Are you sure the person you are emailing understands what free licenses
are? I would include a short explanation and a link to a more detailed one.
On Apr 3, 2013 11:20 AM, Shlomi Fish shlo...@shlomifish.org wrote:
Sent this message now. Comments are welcome, after the fact, as a way to
learn
On 13 March 2013 18:15, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
The problem he apparently trying to solve is that sites like Wikipedia
and YouTube are kind of noisy. As problem statements go, it lacks a
certain specificity...
I know what he means though. The snarling nonsense we sometimes
I am rarely as enthusiastic about my ideas as I am about this
one--it's a corker.
I've never known him not be extremely enthusiatic about his ideas...
If you need to see the project before agreeing to work, and I like
you, it's no problem for me to share access to the site if you sign
the
The difference is one of intent. I dispute the claim that we often defame
people - an innocent mistake in an article is not defamation. Even if we're
a little careless to allow such mistakes, that still isn't defamation (I
think the legal threshold in most jurisdictions is recklessness).
On Nov
On Oct 7, 2012 2:44 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote:
I came across this today in the English Wikipedia:
In 2011, it has been reported that [the subject] has been caught cheating
on his wife with a 30 year old intern turned reporter.
Is this worthy of a credible
I disagree. Determining that someone had been hypocritical and therefore
their actions are more notable than they would otherwise have been is the
kind of judgement call we should be leaving to the secondary sources.
On Oct 7, 2012 3:29 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote:
I came
On 11 September 2012 17:29, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
It seems I have not posed this as a question. The question is how could
we better handle VIP subjects who give us feedback, attempt to edit
either themselves or through an agent, or contact OTRS?
For example, could we
On Sep 10, 2012 9:20 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
In reality, many businesses and individuals have filtering in place to
prevent access to pages that include certain keywords. I've sometimes
been
stymied when following a legitimate link when I'm on a computer that has
some form of
On 8 September 2012 14:16, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 September 2012 13:48, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
That is the sort of thing that happens in a monarchy like England or
North Korea, idiots in charge... something that really pissed off George
Washington.
On 8 September 2012 14:53, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
I'm older than he is. Roth is not the the first celebrity to think he
could dictate Wikipedia content. Michael Moore also felt he could throw
his weight around. And, no, I don't respect that move. Instead of
spending decades
On 19 August 2012 10:54, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
This is quite wrong, and a dangerous fallacy to promote, Thomas. To give an
example, a few months back, German Wikipedian Achim Raschka got a phone
call from the German police over his addition of a pornographic video to
the
On 19 August 2012 02:32, yutsi darthyut...@gmail.com wrote:
Under the French penal code, stocking personal details including race,
sexuality, political leanings or religious affiliation is punishable by
five-year prison sentences and fines of up to euro300,000 ($411,000).
—
www.wikitrust.net
I think that's what you're looking for.
On 10 June 2012 23:06, Alan Liefting alieft...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
On 11/06/2012 2:21 a.m., Alan Liefting wrote:
I have a vague recollection of a tool that ranks editors on longevity of
their edits. Does anyone know of such a thing?
On 31 May 2012 17:03, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
This, I think, is a major issue which make the results useless
* The edit summary implies policy knowledge, I'd only check an edit like
that on my watchlist on occasion. Not every edit needs checking, so we use
our common
On 17 May 2012 12:54, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, unless I read this wrong you are admitting to 100 random vandalisms of
Wikipedia? If so please stop your experiment now and revert any vandalisms
not yet spotted.
Indeed. Then read WP:POINT.
Conservapedia aren't a competitor. They aren't in remotely the same
business as us.
On Apr 19, 2012 11:22 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On Conservapedia, a parodist came up with this template:
They say you have to wait 2-5 days for a response after requesting changes
as though that is a bad thing. I'm very impressed with that response time.
How many commercial encyclopaedias can do better?
