https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/32157
The fussy buggers of Wikimedia need to get nitpicking ...
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 3 April 2012 07:47, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
We had started a stub table about this:
https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_things_that_need_to_be_free
This is brilliant! I've been after something like this for a while.
- d.
America’s most trusted encyclopedia, Conservapedia, have decided to
launch a new wiki-based semantic data project named Conservadata. The
new project will make right-wing soundbites available in machine
readable form.
http://blog.tommorris.org/post/20277406012/conservadata
- d.
This is about what happens when someone does the *bloody simple and
obvious* with all the data that Facebook, FourSquare, etc. live of
getting people to give out:
On 30 March 2012 13:56, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
That's a very welcome move, and I hope it helps build bridges back to the
community. From time to time we will have very divisive issues to discuss,
and in such situations it is much easier for the losing side in the
On 27 March 2012 23:43, Patrick Hayes pfha...@gmail.com wrote:
The first beta release of the Wiktionary mobile app for Android has been
released! You can download the .apk file here
(http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4187555/WiktionaryActivity-v101b.apk) and load it
onto your device.
This ... is
On 24 March 2012 23:16, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:
Does anyone know what kind of experiments we're talking about?
Only those who read to the top of the thread. (Article feedback tool,
new article wizard, etc.)
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing
On 23 March 2012 20:13, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
Every article on a non extinct animal species is a somewhat viable and
useful goal (and it keeps us one step ahead of web of life)
Goodness yes. My 4yo loves videos of animals, and there's e.g. just
about no fish that can be filmed that
On 22 March 2012 08:37, En Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote:
First, has anyone thought about automatically adding a welcome message to the
user’s talk page when they first register, not only for EN but also for
Commons, Simple, and other projects?
Is there any evidence anyone reads the
On 22 March 2012 10:47, En Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote:
Your tone comes across as harsh.
I believe this is actually an objection to the content of my post
rather than its formatting.
Do you have any positive suggestions about how to improve editor retention?
This is evidence you
On 22 March 2012 10:56, En Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote:
Why would you not want to provide people guidance before they've made their
first edit, and why not provide them some encouragement to edit in a welcome
message?
Because in practice, new editors don't read them - they think the
On 22 March 2012 15:39, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote:
I can't say I find that a particularly exciting prospect. Especially
not, as perhaps I wrongly conjure from context given by this
discussion, video shot on mobile phones.
I'm picturing wonky-cam, shakey footage that someone has
On 21 March 2012 08:17, Jürgen Fenn schneeschme...@googlemail.com wrote:
I wonder whether we should rather use our strength in users' demand in
order to make pressure on manufacturers to support free-software
codecs than adopting the costly and patented codecs. I mean, it's not
only about
On 21 March 2012 22:32, Zack Exley zex...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Today those kinds of communications happen much more rarely. My hunch is
that templates caused that. Now, we just leave template messages instead of
writing a personal note about a specific edit.
And it turns out the new editors
On 22 March 2012 00:11, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Can you show an example of a user making his or her 10th, 100th, or 1000th
high quality edit who's being blanketed with impersonal warnings? I don't
understand this phenomenon, though it sounds fascinating.
I'm around the hundred
This is a drastic policy change that affects all projects, and so
needs wider discussion than just wikitech-l.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Brion Vibber br...@pobox.com
Date: 20 March 2012 01:24
Subject: [Wikitech-l] Video codecs and mobile
To: Wikimedia developers
On 20 March 2012 18:39, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
On 20 March 2012 18:24, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
(The SEO people are correct that Wikipedia has a high Google ranking,
and correct that this is something of an odd skew on Google's part.
What always amuses me is
On 20 March 2012 20:02, Lars Aronsson l...@aronsson.se wrote:
I'm not opposed to trying H.264, but I doubt it will solve our problem,
which is that we have too few videos.
The category:Videos from Sweden (an early adopter market) is now at
110 files, which is a ridiculously small number. It
On 14 March 2012 00:22, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been asked to write a short editorial about this development from
a Wikipedian's perspective and am curious about (and would love to
include) other Wikimedian experiences -- did you use print
encyclopedias as a kid? Was a
On 14 March 2012 07:33, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com wrote:
I did use a very old konversationslexikon as a child, mainly for the
pictures. With our children this got replaced now by online resources. And
no, not by wikipedia, but by YouTube. And every time I spend 15 minutes to
On 14 March 2012 05:16, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote:
I will actually look for a copy of the 15th edition (for sentimental
reasons) to buy before they get too rare and too expensive :D Of course I
will miss it! If Britannica is gone we will need to start printing
Wikipedia ;-)
I see
On 14 March 2012 12:50, Michael Peel michael.p...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
On 14 Mar 2012, at 12:21, Russavia wrote:
Interesting news indeed.
