
language names in the sidebar (we might have an expansion link such as
Show X other languages
On 17 May 2010 09:08, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva
tolkiend...@gmail.com wrote:
i think the best effect of recaptcha is psychological, since this
meaningless task may be perceived as useful for some noble task. and
it's good that we manage to be able to fool ourselves that way,
captchas are
On 12 May 2010 00:38, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
I think we will only make progress when we accept the apologies of the
people involved. I can understand that they want to at least formally
defend the original board statement, but I think they--and we all-
-recognize that the
On 12 May 2010 21:50, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
Even more than what Ray says:
+1 to this entire email.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
On 11 May 2010 16:44, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
There are other resources which address these subject areas in a
manner which religious conservatives may find more acceptable, such as
conservapedia.
Actually, Conservapedia has almost no readers or editors. (Its
activity rate
On 11 May 2010 17:45, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote:
Sure, and that's inevitable. You aren't going to please people who
have ideological problems with Wikipedia's entire premise. But
leaving aside people who think nudity is morally wrong on principle,
we are still left
On 11 May 2010 21:42, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:48 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
You're a developer. Write something for logged-in users to block
images in local or Commons categories they don't want to see. You're
the target
On 10 May 2010 19:14, Noein prono...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't understand exactly your thoughts. What happens to someone who
wants to navigate Wikipedia or use Commons but doesn't want to reach
offending (according to his/her personal sensibility) pages? If this
person wants a protecting tool,
Despite Content Purge, Pornographic Images Remain on Wikimedia
By Jana Winter
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/10/porn-wikipedia-illegal-content-remains/
Any attempt to filter ourselves is not addressing the fact that the
images exist at all on Commons.
Any attempted appeasement of these
On 10 May 2010 22:32, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:31 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
Can you point me to major media entities that have accepted the notion
that
Fox News was correct?
I'm referring to the conclusion that one, in my
On 9 May 2010 07:30, Samuel J Klein s...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:31 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
It's board members directly asserting control over content. Of
course it's a major issue.
Perish the thought. The Board is not controlling content - I would
On 9 May 2010 02:20, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
Given that several Commons admins had dropped out, and bearing in mind the
clean-up campaign called for by the board and Jimbo, I put in an RFA at
Commons, saying I would help clean up pornographic images *that are not in
use by
On 9 May 2010 07:45, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
True. The resignations are deeply unfortunate, and I hope those who
have left will still contribute to the ensuing discussions - their
opinions are among those badly needed to find the right way forward.
deeply unfortunate is, far
On 9 May 2010 06:09, K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
Bugzilla 982[1] MediaWiki should support ICRA's PICS content labeling.
From my understanding without reading much about it, It [ICRA] is ment
to be a international or at least a standard for these things which
most people seem to
On 9 May 2010 13:26, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 6:23 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
The overriding question will be the editorial role of the board.
The Board has no editorial role, on Commons or on any other Project,
nunless you consider high
On 9 May 2010 21:17, Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org wrote:
The tags applied should be clear and fact-based. So instead of tagging a
page as containing pornography, which is entirely subjective, we
should rather tag the page as contains a depiction of an erect penis
or contains a depiction of
On 9 May 2010 21:28, Mikemoral mikemoral...@gmail.com wrote:
By why censor Commons? Should educational material be freely viewed and,
of course, be made free to read, use, etc.
Well, yes. The apparent reason is that Fox News is making trouble.
Categorisation, labeling, etc. won't fix that -
On 10 May 2010 00:04, Sue Gardner susanpgard...@gmail.com wrote:
My view is that Jimmy and others have brought closure to the scope of
Jimmy's authority question. In saying that, I don't mean to diminish the
importance of that question -- I realize that many people are angry about
what's
On 8 May 2010 11:17, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de wrote:
it depends. Please point to me what you mean so that I can give you my
opinion on the cases.
They've been named in this thread repeatedly.
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
On 8 May 2010 17:29, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, we as a community don't require such individual statements about
any other issue; I realize this may be a personal dealbreaker for you
but it doesn't seem like the single most important issue of our day.
