2008/11/16 Marc Riddell [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
David, are you content with the overall picture the (English) Wikipedia is
presenting today? Do you believe it has enough stability, structure and
strong leadership to sustain it?
I believe I've answered before in threads on this list on this topic
2008/11/26 Nathan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If our response to coordinated student editing is dismissive or punitive,
and it often is, then we should not be encouraging educators to assign it to
their students.
It depends on the quality of the assignment they give. I liked this
one because it was
2008/11/27 Michael Everson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
We haven't proposed that. We proposed Ireland (state).
That has a slight smell of neologism - is the term used anywhere
outside Wikipedia?
At least Republic of Ireland is something it's called in an official
document on the state's formation.
2008/10/21 David Gerard [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
How long until there's an entry on [[Citation needed]]?
http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Anatomii-of-a-Hack.aspx
And another!
http://www.cracked.com/article_16822_p2.html
Cracked.com have long been Wikipedia fans, of course:
http://www.cracked.com
For anyone interested. The IP address checks out to National Chengchi
University.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Joanne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2008/11/18
Subject: **JUNK** About Participate in Wikipedia - contributing.
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dear friend,
We are conducting a
2008/12/6 Gregory Maxwell [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
They stopped being so useful after enwp increased the account
requirements to be able to upload, which is why they haven't been
placed in many articles lately. :(
I'll start placing them in articles again if at least a few others
will do so as
It's now mainstream. IWF representative to be present. I look forward
to dropping in the line Wikipedia smells of hammers. ([[Brass Eye]])
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
I think the BBC make everything available on their site for a week.
Someone recording it and putting up an ogg would be nice!
2008/12/7 John Reaves [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Will this be available online anywhere (either as a live stream or
archived)?
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 10:31 AM, David Gerard
2008/12/8 Tim Starling [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The poor woman clearly didn't know the difference between a URL and a web
page. Most likely the same can be said about the IWF staff member who
listed those two pages.
Apparently their guidance is to routinely block the page containing
an image as
2008/12/8 Durova [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The point is that this group goes around preventing other people from
accessing this or that, and neither the website nor the visitors get a fair
notification. The way they handled this one was loopy, and if Wikipedia
didn't have such heavy traffic it
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/music/article2016131.ece
(no, no breasts)
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/dec/09/wikipedia-censorship-iwf-reconsiders
This is apparently the *first* IWF decision *ever* to require review.
My prediction: they've been turned to mincemeat every media interview
they've done on the subject, we've looked like stars. Everyone
2008/12/11 Judson Dunn cohes...@sleepyhead.org:
After seeing the diff linked, and the fact that this is the Tori Amos
article, yes, I think your audience/local-editorship for this article
is probably significantly non-standard, more opinionated, and
motivated than most subjects. Tori fans are
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081216/full/news.2008.1312.html
What could possibly go wrong?
(Urgent outreach needed from relevant wikiprojects!)
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
2008/12/17 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
2) is heavily subject to the heckler's veto; someone who's either out to
cause trouble or (more likely) simply too anal and literal-minded about
rules says I'm sorry, I don't accept that and forces you to take it out.
Completely at random.
2008/12/19 The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com:
This looks like a genuinely positive experiment that could lead to very good
results.
Indeed. I'm mostly worried about the possibilities for Olympic-scale
n00b-biting.
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:ContributionHistory?offset=1229706463#181059
Spotted by Cary Bass, noted on his Twitter (bastique).
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/caitlin_moran/article5371572.ece
I think she's saying that, given a wiki page to edit, everyone turns
into an incredibly tedious nerd. (I know I do.)
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
2008/12/21 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkb...@gmail.com:
I'm an incredibly tedious nerd in real life, so that saves time.
Me talking to Press Association last year:
Me: We're basically a bunch of nerds who think writing an
encyclopedia is *really cool fun*.
