2009/2/23 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkb...@gmail.com:
I'm not familiar with the details of the data dump process, so I can't
comment on whether it's broken or not.
It's broken, I don't think there is any dispute there.
However, one question that I have is whether the dump includes, or
2009/2/23 Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 2:44 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
The value of providing good dumps is forkability, in case WMF is hit
by a meteor, hit by a legal meteor, goes collectively insane, etc.
Imagine trying to fork Wikipedia without being
2009/2/22 River Tarnell ri...@loreley.flyingparchment.org.uk:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
hi,
currently the dump process is a bit broken. what is the Foundation's position
on this? why are developer resources allocated to put the server admin log on
twitter, but no one
2009/2/22 Casey Brown cbrown1023...@gmail.com:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 7:49 AM, River Tarnell
ri...@loreley.flyingparchment.org.uk wrote:
why are developer resources allocated to put the server admin log on
twitter
er... I think that was a personal choice by one of the shell users, I
don't
2009/2/22 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
As I understand it, the WMF made an agreement with RMS that the
projects would be dual licensed and not switched entirely. I think
making that agreement was a mistake, but there's not much that can be
done about it now
2009/2/22 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/2/22 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
As I understand it, the WMF made an agreement with RMS that the
projects would be dual licensed
2009/2/22 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
The reasons are fairly obvious - the FSF
wants people to still be using their license and the WMF felt the need
to compromise, so agreed to it.
If the FSF wants people to still
2009/2/20 Mingli Yuan mingli.y...@gmail.com:
Since Songhu Hui use Wordpress, so I just propose a technical idea to
improve the cooperation between Wikimedia and Songhu Hui. How about a
keyword-link-generator to Wikipedia for Wordpress? This new Wordpress plugin
will query Wikipedia to get a
2009/2/20 Henning Schlottmann h.schlottm...@gmx.net:
* Ditch the dual licensing. I don't understand it. I am trained as a
lawyer to understand about licenses and I have not the slightest idea
how the dual licensing is supposed to work. No one I talked to -
layperson or professional -
2009/2/20 Henning Schlottmann h.schlottm...@gmx.net:
geni wrote:
2009/2/20 Henning Schlottmann h.schlottm...@gmx.net:
* The responsibility for decisions of this magnitude lays with the
board. WMF is a non-membership association. Don't even try to evade that
responsibility by delegating it to
2009/2/19 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com:
Hoi,
Thomas OTHER people can see this benefit.. It is not that hard.. even I can.
Then would you care to explain it to me?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
2009/2/19 Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com:
In my opinion, it is incumbent upon us to give examples of how we
believe third parties can legally and practically reuse WMF content by
exercising rights under CC-BY-SA. If we can't, in our collective
wisdom, agree on how third parties ought to be
2009/2/19 David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com:
David Goodman wrote:
The benefit is in getting users who would not be comfortable on
Wikipedia because of the perceived and real behavior problems on that
site--even if this is no worse ultimately than in the academic world,
the mode of
. The numbers come from Erik Zachte's list page, and
sum posts for the top 25 posters from Jan 08 to Feb 09.
Thomas Dalton 753
That's the result of having to write a master's thesis!
Actually, I think that list is very positive - we have 25 people all
posting at least an average of 5 posts a day
2009/2/19 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com:
So the question really should be, what of this would be to our disadvantage?
It's very difficult to set up technically, for a start. Live mirroring
of existing content isn't too hard, but sorting out editing would be a
nightmare. We presumably wouldn't want
2009/2/19 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
That's the result of having to write a master's thesis!
Actually, I think that list is very positive - we have 25 people all
posting at least an average of 5 posts a day
2009/2/19 Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com:
I think you are significantly overestimating the difficulty. We
already have an API [1] and similar tools that allow one to accomplish
many similar tasks. For example, calling ?action=render will give you
a llive HTML version of any current page that
2009/2/18 Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net:
We do still plan to have a survey, although I don't think it's critical
that it precede the vote. The point of the survey is in particular to
get some more information that would help work out details for
attribution standards. Not everything is
2009/2/18 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com:
Sure but when the way we are going to do this is different from what the
license says anyway
It is? Then I won't be voting for it...
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
2009/2/18 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
It's already been made clear that the foundation has no obligation to
consult the community on this issue. My interpretation of Michael's
post is that he is restating this point. They are *going* to make the
switch, and when they do we will be bound
2009/2/18 basedrop based...@gmail.com:
Hello,
I'm not sure if this is the place to pose this question, if not could you
respond with the proper place.