On Apr 18, 2012 12:48 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
PR people who edited Wikipedia
On 27 March 2012 21:39, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
My thinking is that a constructive and asymptotically approaching perfection
(hopefully as rapidly as humanly possible) way of doing a good bit of easing
of some of the tensions, would be to start compiling a list of
I think it is important to remember why we're doing this. Our purpose
isn't the judge people's notability. Our purpose is to provide useful
information to people. It is clear from the page views they get that
BLPs are useful to people. As long as there are sufficient reliable
sources to write more
On 24 March 2012 17:51, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
You're not going to get that through for general events (natural
disasters or revolutions), because they've long been heralded as one
of en:wp's great strengths.
But they *should* be one of Wikinews' greatest strengths, not
On 24 March 2012 18:18, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Wikinews suffers sufficient gatekeepers that it doesn't attract a
froth of contributors the way Wikipedia does. It could do with some
statistical and experimental loving from the Foundation, if anyone
feels up to putting a proposal
On 24 March 2012 19:42, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think it is important to remember why we're doing this. Our purpose
isn't the judge people's notability. Our purpose is to provide useful
Is that a world record for the longest biography ever written?
On 18 March 2012 18:37, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/03/scientology_sun_18.php
*cough*
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
On 17 January 2012 11:29, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
The one omission there other than the mailing list seems to have been
the Village Pumps; the first RFC was hosted on VP/Proposals, but
spamming a notice for the second RFC to the others might have been
worthwhile. Something
On 17 January 2012 13:00, K. Peachey p858sn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Katie Chan k...@ktchan.info wrote:
One can't really complain about not being inform about things if they
choose to block out one of the major channel of public notice
I'm not going to start
It's not just the freedom to know things, it's the freedom to share
your knowledge. Both are important.
On 1 January 2012 13:49, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
A remarkably succinct summary of what Wikipedia is for recently
occurred to me: freedom of knowledge; the freedom to know
On 1 January 2012 14:50, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 January 2012 14:05, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
It's not just the freedom to know things, it's the freedom to share
your knowledge. Both are important.
Yes. Though we quite definitely don't provide
Only one of those four confused users is clearly confused by a fundraising
banner. With the other three, that's just a guess. It may be a very
plausible guess, but I think we need more than guesses before we change the
way we fundraise.
On Dec 13, 2011 3:53 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net
There is an excellent story on the BBC about this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16084861
They've really understood our position on these matters. It looks like
David Gerard is responsible for helping them understand, so thank you
David!
___
On 27 November 2011 13:12, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
There is no way to create myths without knowledge. There is no way to
create fear without intolerance. There is no way to create intolerance
without ignorance. Ignorance is the cradle of creation. Knowledge is the
On 27 November 2011 01:41, K. Peachey p858sn...@gmail.com wrote:
Even with Wikipedia around: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_death
I saw a documentary recently on the BBC that all about how to build
the wings of the Boeing A380, and it talked about the wings generating
lift because the air
On Sep 16, 2011 6:35 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
It is difficult to balance the needs of the general public, which reads
more at a 5th grade level than a 9th grade level, with the need to
present comprehensive information that would be of use to an oncologist.
If we
On 9 April 2011 13:00, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 April 2011 12:53, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
Interestingly only Liberapedia and one of the conservative sites,
http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/Main_Page are actually open for
editing.
On 10 March 2011 13:11, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
What is an airbush? I think we should be told.
Our article Airbrush does not include information on the use of
airbrush as a metaphor
Charles' point was that the article says airbush not airbrush in
the headline.
On 21 February 2011 00:52, michael west michaw...@gmail.com wrote:
No Thomas, there are problems with (a) the East Pakistan/West Pakistan war
(Bhhutto was a memeber of government and never appeared on TV - it was the
government leader who told of West Pakistan's capitulation)
I made no comment
On 20 February 2011 19:45, michael west michaw...@gmail.com wrote:
How on earth can we have an un-sourced article on the founder of the PPP?