Lead's one to wonder when WMF will launch it's first printed
encyclopaedia. Perhaps a 2013 Citation Needed edition is in the works?
Something like
On 12 March 2012 12:28, Richard Symonds
richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
deepest parts of the US bible belt, and areas such as Pakistan and India,
which have sizeable English-speaking populations and a very strong religious
vein. With such a diverse worldwide readership on one language,
On 12 March 2012 13:55, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
When you consider that the current proposal is for a system where it takes
one click to see something anyway, I do think the notion that something is
not knowable is over the top.
The rationale is problematic: to
On 12 March 2012 20:24, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
I'm tired to reply to this kind of comments since I said anything important
multiple times already. So I will keep it as that and only write the
following:
Sorry, but your comments are total bullshit¹ and you know
On 12 March 2012 02:52, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
There are a number of sections touching on Wikimedia, notably those
beginning on the following pages:
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/joint-committees/Privacy_and_Injunctions/JCPIWrittenEvWeb.pdf#page=425
Written by you and
On 11 March 2012 11:19, Robert Alvarez vez...@gmail.com wrote:
I see at least two current Arbcom members posting there quite recently and
even responding to requests of banned users to do things on their behalf on
Wikipedia (such as John Vandenberg working for Edward Buckner).
Editing on
On 10 March 2012 14:18, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
People creating articles by clicking on redlinks are not as a general
rule a significant issue.
That appears to be a numerical claim. Do we have numbers?
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
On 10 March 2012 14:54, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
Not that I'm aware of but if you follow special:newpages for any
length of time you will notice a tendency for the problematical
articles to be orphans. After all a redlink generally means that at
least one other person has thought that
On 10 March 2012 14:58, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 March 2012 14:54, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
Not that I'm aware of but if you follow special:newpages for any
length of time you will notice a tendency for the problematical
articles to be orphans. After all a redlink
On 10 March 2012 22:15, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
The image filter may not be a good solution, but too much of the
response involves saying we're fine, we're neutral, we don't need to
do anything and leaving it there; this isn't the case, and we do need
to think seriously
On 9 March 2012 13:52, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
So what you're saying is, you feel confident that everyone agrees with you,
and thus perfectly comfortable speaking on behalf of the entire community?
I see.
I thought he was noting the observation that when the Board and staff
tried to
On 9 March 2012 14:50, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
Partly because it is the low hanging fruit (i.e. the thing that will have
the most impact in forwarding our goals of accessible knowledge).
Citation needed.
- d.
___
2012/3/7 Juliana da Costa José julianadacostaj...@googlemail.com:
so it would be not longer possible too, to have medical pictures f.e. from
surgeries, organs or corpses, because they could frighten people?
Knowledge is an inherently frightening thing, as is the prospect of
other people
On 7 March 2012 22:41, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
WMF is looking to work together with lots of mainstream organisations, from
the British Museum to the Smithsonian. But this kind of curation of adult
content is an embarrassment for the Wikimedia Foundation, and a potential
On 8 March 2012 07:13, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 3:00 AM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
So, yeah, things are on hold essentially because there are more urgent
things to do, and because given the rather extraordinary scale of the
On 5 March 2012 17:07, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 11:32 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
You do realise this has become a toxic electoral issue for the board,
with people who voted twice for the resolution now backpedalling?
Just for the record
On 5 March 2012 22:07, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 March 2012 20:40, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect a court would hold that the set of cakes is disjoint from the
set of objects on permanent display, and thus that a photograph of cake
can never benefit from
On 5 March 2012 18:21, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
There are people in this movement who are happy with this status quo, and
who say they will fork if anything changes.
Let them.
You have that backwards. You are demanding the board enact something
precisely because the
On 6 March 2012 00:57, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, in my opinion I haven't given much indication of what I
personally think on the issue at all, as I often explicitly ignored
speculation about my own personal views or motivations whether it was
right or wrong. I *have*
On 4 March 2012 13:11, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Wikimedia Commons has the potential to become a central repository of
creative commons content. There are a large number of other sites running
Mediawiki software to partner with. If we could either host their images or
allow users
http://blog.opendigital.org/2012/03/crowdsourcerequest-for-feedback-review.html
They're trying to compile a suitable response to the Hargreaves Review
of copyright in the UK. Wikimedia's name is dropped. It's clearly a
draft, further ideas and detail working out will be helpful.