I'm building out a social networking site centered around an art and
arthistory theme. I would like to display a real time dynamic
2009/2/19 basedrop based...@gmail.com:
Hello Thomas and thanks for your response.
I would point out that the foundation created a French version, hosted it
on French servers, in the French language because they saw the benefit of
delivering something to a specific constituency.
Delivering
2009/2/19 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com:
Without disagreeing on the importance of attribution standards
per se, it is clearly inaccurate to say that they signify how we
interpret the license. Contributors can be asked to waive
rights to content they add to the site (where they are
Yes, yes, that's all very interesting, but how was the skiing? ;)
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2009/2/15 P. Birken pbir...@gmail.com:
On February, 4th, all articles of the german WP had at least one
sighted revision. Since then, only pages newly created by noneditors
have to be looked at. On average, around 1.000 pages were marked for
the first time per day and these are now carried
2009/2/9 geni geni...@gmail.com:
2009/2/9 Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de:
I dislike this argument very much. People cannot choose that they are
born in Iran or in China, or in the USA or Europe. Use such a trait that
cannot be influence by a person against him is a kind of discrimination.
2009/2/5 Cetateanu Moldovanu cetatean...@gmail.com:
1. Wikipedia has a pretended version of it in Moldovan language using
the Cyrillic script
2. The state language is Moldovan (identical to Romanian), and it is
written in the Latin alphabet, not Cyrillic
3. we request you to delete
2009/2/3 Thomas Larsen larsen.thoma...@gmail.com:
We now have 25 contributors and 118 articles.
How many of those are copied from Wikipedia (I've checked and at least
some are)? What are your plans for using Wikipedia content, assuming
the licenses become compatible?
2009/2/3 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
Even on
the attribution question, it seems that there is wide agreement that
for online re-use, hyperlinks to a page history or author credit page
are an appropriate mechanism for attribution. It's sensible to me, and
apparently most people, that
2009/2/3 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
I would like to see the most flexible attribution rules possible (just the
Article Title, Wikipedia perhaps). If Geni's adamance regarding strict terms
of attribution is a correct interpretation of the CC-BY-SA then I can't see
it as being the correct
2009/2/3 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
With a system that can find the authors of any given piece of text no matter
when it existed in any language version:
Where is this system? Is it included with the work when it is
distributed (I doubt it)? If not, it's no help.
2009/2/3 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
I've seen this point made at least three times today.
What leads you to believe that the attribution must be on the same medium?
It doesn't necessarily need to be the same medium, but it needs to be
included in the distribution otherwise you can't
2009/2/3 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote:
If one wants to go down the suggested attribution route, one approach might
be:
Create an authors page associated with each page that contains:
snip
There may be a far simpler (and
2009/2/1 Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org:
Anthony writes:
Actually, the difference is quite relevant in a courtroom,
especially when
dealing with constitutional issues. That's why I find it nearly
impossible
to believe that Mike doesn't understand this. How in the world can
you
2009/2/1 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
The new GFDL license only allows relicensing under CC-BY-SA of things
either published for the first time on the wiki or added to the wiki
before the new license was announced. Since this was published in a
book first
2009/1/30 Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk:
2009/1/28 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
The new GFDL license only allows relicensing under CC-BY-SA of things
either published for the first time on the wiki or added to the wiki
before the new license was announced. Since
- In some contexts, such as sexual content, it is desirable to be
rigourous in confirming factors such as the subject's age, and 'release' or
permission - it is this area which is lacking a bit at the moment.
Perhaps you explain this in your essays (it's late and I have to be up
early,
2009/1/28 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com:
Hoi,
You are out of your mind. The author of the book, a respected Wikipedian,
can relicense it to anything he likes.
Of course he can, but unless he relicenses it under CC-BY-SA (which I
can't imagine him not doing, but still), it will need
2009/1/28 Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/1/28 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com:
Hoi,
You are out of your mind. The author of the book, a respected Wikipedian,
can relicense it to anything he likes
2009/1/28 effe iets anders effeietsand...@gmail.com:
Maybe a silly question, but nobody is stopping anyone to copy it to
Wikibooks. The question is mainly, should it be deleted from Wikipedia. I
agree there with Erik, that this is clearly a community decision.
Why not just copy it and see
2009/1/24 Naoko Komura nkom...@gmail.com:
Hello, Thomas.