Journalist: Nerds? You call
2008/12/22 WODUP wikiwo...@gmail.com:
The article says The most notable instance of this was on the night Barack
Obama won the American election. I found that his entire, detailed entry
disappeared for nearly an hour - to be replaced with the one-line entry,
Barack Obama is the new SOCIALIST
Rather than comparing a convenient online copy of Wikipedia to a paper
copy of Britannica -0 of their readers have access to, or a
deliberately-annoying Britannica website (see
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-December/048231.html
and thread), they compared it to the other
2008/12/23 Wilhelm Schnotz wilh...@nixeagle.org:
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Judson Dunn cohes...@sleepyhead.org
wrote:
That's good news, thanks for doing this research! I bet there's some
confusion abotu what
w00t!
Perhaps we can do a data dump of .au localities as well to be combed
through by en:wp editors ...
(no, NOT making rambot articles automatically, human consideration ;-)
- d.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Jessica Coates j2.coa...@qut.edu.au
Date: 2008/12/23
Subject:
2008/12/24 Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net:
Yes. A threat to a competitor's own self-interests can be a great
motivator to promote Wikipedia's low image. It's comparable to the oil
industry's perception of global warming.
It's worked for Britannica and Brockhaus! Oh, wait.
- d.
2008/12/25 geni geni...@gmail.com:
Brockhaus never really tried and Britannica is pretty half hearted to
the point there not even really the go to people when the media want
an anti-wikipedia comment any more.
Yes, I've noticed it getting ad-hoc.
No academic publishing has a
highly
2008/12/25 geni geni...@gmail.com:
2008/12/25 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
At this point the prudent move for us is to do nothing and continue to
exist. Which has actually worked out surprisingly well for us so far.
We've never run into anyone significant who's first reaction is to run
2008/12/26 John Reaves johnreave...@gmail.com:
So it comes down to whether or not we care more about a positive PR image or
being able to maintain an encyclopedia without disruption and harassment
from one of the biggest idiots we've ever had? I know what my choice would
be...
I'm
2008/12/26 wjhon...@aol.com:
In a message dated 12/26/2008 8:19:49 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
gmaxw...@gmail.com writes:
Wtf go look in jstor- they happily assert copyright on hundreds of
thousands of pre 1928 pd documents.
WTF? WTF?
Ok wtf back at ya. I call your bluff and raise you.
2008/12/26 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2008/12/26 wjhon...@aol.com:
WTF? WTF?
Ok wtf back at ya. I call your bluff and raise you.
I can also assert hundreds of statements for which I can offer no evidence.
So piss off with your attitude. And merry christmas !
Now let's see some
2008/12/26 wjhon...@aol.com:
OMG...
THIS is what you are screaming about?
Silly silly silly boy.
They DO have a copyright to the PHOTOGRAPH you bazooka.
They do NOT have a copyright to the plain text.
*Throws up hands*
Next non-issue please.
You cannot copy their IMAGE, you can copy the
2008/12/26 wjhon...@aol.com:
If I take a picture of the Declaration of Independence under glass at the
National Archives, I gain a copyright to my image. That does NOT give me a
copyright to the actual underlying document that I've imaged. If I take a
picture of the Lincoln Memorial, I
This is old, but still true:
http://www.well.com/~doctorow/metacrap.htm
Apply to our category tree, interwiki links etc.
Thankfully Wikipedia does better than the whole wide Internet.
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To
2008/12/28 wjhon...@aol.com:
All of that is primary source material. Your opinion about a source is a
primary source.
A secondary source isn't merely an opinion piece about a primary source.
That is, creating an opinion article, doesn't mean you are now creating a
secondary source.
2008/12/28 Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net:
Yeah, I'm still bitter about spoiler warnings, but perhaps they should be a
lesson. Wikipedia is a game of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomic .
Yes, because them being (a) clearly stupid in too many cases (b)
clearly original research to declare as
2008/12/29 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
I can point to articles that source statements and claims to Tolkien's
letters, or quotes from those letters. The articles should probably,
more technically, point to secondary literature that uses those
letters as a source, but there always
2008/12/29 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:10 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Please get to WT:NOR promptly.
Will you and Phil (and others) join me? :-)
Already there, and trying to discuss it with people who would rather
break 3RR with blind
2008/12/29 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkb...@gmail.com:
See also my comments on the on-wiki discussion of semiprotecting BLPs and
related issues, where I present a string of basic facts and assumptions that
color my view of this and related matters.
Flagged revs would solve many more
2008/12/29 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com:
If we permit opt out, we will have a situation where we have, for all
medium-level people who are somewhat less than famous, favorable bios
only. There is no possible way to have both NPOV content and
subjects owning the articles on themselves.
2008/12/30 Brock Weller brock.wel...@gmail.com:
Have you tried just removing the ridiculous clause that creates this
'paradox'?
Indeed. It got edit-warred back by someone so dedicated they got 3RRed for it.
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
2008/12/30 George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com:
encyclopedia to go fuck with us using the same logic. In retrospect, I
would probably not have fought the auto-revert campaign approach, but I
should have thrown a fit about this on policy boards and hauled a bunch of
you up to Arbcom for
2008/12/31 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com:
I still find it really surprising that people who purport to write useful
columns and articles, even if its blogging and not mainstream news, do such
piss poor research. If it were me, I'd be embarrassed to have written
something that demonstrates such a
2008/12/31 Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com:
That is A definition of right and wrong, you're saying that the
wikipedia is more important than individuals. You're valuing the
wikipedia more than them. That's your right. But it's also his right
to value individuals above the wikipedia.
2009/1/1 Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net:
Phil, I have been pushing back for the three years that I have been here.
And it is worse now than when I came. And a great part of the problem is
that the leadership that does exist here appears to condone the current
thinking. I believe it
http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2009/01/new-guidelines-for-jbl-contributors-publish-in-wikipedia-or-perish.html
Similar journals are apparently likely to do the same.
So. When will this become standard?
- d.
___
WikiEN-l
2009/1/2 Michael Bimmler mbimm...@gmail.com:
I made this up, of course, but not entirely. A journal of molecular
biology has revised its submission guidelines such that acceptance is
conditional upon simultaneous wikification of the submitted research.
Go here for a report and preliminary
2009/1/2 Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net:
on 1/2/09 12:18 PM, Phil Sandifer at snowspin...@gmail.com wrote:
Currently the discussion is proving how deeply pathological the anti-
specialist bias is, with the suggestions being made, in all
seriousness, that no sources that require
2009/1/5 White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.n...@gmail.com:
I hope everyone is okay with the mass purging of unimportant articles in
bulk quantities. Just wanted to point out the obvious. You can now return to
whatever you were doing.
2009/1/6 Carl Beckhorn cbeckh...@fastmail.fm:
The idea that these sources should be avoided entirely would simply be
silly. The idea that it's better to avoid primary sources entirely is more
applicable when primary source means blog post.
And even then that can be just silly. e.g. [[EXA]] -
2009/1/8 wjhon...@aol.com:
Whether or not Geni's interpretation of this particular point is on-target
is tied as well to our current blatant disregard for mirrors which do not even
link to the history page in the first place. I mentioned that a while back
and since then I know of nothing
http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2009/01/bullshit_blue_monday.html
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/1/10 toddmallen toddmal...@gmail.com:
He might also choose to blog about his dog. That doesn't mean we
should have an article on that either.
This is the hairdresser argument and it's intrinsically inane.
That you are being deliberately dense is not a reason to play up to you.
- d.
2009/1/12 wjhon...@aol.com:
Well your querulous and idiotic is someone else's attempt to ensure the
source is reliable.