- d.
On 5 March 2012 05:03, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
I am sorry to say that unless you are prepared to put your foot down, and
represent the tens of thousands of people who expressed their views in the
(admittedly suboptimal) referendum, you risk becoming an irrelevancy – in
exactly
On 1 March 2012 10:23, Strainu strain...@gmail.com wrote:
If names are that important for you, go ahead and rename foundation-l,
but there is really no need for yet another list.
+1
Adding a new list would be largely redundant.
- d.
___
On 1 March 2012 16:30, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
The rename would likely occur by unsubscribing current members from
this list and re-subscribing them to the new one, to avoid breaking
links or accidentally corrupting archives -- meaning that list
archives pre-move would be
https://twitter.com/#!/tommorris/status/173557756882722816
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 22 February 2012 13:29, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
However I am interested in whether you have a specific idea of what you
would change? Can you express a reason for why using the published test is
a poor signal?
It produces a rich crop of both false positives and
On 22 February 2012 03:04, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:35 PM, George Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
The post-facto probability of 1.0 that the researcher was in fact
professional, credible, and by all accounts right does not mean that a
priori he
On 16 February 2012 11:27, John Du Hart compwhi...@gmail.com wrote:
Is this really something to get upset over? It's not as if he was calling
you stupid, he simply misspelled your name (shortened it, really).
People's own names are extremely important to them.
- d.
On 13 February 2012 14:29, marcos tal_t...@yahoo.es wrote:
There is a simpler solution: to dissolve the current structure of chapters
and to leave everything in hands of the magnificent professionals of San
Francisco...
This is effectively how fundraising now works.
- d.
On 9 February 2012 09:04, n...@thebabbages.com wrote:
I guess my concern is that it may encourage readers to type in suggestions
and take it no further rather than take the next step and begin editing
themselves.
At present, the average reader doesn't even fix typos.
Definitely
On 7 February 2012 17:03, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
He's been doing it for years and has never screwed up badly enough for the
community to take the job away from him. It's as simple as that. The
Wikipedia community can be uncharacteristically pragmatic at times!
I note
On 3 February 2012 12:57, Florence Devouard anthe...@yahoo.com wrote:
I do not know if Phoebe would have been community elected or not. She did
not try. I can only guess that if she were not chosen this year by chapters,
she could very well be community elected in the future because she is
On 1 February 2012 17:12, Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org wrote:
could you perhaps elaborate how exactly the Free Knowledge would benifit
from boycotting non-OA journals? (Not meant sarcastic, I really want to
know)
Also, how would you imagine such support? I could imagine that with any
Under SOPN, all copyrighted material which is not licensed under
creative commons or public domain or an equally free and liberal
license (collectively called public) should be banned from the
Internet. By removing all such material which is not publicly
licensed, SOPN will kill piracy with one
On 24 January 2012 14:47, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe is a stupid question, but who is this guy?
No-one in particular. I just thought it amusing and apposite :-)
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
On 24 January 2012 15:31, David Richfield davidrichfi...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe implement a subreddit schema and some way to create a subreddit
for each article? I don't know what Conde Nast's nastiness level is,
though.
The Reddit code is open source. Apparently takes more than a little
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/01/23/1725231/carl-malamud-answers-goading-the-government-to-make-public-data-public
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
On 21 January 2012 22:57, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
David, I'm a bit surprised that you think a policy that includes the
language Sexual language and imagery is not appropriate for any conference
venue or talks. is a good idea. I think it'd be difficult to have a
discussion about
On 22 January 2012 21:43, Yao Ziyuan yaoziy...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello All,
I just filed a feature request which I think is of strategic interest
to Wikipedia:
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33889
Similar to the Opinions tab on Wikinews. Could be interesting. Would
need to be
On 22 January 2012 23:39, Svip svi...@gmail.com wrote:
The name 'talk page' is also a terrible name and very ambiguous as to
what it is. A far more appropriate candidate for such a page's name
would be 'collaboration page', 'work page', 'improvement page' and so
on.
English Wikinews calls
On 22 January 2012 23:50, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
So we will put a few fallback datacenters elsewhere, just so our
various communities and chapters realize we aren't going to be
bullied by US jurisdiction.