I admire your persistence in putting your question forward until your
question is answered. :-) Let me try to answer your questions by giving
you the background of this negotiation.
Persistence is certainly not something I'm lacking!
2009/1/24 Naoko Komura nkom...@gmail.com:
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 8:36 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
Persistence is certainly not something I'm lacking! Some disagree
about how admirable that is, though...
I think it is a good trait to have and admirable.
Well, thank you
2009/1/24 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
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 2002 / late
2001 were wiped out, any of those articles don't have an
2009/1/24 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
Mike took us off on a tangent when he insisted that the concept of moral
rights was a purely legal construction, but up until then I thought things
were going well.
Or you went off on a tangent when you started talking about moral
rights in a more general
2009/1/23 Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com:
Anthony writes:
A legal right is recognized by law. A moral right may not be.
This must be your own idiosyncratic application of the term moral
right. In copyright, moral rights refers to inalienable legal
rights that are recognized in law. If you
2009/1/23 Mike Godwin mnemo...@well.com:
Thomas Dalton writes:
This must be your own idiosyncratic application of the term moral
right. In copyright, moral rights refers to inalienable legal
rights that are recognized in law. If you are in a jurisdiction that
does not recognize moral
2009/1/23 Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org:
Just because a right isn't recognized, does not mean that I do not
have it.
I have a right to your house. Oh, sure, it's not recognized by
anyone, but I promise I have it!
Like I say, there's a world outside the legal profession. Just because
I'm sorry, Thomas, but until people learn to use jurisprudential
concepts such as moral rights properly, I have a moral obligation to
point out where they are used mistakenly. This is not a question of
the world outside the legal profession (and, indeed, if you were a
member of the legal
Could we have more detail, please, on the note that Wikia matched the best
offer? Were the other ten higher bidders also given the opportunity to
match the best offer? Why was Wikia chosen on a second and adjusted offer
basis, rather than choosing the good-faith firm that submitted the
(We'd much rather keep them *in* our main office, but we're
simply out of room!)
I'm curious, how did that happen exactly? You didn't get the office
that long ago and most of the recent hires have been planned a fair
amount of time in advance. Why did you get a bigger office to start
with?
2009/1/23 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
* We've suggested to Wikia a fair market rate based on the average of
the other options we obtained;
Average, or cheapest? If it really was average, then you're going to
have need to justify precisely how the added bonuses from Wikia are
worth whatever
2009/1/23 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
2009/1/23 David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com:
Erik Moeller wrote:
[snip]
* We've suggested to Wikia a fair market rate based on the average of
the other options we obtained;
* After some negotiation, Wikia accepted. Weighing other pros and cons
of
2009/1/23 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com:
Hoi,
Having an office close to the main office, having an environment that is
shared with colleagues who way are sharing their impressive usability
improvements are tangible benefits.
I agree, the issue is with how much you value them. They
2009/1/23 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
2009/1/23 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
Sounds good. Could you calmly and sensibly explain it to me, then? How
did you come to decide that the addition benefits of working in
Wikia's offices were worth the extra money? (I'm willing to accept
2009/1/23 George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com:
This is a discussion about copyright law and licenses under / related to it,
is it not? And not philosophy writ large?
It was, I think we drifted a little off-topic.
___
foundation-l mailing list
2009/1/22 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net:
What value do they really think they will get from a 2pt credit
with 5,000 other authors?
Don't underestimate the enjoyment of looking through the page of
credits at the back of a printed book and finding your name! People
like to be acknowledged, even if
Requirement would be to give credit via the credit URL, and by mentioning the
principal authors listed at that URL. What authors will be listed at that URL
is something that we may change at our leisure: for example, this may be the
proposed list of five authors, or none if more than five; or
Now read that article outloud and record it. Reasonable to the medium
or means in this case however lets people follow the common practice
of putting the credit on the record sleeve /CD jewel case.
Reasonable doesn't have to mean common practice. How about reading
out the names at the end?
2009/1/22 Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu:
On Thursday 22 January 2009 19:52:28 Thomas Dalton wrote:
Requirement would be to give credit via the credit URL, and by mentioning
the principal authors listed at that URL. What authors will be listed at
that URL is something that we may change
Because radio broadcasts have far shorter credit lists. Yeah to an
extent you can do it with CDs but for 45s that is right out. However
the license itself specifies Reasonable to the medium or means so
this does not present a problem.
Surely you couldn't fit a read out version of [[France]]
2009/1/22 geni geni...@gmail.com:
So what exactly is the problem with requiring credit reasonable to
the medium or means?
