This isn't the kind of compromise that we should be making.
On 12/31/11, Zack Exley zex...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi everyone -
It's a trade off between doing things that might annoy some people in the
banners vs. reducing the number of days we need to run banners at all. It's
hard to find the
In other words, Wikipedia does not have space for what you find
interesting. Sorry.
On 12/15/11, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
It isn't so much about having my stuff edited as it is that there seems
to be a mindset among en.wp editors that stuff needs to be deleted
unless they
That's stupid.
On 10/4/11, Mathias Schindler mathias.schind...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 22:19, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 4:15 PM, teun spaans teun.spa...@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't this premature? As I understand, the law is still being discussed,
not
A key problem is that it's difficult to find people who understand how
Wikipedia works but also want to disrupt the status quo. Most currently
active Wikipedians, pretty much by definition, like how Wikipedia works
right now. Even if they are concerned in theory about overall community
decline,
I can promise you that the reason edit rates has gone down is not because of
problems with wikitext. Though the cruft is a symptom.
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 6:50 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
[crossposted to foundation-l and wikitech-l]
There has to be a vision though, of
Larry didn't have an exaggerated role, he really did run the project in the
early days.
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
On 15/12/10 11:17, Brian J Mingus wrote:
Browsing through the earliest revisions in the revision index (
Fred Bauder, so far as I know, INAL. It's pretty sad that so many
prominent Wikipedians hold the truth of the world to be in such low
disregard.
On 12/12/10, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 5:49 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, raw data is a
It's pretty obvious that there are some back-justifications being made for a
blatantly imperfect decision. There are both real strengths and benefits to
the decision (making print copies easily accessible) as well as deep flaws
(promoting an exclusive relationship with a for-profit company).
It
That about sums it up.
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org wrote:
I try to understand what happened, but I'm not sure whether the pieces
that I found so far add up.
* Larry Sanger is mad about Wikimedia. [apparent]
* Larry Sanger notifies the FBI and tells them
Hooray for letting American prurience and Larry Sanger's oddities shape the
project. To be expected, though.
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Sydney Poore sydney.po...@gmail.com wrote:
The primary reason that several weeks back I became involved in the
Common's
discussions about sexually
No, this is a profoundly stupid decision that has no logical sense. A free
license is a copyright license.
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org wrote:
The Swedish Wikipedia decision is consequent and logical. Logos are
copyrighted. Copyrighted material cannot be
Yes. This is idiotic. The logo contest followed the same rules as all other
submissions to Wikipedia -- they were submitted under the GFDL.
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 8:52 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 February 2010 00:23, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
I know the actual logos
One essential problem is that once Wikipedia embraced the multipage
multimedia-heavy Encarta style as what makes for a good article -- without
a radical improvement in the editing technology -- the ease of editing has
fallen drastically.
Basically all of the policy trends -- agglomeration,
Cmon, keep your whining prudishness for another thread. Sheesh.
On 7/31/09, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Walter Vermeirwal...@wikipedia.be wrote:
An other way would be that Wikimedia is funded by some international
body, like UNESCO. The WMF budget for
Fred is conflating guidelines on style with guidelines on content.
Articles about food items are not banned.
Articles about fiction are not banned.
Fred is advocating banning a *class of articles.*
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
I'm sorry, but why
A lovely article. The only pity is it doesn't note how much of this social
theory of wikis owes to Sunir Shah's pioneering work on MeatballWiki.
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 3:02 PM, KillerChihuahua
pu...@killerchihuahua.comwrote:
This is a lovely article, by a reporter who actually doesn't seem to
I can prove what I wrote :)
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/1/24 The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com:
I'm not sure why we're so stressed out about getting things exactly
legally
right, since once edit histories for anything created before
17 matches
Mail list logo