AIUI setting up the new Virginia datacentre took
On 20 January 2012 22:19, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
Would it make sense to create some kind of a local mirror of Wikimedia
Projects to facilitate participate in such areas? Creating a data
center in every such place would probably not be cost-effective, but
maybe
On 19 January 2012 02:27, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
It sounds like the Foundation was more organized about it than the
community, and didn't reach out to push early enough. I understand
the desire not to be seen to be leading the community around, but it
seems to have
On 19 January 2012 02:27, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 6:02 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
The community en.wp decision is separate, but it was also nuanced, and
so I don't think it's true that all these issues were bulldozed,
within
On 19 January 2012 17:15, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
The question is, do you plan to migrate the major search engines and DNS
servers? If so, then migration might help.
Come the SOPAcalypse, the DNS root will fragment. I wonder if Google
will break itself up for the purpose.
- d.
On 19 January 2012 17:26, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Point of information: - are proposals mooted for an alternative DNS root?
Presumably, since satellite proposals exist and those are even more radical.
There are many existing alternate roots. I suspect it would break into
national or
On 18 January 2012 05:04, Chris Lee theornamental...@gmail.com wrote:
The Learn More link at en.wp is blocked too.
Works fine for me (and I can read about SOPA and PIPA too), but I've
seen a couple of reports of it not working.
- d.
___
On 18 January 2012 08:03, Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com wrote:
Just a foreigner sidenote: we got the notice about SOPA and PIPA which
does not start by defining, or even linking to what SOPA and PIPA
is, what they are shorthand for, and background if anoone wants. It
could be (should be)
On 18 January 2012 08:26, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
Why is the mobile site operational for English Wikipedia?
The herd of cats wanted it that way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Action
Provisions for emergency access to the site should be included in the
On 18 January 2012 08:58, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
the emergency access should be at a different location.
mobile users should not be privileged.
Yeah, I thought it was a bit silly too. But I think we can live with it.
- d.
___
On 18 January 2012 09:16, Zugravu Gheorghe zugravu.gheor...@gmail.com wrote:
apparently if you disable java in your browser - you have normal access
to en:wp!
JavaScript, not Java :-)
It's not a hard, secure block. Basically it's a black, full-page ad
banner. Think of Wikipedia Blackout as
On 18 January 2012 13:46, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway, sorry, I've made rather a pig's ear of what was meant to be
some light coverage of UK Twitter responses to the blackout. I shall
post no more on the subject.
Heck no, this is useful :-)
- d.
On 18 January 2012 23:08, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/technology/web-protests-piracy-bill-and-2-
key-senators-change-course.html?_r=1nl=afternoonupdateemc=aua2
Call me churlish, but I find it difficult to assume good faith in
Orrin Hatch
On 17 January 2012 15:50, Minh Huy (WMF) minhhuyw...@gmail.com wrote:
Vietnamese Wikipedia community is planning to show banner on 18/1.
Similar to ItalianWiki, GermanyWiki, and Commons.
See
On 16 January 2012 14:08, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
WMIT is interested, too, because the board has decided to move the
semi-free and PD-Italy content hosted on biblioteca.wikimedia.it to
wikilivres and we'd like Canada to be still able to host it...
PD-Italy is broader
On 16 January 2012 17:31, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote:
WMF reply to this thread
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Field_cricket_Gryllus_pennsylvanicus.ogg
Step 1 was not taken yet.
As I noted, you want it to happen, you would be the person to write the post.
- d.
On 16 January 2012 19:27, Dan Collins en.wp.s...@gmail.com wrote:
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/204167-sopa-shelved-until-consensus-is-found
The House decided they're going to stop bothering with this bill for a
while, so while we should continue to think about what we
On 16 January 2012 18:40, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote:
If I write that post, I will post it on my blog. Making WMF work is not my
interest. My interest is to remark the biased behaviour of them and post
some suggestions.
Handy hint for the future: this is volunteer land. If you really want
On 16 January 2012 20:21, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote:
But I know what I have to do the next time I see a dangerous cultural
situation that need help. I won't give a damn.