The fact that we don't seem to be able to agree on what is reasonable.
(It would be nice if we could agree it between us rather than having
to go to court over it...)
2009/1/22 Andrew Whitworth wknight8...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/1/22 geni geni...@gmail.com:
So what exactly is the problem with requiring credit reasonable to
the medium or means?
The fact that we don't seem to be able
2009/1/22 Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org:
Chad writes:
I'm not the one to decide, nor do I have particularly strong feelings
about one method of attribution or another. Just thought I'd lay the
blame for this mess where it belongs: a vaguely worded license
with highly debatable terms.
2009/1/22 Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org:
Thomas Dalton writes:
So, online but on a different server is okay, but online when there's
an offline copy isn't? What is the legal distinction you're drawing
here? (I ask for the legal distinction because you are articulating
your concern
2009/1/22 Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
It it did exist, it would be several volumes long.
Not at all, length just introduces more room for ambiguity.
How do you deal with every possible situation in a way that makes
sense without adding length? Unless you want
2009/1/23 George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/1/22 Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org:
allowing editors who insist on being listed to be
listed
I think unless that is opt-out, not opt-in, it won't help
Attribution by reference to a URL only seems reasonable for online
reuse to me. For content added directly to Wikimedia projects, you may
be able to get by with including permission to do so in the terms of
service, but for 3rd party content that doesn't work. If I write
something on another site,
There are various problems with making a distinction between print and
online use when it comes to name inclusion. The first problem is that
there are related questions which immediately pop up: Is it reasonable
for a one page print document to have half a page or more of author
metadata? Is
2009/1/21 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
2009/1/21 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
A lot of the problems you are having there are because you are trying
to group things into print and online. The correct dichotomy is
online and offline. Of course you are going to have problems
2009/1/22 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
Because I don't think it's good to discuss attribution as an abstract
principle, just as an example, the author attribution for the article
[[France]] is below, excluding IP addresses. According to the view
that attribution needs to be given to each
2009/1/22 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
2009/1/21 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
Whether or not something is sufficient to comply with licensing
requirements isn't something that can be decided democratically.
We're operating in a space with a high degree of ambiguity. The point
Das Wikipedia Lexikon in einem Band[1] is another stunning example of
attribution gone mad
A few pages of names in a 1000 page book doesn't seem that mad to me.
I think it makes an excellent point about how Wikipedia works.
___
foundation-l mailing
2009/1/20 Andrew Whitworth wknight8...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 4:35 AM, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi,
What I said was that the NY chapter prevents an USA chapter. It would be
obvious to have one such. With one in place, you can organise to your hearts
New York City is a city, and France or Germany are nations. In the
geopolitical sense, the two are very different. However, in terms of
chapters the geopolitical boundaries are meaningless. Chapters are
defined and measured by their levels of participation. We don't say
that a nation must
2009/1/20 Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Andrew Whitworth wknight8...@gmail.com
wrote:
Two answers to this question:
1) WMNYC does prevent the creation of a separate WMUSA chapter. At the
moment the rule-of-thumb is that chapters cannot overlap.
By the way, this word chapter is unfamiliar for me, a German. I did not
hear it before I became a Wikimedian. What does this English word mean? Any
sub division of an organisation, or is it rather associated to a city than
to a country?
A chapter is a sub-division of an organisation. I'm not
2009/1/17 Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org:
On November 4 2003 Jimbo Wales announced, that 200 EUR were donated to
register European domain names
(http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2003-November/012981.html).
Did this ever happen? I wonder, cause as far as I know, many domains
2009/1/12 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 1:58 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
If, by terms of service of Wikipedia, we ask
contributors to give permission to be attributed by URL under certain
circumstances, this is consistent with the language of CC-BY-SA, and
2009/1/11 geni geni...@gmail.com:
2009/1/11 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
What we are left with, then, is to come up with attribution guidelines
in the context of CC-BY-SA which are consistent with reasonable
expectations and established practices for author credit per the GFDL.
False.
Why do developers have such priviledged access to the source code, and the
community such little input?
In my experience, this is the way that most open source projects
operate. You can download and play with the source code to your
heart's content, but typically only a handful of committers
But they aren't violating GFDL 1.3, since they aren't using it, so
what was you complaint about?
My complaint was that the WMF was (and still is) copying and distributing my
copyrighted content in a manner other than that expressly provided under any
license I have granted them.