Well, not really. If they don't believe a given item can have reliable
sources - the sort of rabid nutters who brag about deletion tallies on
their user pages - then they
-- Forwarded message --
From: WikiGeist wikige...@365capita.org
Date: 2009/1/13
Subject: [Wikitech-l] WikiGeist: Wikipedia equivalent of Google's Hot Trends
To: wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org
Hi,
Just completed a project using the Wikipedia page counters made available by
*Domas
2009/1/14 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
cleanup is not an AfD result I've ever seen. It has been a
long-standing axiom as far as I can remember that AfD is not cleanup.
What *can* happen is someone closes as keep or no consensus, and then
*adds* their opinion (or that of others)
2009/1/14 Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net:
That's an unrealistic expectation. How long has it taken to build up
this list of 8200 articles? While the GA/FA has its usefulness, it is
not scalable nor equal to the task of being a general rating mechanism.
Particularly as the FAC regulars
2009/1/15 Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net:
Yes, there will be some individuals determined to vote stupidly, but one
of the wonders of a statistical approach is that those efforts are soon
marginalized.
Just ignoring the top and bottom 10% of ratings can do wonders for
this sort of thing,
2009/1/17 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
A noble aim, and I wish you luck. The problem you will face, I think,
is in being sufficiently better to encourage people to read your
encyclopaedia despite it being significantly less comprehensive than
Wikipedia. Without readers, you will
2009/1/18 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
What makes you think it's more classy than it appears? They do bitch
about Wikipedia constantly, it's not the journalists twisting things.
Yes, but journalists do push the story when it's not warranted (saying
nice things about CZ along the
2009/1/19 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
Indeed, but competition is good so I wish them all the best, even if
the challenge before them may turn out to be impossible.
Oh yeah. Enough people complain that Wikipedia and/or its community is
hopelessly broken that there's got to be more
2009/1/22 Keith Old keith...@gmail.com:
In a move to take on Wikipedia, the *Encyclopedia Britannica* is inviting
the hoi polloi to edit, enhance and contribute to its online version.
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/22/1336241
I found this anonymous Slashdot comment
Proposed trial:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Flagged_revisions/Trial
The voting page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Flagged_revisions/Trial/Votes
Closes Fri 24 Jan at 24:00! (I guess that's Sat Jan 25, 00:00.)
- d.
___
2009/1/26 William King williamcarlk...@gmail.com:
The BBC has an article on the Flagged Revisions controversy:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7851400.stm
Apparently they called Michael Peel of WMUK but didn't use the comment ...
- d.
___
FWIW, I did a radio interview yesterday about flagged revisions, on
Chris Evans' show on BBC Radio 2:
http://neurolysis.blogspot.com/2009/01/david-gerard-on-chris-evans-bbc-radio-2.html
(cheers to Chris Down for the transcript)
Hopefully I set out the controversy neutrally and accurately
2009/2/9 The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com:
Mandated regulations for forcing politeness generally don't work well. If
you don't trust people to have common sense, they won't exercise it.
I don't either. However, it was interesting to note KPBotany's claims
in the WT:ACN thread that en:wp is
2009/2/9 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
To pick another example. The reference desks (which I think are great)
are technically a bit divorced from the encyclopedia building, but I
think are a legitimate side operation, especially when article do
(sometimes) get improved as a result.
2009/2/9 Phil Nash pn007a2...@blueyonder.co.uk:
Personally, I'm usually the fourth person, totally boggled as to why people
care about Celebrity Come Dancing in the slightest, as an unconstructive
intersection of two concepts lacking in long-term cultural significance,
I have a fake news
2009/2/11 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
2009/2/11 David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com:
It might be reasonable for all active admins for whom there is not an
AfD to be reconfirmed.