The whole article is outlandish.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zulfikar_Ali_Bhutto a complete re-write of
history, anybody with any knowledge on Pakistan
On 14 February 2011 20:04, FencesWindows
fences_and_wind...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 03:16:12 +
From: Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Rating the English wikipedia
This encyclopedia has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
This
On 14 February 2011 20:48, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Piotrus/Wikipedia_interwiki_and_specialized_knowledge_test
I think that page is more a test of how good we are at interwiki
linking than anything else. The trend it shows is far too fast
On 22 January 2011 13:40, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 1:21 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
$ traceroute bits.wikimedia.org
I did this, and if I'm understanding it right it took 19 hops. The
first one looks like my cable modem, the second
On 17 January 2011 04:03, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
Then, in 2010,
he posts to Talk:Jimmy Wales that I was born on the 7th of August,
according to my mother. My legal paperwork all says 8th of August, due
to an error on my birth certificate.
On 17 January 2011 00:50, wiki doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
I don't think it helps to characterise any simple questioning of the leader
as a deranged vendetta.
Correction: Jimmy is our founder, he is not our leader. We don't have a leader.
___
On 17 January 2011 16:55, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
That's what he said September 18, 2004. So no, this wasn't an honest
mistake (which still would be reason not to trust what he says). And
it wasn't even just Wales being misleading, as he so often does. This
was an intentional lie.
On 14 January 2011 12:01, Tony Sidaway tonysida...@gmail.com wrote:
'So Jimmy's claim that the first edit was Hello world! isn't to be
taken literally?'
I don't see why not. It's far from unusual for a tech-savvy user to
type that phrase into a document as a first test. I would be surprised
On 14 January 2011 12:25, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
One possibility, though, is that he typed it at some point, but there
was an earlier edit he forgot. Memory can be a selective thing. What
you would look for, if going further into this, is the first time he
recalled this
On 20 December 2010 01:38, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 18/12/10 00:14, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
I note that among those earliest articles were separate articles on
every single character in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, including Bum
Number 1 and Passenger Number 1 through
On 11 December 2010 17:36, Tony Sidaway tonysida...@gmail.com wrote:
I know everybody is tired of hearing me bang on about this, but the
whole Featured article edifice has always seemed dubious to me. It
seems to concentrate our limited resources on a tiny number of
articles, and the emphasis
On 24 September 2010 12:41, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
They need a USP (Sanger's involvement is not going to be at all relevant
to that now). Well, they need a few things. But it prompts me to wonder
what our USP is. You have heard of us doesn't count.
Our USP is
Did that never make it as far as this mailing list? We all had great
fun with it on foundation-l a few days ago.
On 7 August 2010 23:42, Alan Sim cambridgebayweat...@yahoo.com wrote:
At the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10851394 and the NY Times
On 8 August 2010 01:29, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
I might be reading the wrong thread, but I've read through the FBI
Seal and Wikimedia thread on foundation-l, starting here:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-August/060329.html
There are some 11 posts
On 7 August 2010 01:45, William Beutler williambeut...@gmail.com wrote:
Certainly, it still describes a real phenomenon: articles that attain
Featured or Good status, and then have those statuses (statii?) revoked as
they degrade. It happens, all right.
Does it happen very often? Most
On 2 August 2010 03:26, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyone know what the name of that magickal clone project was - the one
which represented edit authorship/version by color-highlighting
article text?
WikiTrust?
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
On 27 July 2010 10:02, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote:
I decided to ignore the whole prizes aspect of the BM residency.
That's a snarky piece, really, and there is no need for me to add to the
snarkiness. But the idea of a wiki is collaboration, and any prizes that
ignore that an
On 27 July 2010 11:56, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
A friend of mine woke up in the middle of the night with a belly-ache.