I'd much rather hear
On 8 May 2010 17:46, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
As far as which capacity, I think Jimmy's own statements make this
abundantly clear regardless of what the PR spin says:
I am fully willing to change the policies for adminship (including
removing adminship in case of wheel
On 8 May 2010 18:35, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de wrote:
Commons, Wikiquote and Wikisource has by themselves no educational
value. They gain their educational value in the way that they provide
repositories for the other
On 7 May 2010 16:08, teun spaans teun.spa...@gmail.com wrote:
this statement surprises me.
Why was the foundation involved in the localization of Freecol, a game with
little or no historic information (compared with other historic games such
as europa universalis)?
translatewiki is not a
[This was a passing comment I made on wikien-l, but it's a reasonably
serious topic for consideration in how the wikisphere works.]
No matter how much work is put into flagged revisions on en:wp, it is
100% certain that it will be greeted with deafening whinging.
This is not a reason not to make
On 5 May 2010 17:13, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote:
And
perhaps the complaining can be even put to use; is there some way to get
people to complain about bad complaints?
Up/down rating feature on complaints. Bugzilla has votes for this
purpose. But many web boards work quite well
On 5 May 2010 17:13, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote:
Thanks for bringing this up, David.
I must point out I'm not at all talking about just flagged revisions -
I mean the perpetual complaints, petty and significant (and one often
resembling the other) that happen in the wake of many
On 3 May 2010 21:16, Kul Takanao Wadhwa kwad...@wikimedia.org wrote:
As I was contacting the FB product team this morning (PST time) I
noticed that it was already taken down through the normal channels.
Thanks to everyone for finding and reporting this.
I think it's worth noting that such
On 3 May 2010 21:37, masti mast...@gmail.com wrote:
There are also two groups:
Vandalize Wikipedia
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/group.php?gid=108626792509959ref=ts
and
I Vandalize Wikipedia
http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/group.php?gid=2210946918ref=ts
I'd suggest don't get all
On 19 April 2010 21:08, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote:
I would go with Contribute to this article - click edit button that takes
you back to the Wikipedia, where new editors can edit to their hearts'
content without the ads getting into the way of the knowledge project.
Yep. But
FYI. I know a few people on this list have been pursuing these ideas
assiduously.
- d.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Kristofer Bjornson dafe...@hotmail.com
Date: 9 April 2010 12:19
Subject: [Foundation-l] Help building List of things that need to be free
To:
On 9 April 2010 12:21, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
FYI. I know a few people on this list have been pursuing these ideas
assiduously.
oops, meant that for wikimediauk-l, sorry!
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l
On 6 April 2010 22:16, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote:
And actually his contribution to English Wikiversity is impressive: More
than a half of his edits over there are related to this open letter, and
only one edit (typo corrected) is a contribution to the Wikiversity core
FYI:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Petition_to_Shut_Down_Wikiversity
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 4 April 2010 13:56, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
As far as I am concerned, there have been a few persons who manifested
themselves as not taking no for an answer, who were blocked on several
projects, who moved to Wikiversity and continued their campaign they were
On 4 April 2010 17:15, H hillgentle...@gmail.com wrote:
Get your facts straight. Private Musing was not globally blocked and
Jimbo Wales did block him out of process and Jimbo Wales did wheel-war
with the local custodians; the allegations of Jimbo Wales had
involved a project in which even
On 1 April 2010 14:58, Alison M. Wheeler wikime...@alisonwheeler.com wrote:
2. Taking an image from a satellite or aeroplane image requires no
copyrightable skill: Camera points down, takes images at fixed focus at
regular time intervals. Images are published.
Minor detail - although this
On 29 March 2010 22:42, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
This seems to me to be an extremely strange and unusual interpretation
of the Foundation's policy on copyrighted images. I am not aware of
anyone else having brought this up on other Wikis.
There are occasional attempts
601 - 700 of 999 matches
Mail list logo