You mean RfA, yes? I think it's perfectly reasonable to invoke the
principle of time immemorial and not
2009/2/11 Scientia Potentia est bibliomaniac...@yahoo.com:
Carcharoth: In fact we do have quite a few mailing list admins around. These
include: Pierre Abbat, Brion VIBBER, Robert Merkel, Manning Bartlett, Vicki
Rosenzweig, Bryan Derksen, Taw, AxelBoldt, The Cunctator, Magnus Manske, Tim
2009/2/11 geni geni...@gmail.com:
2009/2/11 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
I have occasionally referred to some of our more common-sense disabled
editors as Turing Test failures ...
Which is a bit of a problem if you want to have credibility addressing
a civility issues.
Well, I don't
http://www.futureofthebook.org/blog/archives/2009/02/wikipedia_before_wikipedia.html
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/2/12 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com:
In other words if you're worried about the admin body as a whole, you
wouldn't ask the question about how can I get rid of X? but is there
any control of the admins as a whole? We currrently have desysopping
that goes on a worst-case
2009/2/13 Al Tally majorly.w...@googlemail.com:
Often people don't know they're having a bad day, and may respond more
harshly than they would normally. Not their fault, it's human nature.
There's also people's tendency to be liberal in what they send out and
conservative in what they accept.
-- Forwarded message --
From: P. Birken pbir...@gmail.com
Date: 2009/2/15
Subject: [Foundation-l] Flagged Revisions, Report on german WP
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org
Hiho,
there have been some significant developments on de-WP, which I
2009/2/16 Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net:
on 2/15/09 6:57 PM, wjhon...@aol.com at wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Really? And by saying that *I* am a big part of the problem are you
instituting a personal attack on me?
Are you being incivil and therefore taking a hypocritical position?
Ask
2009/2/16 wjhon...@aol.com:
Marc I will not continue the discussion with you, until you apologize for
stating that I was a big part of the problem.
I find that remark highly offensive and a personal attack. That you
apparently don't see that seems relatively curious to me.
Not in the
2009/2/16 George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com:
We've picked off a lot of low hanging fruit, approaching all of it. Things
We've picked up all the fruit that's actually on the ground with neon
signs pointing to it. There's lots of low hanging fruit, e.g.:
A month-ish ago, I spent a week
2009/2/17 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
If these all count as low-hanging fruit, they may have been picked,
but they haven't really ripened yet. Part of the trouble is that truly
general, overview articles are: (a) difficult to write well; and (b)
experts tend to prefer to write
2009/2/20 Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvards...@gmail.com:
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 12:38 AM, Judson Dunn cohes...@sleepyhead.org wrote:
For your comedy pleasure :)
http://xkcd.com/545/
Ahh, but Black-Hat Man hasn't anticipated our response! We'd delete
the article on grounds of notability!
2009/2/20 The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com:
Depends what event he appears at. But yes, I would expect the deletionists
to go nuts with this.
I get people calling me a radical inclusionist. This is the sorta
crap that makes *me* go mad with an axe.
- d.
2009/2/23 Ben Kovitz bkov...@acm.org:
I'm feeling pretty hot about salience at the moment. I'll take a crack
at a short essay tonight, incorporating what people have posted here.
Couldn't wait. List of topics is now here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BenKovitz/Salience
Thanks,
2009/2/24 Delirium delir...@hackish.org:
David Gerard wrote:
There was some coverage of this matter in WP:BLP - that only
noteworthy details of a noteworthy person should be included. (The
hypothetical example given is the subject having had a messy divorce -
for a minorly notable physicist
2009/2/25 Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com:
OK, at least it's not the IWF again ;-)
Heh. Wanna bet? Might be Cleanfeeding - they work by server name.
Worth seeing if anyone else here on Virgin Media cable is having
problems.
- d.
___
http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/news/digital/e3i615140fc749e4798425e1349881c51f3
Of course, at this moment it's a Twitter search on the word skittles
instead. Leading to:
http://uk.techcrunch.com/2009/03/02/skittles-the-cause-of-all-world-evil-or-just-clever-marketing/
- d.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org
Date: 2009/3/3
Subject: [Foundation-l] Attribution survey, first results
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org
Hello all,
as some of you may have seen, I've run a small survey over the
By Hakon Wium Lie of Opera:
http://www.princexml.com/howcome/2009/wikipedia/infobox/
What is the likelihood of making as much as possible CSS? How to make
infoboxes degrade gracefully for non-CSS browsers and IE users?