He googled it (in Hebrew) and the first result was the Hebrew
Wikipedia article about appendicitis. The symptoms matched, so he went
to the hospital
On 23 July 2010 13:53, Daniel R. Tobias d...@tobias.name wrote:
Still, making any attempt to be secretive about where the office was
(which even included deleting pictures from Commons that showed what
the building looked like) was a really silly thing for an
organization based around free
On 24 July 2010 01:04, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 July 2010 00:57, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 July 2010 13:53, Daniel R. Tobias d...@tobias.name wrote:
rightly ridiculed by critics such as the WR crowd.
See, that's a sentence fragment
On 22 July 2010 10:59, K. Peachey p858sn...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
So what is the back story to all of this? and can someone do a tldr
version of the first link?
You have the read the original to truly appreciate it.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
On 22 July 2010 16:43, Cary Bass c...@wikimedia.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/21/2010 12:07 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Indeed. The address of the old office was kept quiet for security
reasons, but the address of the new office has always been
publicly
On 22 July 2010 23:19, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
Is idiocy a defence to perjury?
Yes, regrettably it is.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
On 21 July 2010 14:35, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/wikipediadown/message/2
That's great fun! If I had more faith in humanity, I'd assume it was
somebody's idea of a joke... (a joke which wastes the court's time, at
that).
On 21 July 2010 20:01, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote:
The petition states that the Foundation cannot be traced to a physical
address. That can't be right, can it? And then he signs at the bottom
which warns that - if he knowingly states a falsehood - he commits
perjury; so if he *is*
On 27 June 2010 17:43, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
I think there's a valid issue here, but there's a balance to be struck
between:
* X as it occurs in one specific context
* X from the perspective of one viewpoint
So it would be legitimate to have an article on [[Economic
On 27 June 2010 17:56, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
To take a prominent example, it's reasonable to have [[Jesus in
Christianity]] and [[Jesus in Islam]], but they need to both be
treated as subsets of the article on [[Jesus]], in the same way that
[[Historicity of Jesus]] or
For those who want to get a sense of how the system is performing in
terms of throughput (e.g., average time-to-approval), please visit the
Pending Changes Stats page [7].
The stats page doesn't show the percentiles, like the one of labs
does. Is that just because there haven't been enough
On 16 June 2010 18:59, Rob Lanphier ro...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Thomas Dalton
thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
For those who want to get a sense of how the system is performing in
terms of throughput (e.g., average time-to-approval), please visit the
Pending
On 15 June 2010 11:51, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 15 June 2010 09:54, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote:
From a media contact point of view: one of the first things the media want
are examples
where it will be used, which is somewhat of a difficult question to answer
On 15 June 2010 19:15, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm actually becoming increasingly concerned that the notion that the
[[George W. Bush]] article would be unlocked has to be coming from somewhere
within the organization, since it's being repeated in every single article
in the press.
On 14 June 2010 01:42, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote:
On 06/13/2010 03:59 PM, David Goodman wrote:
There has never been agreement for more than the 2,000. It will be
necessary to ask the community at that point whether to expand ,
continue, or end the trial.
Ok. Since the 2000
On 30 May 2010 11:43, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Indeed. The first - and, I would have thought, jawdroppingly obvious -
result would be that no-one at all would go near such work in any
circumstances.
Exactly. The big problem with community desysoppings is that any admin
doing their
On 28 May 2010 23:25, Rob Lanphier ro...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi everyone,
After much debate, we've settled on a name for the English Wikipedia
implementation of FlaggedRevs: Pending Changes.