Sure, but
2009/1/10 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
2009/1/8 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
We discussing a move to CC-BY-SA, attribution is still
required. I'm not an expert on the attribution requirements of
CC-BY-SA (I've just read them, but it isn't entirely clear to me
whether
We discussing a move to CC-BY-SA, attribution is still
required.
Maybe, but that's not what the FAQ says.
Um... yes it is...
I'm not an expert on the attribution requirements of
CC-BY-SA (I've just read them, but it isn't entirely clear to me
whether Original Author is, in the
I don't think there's a problem with GFDL-licensing. I think there's a
problem with the fact that the WMF (and before that, Wikia) have refused to
facilitate the application of it.
What? Wikia predates WMF? News to me...
___
foundation-l mailing
2009/1/8 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
I was under the impression that the WMF does hold a copyright over the
entirety of a particular Wikipedia as they offer that collection for
download. And re-users often use these dumps as seeds for their illegal
re-use.
IANAL, but I think you need to
I *think* I was thinking clearly -- I didn't mean to suggest that it
would be trivial for an editor massively concerned about the
changeover to remove all his or her edits. Obviously, for some editors
it would be practically impossible. For others it might be possible,
and for still others
2009/1/8 Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net:
On 8 Jan 2009, at 22:16, Thomas Dalton wrote:
I don't think that's clear at all. I don't know how many authors you
are meant to attribute things to under CC-BY-SA, it may well be all of
them. I need to do more research (or, I need someone to tell me
2009/1/8 geni geni...@gmail.com:
2009/1/8 Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com:
I concur. The WMF should clearly state what they anticipate
attribution to look like. Whether one agrees that the WMF position is
adequate might end up being an important issue in the decision on
whether to support
2009/1/9 Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net:
A linguistic analysis by several experts in the
field concluded that you don't have a clue about effective group management.
on 1/8/09 8:41 PM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
WMF
doesn't manage its volunteer base, it keeps
2008/12/15 Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Yes, all states have laws. It is the content of those laws which
determines whether or not the state is a free and open society. One
may have a free and open society that is not an anarchy.
If the country has free and fair
Jimbo didn't say anyone who denies the Holocaust should be blocked, as
though Wikipedia should engage in thought-crime. He said the sorts of
people who deny the Holocaust are generally the sorts of people who ought to
be blocked on sight from editing Wikipedia. High correlation, not
True, true.
But note that this fear seems to be less pregnant (hmm, maybe not the
right word, pregnent ?) in WMF, which now has hired expert or use some
as consultants.
The WMF uses experts for administrative stuff, that is very different
to using them directly in the creation of content.
Not a response to your email, but the reaction in general strikes me
as very inconsistent. With China they have been censored, they try and
use TOR, and we block them, and say for years that there is
regrettably nothing we can do about this situation. UK gets blocked
for a day and we are
Long-time ago, I suggested adding a short-duration cookie whenever a
block was triggered that would allow the software to detect the most
obvious IP jumping vandals (asumming they used the same browser on the
same machine each time). It doesn't get at the bulk of Tomek's
criticism, but it
2008/12/12 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 5:52 AM, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.comwrote:
If tomorrow, a really illegal-in-UK image is reported to the IWF, they
will block it for real. And they will block again editing.
They didn't block editing. You did.
The IWF said that contextual issues are important in the decision of whether
or not they will keep the webpage on their list. They specifically
reiterated that they still consider the image to be potentially illegal.
You expected them to actually admit to having made a mistake? Why
would they
2008/12/11 Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 2:44 PM, KillerChihuahua
pu...@killerchihuahua.comwrote:
Don't forget intranets.
Hehe, this is a real one. Intranet is just a private network, so there
actually are quite a few intranets out there :)
Back in the good old
Are we working on the project because we're frustrated, or because we
want to?
I think that might be a false dichotomy. We work on the projects
because we want to (we consider it a worthwhile cause), we work on
specific more tedious parts of the project out of frustration.
2008/12/9 Ziko van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
About usability: I believe that one significant barrier for new Wikimedians
is the jargon in the Wikimedia projects, mostly in discussions, but also in
help pages:
* Expressions from computer science: IP, bug, URL
* Expressions from the Open Source
2008/12/9 Delirium [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Ziko van Dijk wrote:
About usability: I believe that one significant barrier for new Wikimedians
is the jargon in the Wikimedia projects, mostly in discussions, but also in
help pages:
* Expressions from computer science: IP, bug, URL
* Expressions from
701 - 800 of 821 matches
Mail list logo