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
2009/3/3 Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk:
Youch, that's messy in IE7. Lovely though it may be, that 30-50% of
our audience would not be happy...
Indeed. I emailed Hakon Lie inviting his participation, but noting
that dropping even IE6, lovely as that would be, is not a happener in
the
2009/3/3 K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au:
The author has only taken in account standards compliant browsers
(Firefox, Safari, Opera to name a few) which is wrong since they are
not 100% used, i believe IE 6 which is hardly compliant in these
matters is still at 40% usage, thats just the
2009/3/3 Falcorian alex.public.account+enwikimailingl...@gmail.com:
Well, they seem to be driving plenty of traffic our way:
http://stats.grok.se/en/200902/Skittles_(confectionery)
Just think of our revenue from all these hits! ... Er, wait ...
- d.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7914828.stm
It's an article on how wonderful it is that political movements are
better documented in their formative stages these days ... but all I
could think was what a pain it can be researching anything that
happened before 1995.
After the low-hanging
2009/3/4 geni geni...@gmail.com:
Getting access to existing collections and permission to make copies
of them (county archives will generaly photocopy stuff for you but
they won't let you point a camera at the stuff) is a more significant
issue at this point.
2009/3/5 phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com:
and a decent bibliography on any topic may be one of the greatest
services Wikipedia provides in a few years.
It's one of the greatest services we provide *now*. Even when the
article prose has been turned into querulous grey mush, all but
2009/3/5 Håkon Wium Lie howc...@opera.com:
I think it's possible -- with some careful crafting -- to make things
look ok, but not pixel-perfect in legacy browsers. In lynx, the
table-free version looks better than the original one, but IE6/IE7
users outnumber lynx by a some magnitudes.
Mmm.
2009/3/9 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
This has hit petition-drive status and anything resembling a public
email address for prominent volunteers has been getting reams of
drooling illiterate rubbish on the matter. These are supposedly native
speakers of English writing. What on earth
2009/3/11 Matthew Brown mor...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 3:53 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
It's coverage in the actual media rather than blogs isn't very
widespread. It is however cheap and easy to write so there is a
significant incentive for media organisations to pick it up.
http://www.lulu.com/content/4964815
Downloadable PDF. First chapter is on Wikipedia. Ah, so *that*'s where
we got sum of human knowledge from ...
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
-- Forwarded message --
From: Bryan Tong Minh bryan.tongm...@gmail.com
Date: 2009/3/17
Subject: [Commons-l] Image moving enabled for sysops
To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List common...@lists.wikimedia.org
A quick heads up: Image moving has been enabled for sysops per
2009/3/22 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
2009/3/22 Jay Litwyn brewh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca:
http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/tools/lookup.php?domain=flickr.com
I do not like that result, because a [[phish]] artist was or is promoting a
flickr file.
I don't get what that link has to do
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7962912.stm
Primary school pupils should learn how to blog and use internet
sites like Twitter and Wikipedia and spend less time studying history,
it is claimed. A review of the primary school curriculum in England
will be published in a final report next
2009/3/25 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
I don't think the IWF will make that mistake again. I never thought
I'd see so many people being so outspokenly against a charity
dedicated to fighting child pornography!
Well, they know we can tell *instantly* when it happens. And they do
2009/3/25 wjhon...@aol.com:
That response misses the point.
This Charity operates as a black box, not only censoring but refusing to
acknowledge that their acts are hidden, unknowable and possibly arbitrary.
We need this level of censorship? No. What this charity should do, is
operate in
1 - 100 of 947 matches
Mail list logo
