On 10 December 2011 11:38, James Farrar james.far...@gmail.com wrote:
Here's the thing.
Banner adverts are bad.
Sometimes they're necessary (the fundraiser being the most obvious
example, but other get involved with Wikipedia/WMF/chapters stuff
qualifies) - but when they're not, they
Our own internal discussions have long reflected on the unfriendliness and
undue bureaucracy of Wikipedia. Generally we're good at the trade-off but
if we start claiming with a straight face that it's benign rather than a
necessary evil we'll have lost something important.
While the complainant
If an article is bloated with links or templates just remove the clutter.
On Nov 11, 2011 7:33 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:36 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
On 09/11/11 22:29, Peter Jacobi wrote:
Perhaps the usefulness of
On 11 December 2011 14:13, Tony Sidaway tonysida...@gmail.com wrote:
Our own internal discussions have long reflected on the unfriendliness and
undue bureaucracy of Wikipedia. Generally we're good at the trade-off but
if we start claiming with a straight face that it's benign rather than a
Creative Commons is beginning the process of revising their suite of
licenses, with the goal of having a 4.0 version by the end of 2012:
https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/30676
They have a set of goals, including better internationalization,
better interoperability with other licenses,
On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 15:01:33 +, Charles Matthews wrote:
That said, I deprecate getting design issues mixed up with others. The
use of emotive terms such as cold and unfriendly implies things about
intention and fault that aren't exactly helpful. I don't know whether
arguing that WP is sui