If you post about it in a manner that doesn't come across like an
abusive idiot, you may get further. It's worth a
On 14 January 2012 10:58, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
I'm seeing a rough consensus for action on English Wikipedia, and
German Wikipedians seem to be up for acting in solidarity, but, as
I've said on the page on enwiki, I don't see how enwiki consensus for
a SOPA action ought to bind
On 10 January 2012 20:57, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote:
It would be lovely if each of the new hires could guest post on the
Foundation blog and/or write a page for Signpost once they've settled
in and let us know what their average day is like and some insight
into what they're
On 8 January 2012 09:09, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
Structural help is not Wikimedia's task [yet]. There are a lot of
other institutions which could give them money for daily operations or
artifacts preservation and not require from them knowledge liberation.
In other words, it's
On 8 January 2012 18:19, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the clarification. Yes we at Wikmedia Canada we had
discussed starting a Wikisource north of the border due to the
benefits of our copyright law. I will send this out to some of our
members to see if anyone is
On 7 January 2012 16:53, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote:
It is sure that LOC is in the top priorities for Americans, and the BNL for
Serbians, don't you think so? Thanks for showing your patent chauvinism.
Funding disputes can be sorted out in the same fashion SOPA disputes, if
agents work to
On 7 January 2012 20:12, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote:
The Historical Museum of Bosnia and Herzegovina holds 400,000 artifacts.
Any National Cultural Institution closing is a disaster.
Yes, it is. So what's the game plan?
- d.
___
foundation-l
On 7 January 2012 21:13, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure. If the WMF goals are to collect/preserve/disseminate
educational content, they can start with the holdings in endangered
cultural institutions. It is not my work, but some suggestions, from low to
high involvement:
* blog
On 31 December 2011 12:01, Fae fae...@gmail.com wrote:
Full agreement with geni here. Blinking banners are against the spirit of
the Wikipedia Manual of Style. If this is not clear in the banner
guidelines then this needs to be made explicit.
Indeed. Inspiring people to install AdBlock may
On 31 December 2011 14:58, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm pretty sure I raised both these concerns last year when you ran
similar banners and they were never addressed other than to say that
such banners raise a lot of money (which is the point - they are
misleading people
On 24 December 2011 11:23, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:
So, to reply to Liam's point first - no, that's not the real reason,
that's something that I, personally, think should be taken into account as
a secondary consideration; as said, I've emailed people asking for more
concrete
On 24 December 2011 11:55, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
I freely admit I was being a bit flippant. But that was just because I knew
I was in the right. Let us put it this succintly: Being passive aggressive
rather than aggressive about the way things are allowed as valid
On 24 December 2011 17:10, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
I do not think the aims of the mechanism are wrong. But I *do* think the
mechanism itself and any attempts to fashion such in a universe of human
beings is totally and fundamentally disrespectful towards reality. That
On 24 December 2011 17:45, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm quite keen on the idea of a free-form comment box accessible to
those wanting to edit. It's much more accessible article feedback than
the same from OTRS.
I dunno, like a talk page, perhaps?
You might think
On 24 December 2011 18:01, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 7:57 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
You might think so, but readers (pretty much) don't know those exist,
and never mind the tab at the top. (They pretty much don't know the
history
On 23 December 2011 15:30, John Du Hart compwhi...@gmail.com wrote:
This is currently on the reddit front page
http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/nnv9l/wikipediaorg_is_with_godaddy_jimmy_if_youre/
Why we're using GoDaddy in the first place is beyond me, surely there's
better options
On 23 December 2011 19:20, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
http://twitter.com/#!/jimmy_wales/status/150287579642740736
GoDaddy have backed down -
http://www.godaddy.com/newscenter/release-view.aspx?news_item_id=378 -
but it's too
... it's too bloody late.
- d
On 23 December 2011 19:25, Platonides platoni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/12/11 16:30, John Du Hart wrote:
This is currently on the reddit front page
http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/nnv9l/wikipediaorg_is_with_godaddy_jimmy_if_youre/
Everybody there seem to know whatever evil
On 20 December 2011 01:16, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
Under your metric, in this scenario, the edits of a sysop and an
experienced user, or later the WikiProject editors, would not be
chosen as the high-quality stable version.
Yao did in fact mention that other factors would need
On 18 December 2011 12:38, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
Ok. I understand that. Maybe I am getting upset over nothing, but when
it comes to shutting down people who copy small clips and snippets
from movies, it seems that the industry also shows no mercy.
It would be
On 14 December 2011 16:46, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
You can call me an idealist -- if there are still some taking passengers at
this late hour. I was in fact referring to the problem of our legal counsel
expressing a view that it is to WMF favor to have laws that make
1 - 100 of 999 matches
Mail list logo