I find this decision very odd. Revision Review had much more support
(and very well-reasoned
On 22 May 2010 22:20, James Alexander jameso...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
I'm not sure where this has come from, but there is no problem. An
edit by an autoreviewer will only be automatically flagged if the
previous version
On 22 May 2010 22:32, Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com wrote:
Are you guys talking about the right to not have your page patrolled
by New Page Patrol? Because, even though I probably have it all wrong,
I don't think I've seen the word autoreviewer tossed about in any
other context. I was
On 23 May 2010 03:05, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
There was no general consensus for what people though they were voting
for, nor is there any sure way to predict what they will now say,
since a great many of the practical details have only been clarified
in the last few days
On 22 May 2010 02:18, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
*+ **...The average delay is expected to be around N minutes, and we'll
be watching this carefully.*
Do we actually have an expectation? We have aspirations, certainly (I
think N=5 is bit on the high side for the median, which is probably
the
On 3 May 2010 20:08, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 May 2010 19:56, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
Alternatively, simply giving the users a link to a page describing the
complete edit life-cycle, This page is [[protected]]., would be
fine as well... those who care
On 27 April 2010 20:50, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Nihiltres wrote:
snip
I strongly believe that showing very prominently the level of review a
given article—or even a given *revision* thereof—has received, and the
perceived level of quality involved, is a good
On 27 April 2010 21:33, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Well, the research I remember says the transition from B to A makes the
most difference to the reader. So I would make that central to any
system: from 5 to 6, say. I have seen perfectly decent articles labelled
On 27 April 2010 23:14, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 27 April 2010 21:33, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Well, the research I remember says the transition from B to A makes the
most difference to the reader. So I
On 23 April 2010 19:13, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
You see, what he taught sophomores in his Intro to Philosophy class
trumps all other content. Note the complete absence of any reference.
You shouldn't hold the lack of a reference against him. I started
editing a few months
On 19 April 2010 09:07, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 18 April 2010 22:25, The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, we do know, because Citizendium is just a retread of Nupedia,
which wasn't going anywhere.
Nupedia was supposed
On 19 April 2010 17:52, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 April 2010 23:02, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
Of course, change all this and they still likely would have never supplanted
Wikipedia. Some sort of Wikiversity-like mission statement would have
probably been more
On 18 April 2010 19:54, Philip Sandifer snowspin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 17, 2010, at 8:26 AM, David Gerard wrote:
Wikipedia, and its community and bureaucracy, sucks in oh so many
ways. But it does in fact work and produce something people find
useful.
I'm not entirely sure of this. It
On 18 April 2010 20:22, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 18 April 2010 19:54, Philip Sandifer snowspin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Apr 17, 2010, at 8:26 AM, David Gerard wrote:
Wikipedia, and its community
On 18 April 2010 22:25, The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, we do know, because Citizendium is just a retread of Nupedia,
which wasn't going anywhere.
Nupedia was supposed to be experts writing articles. Citizendium is
(in theory) anyone writing articles and experts resolving
On 17 April 2010 03:15, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
In March 2010, about 90 people made even a single edit to Citizendium:
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Statistics#Number_of_authors
Compare Conservapedia, which has 76 at the time I write this. The
difference is, the latter is
On 17 April 2010 14:42, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 April 2010 13:52, Eugene van der Pijll eug...@vanderpijll.nl wrote:
David Gerard schreef:
Clay Shirky was right: CZ collapsed under the weight of its own bureaucracy:
On 29 March 2010 21:51, Kwan Ting Chan k...@ktchan.info wrote:
http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2010/03/29/9986468.aspx
As has been pointed out in the comments, word length isn't a measure
of importance. For our better articles, it's mainly a measure of how
much there is to say on a
On 25 March 2010 20:51, The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com wrote:
By all measures, en.wiki has been in decline for years as an active project.
It's just the typical death by bureaucracy that most projects like this
undergo.
I think death is overstating it. Many things show rapid growth
followed
On 25 March 2010 21:55, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 5:48 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 March 2010 21:03, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
A couple more questions to which I don't know the answer:
1) What is the total administrative workload now compared to
On 11 February 2010 15:48, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
The latest example is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Military_sciencediff=339309229oldid=337736730
[I'm not at the right computer at the moment, so hopefully someone
will fix that]
Fixed.
So is it as
On 11 February 2010 17:17, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
wrote:
b) Use reversions. Sample a thousand uses of rollback from the recent
changes list, find time between that edit and the one it was
2010/1/22 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
I *think* Mike Peel reads this list. I was about to do something else,
so maybe someone else could point this out to them? They probably know
already, but it wouldn't hurt to ask (I'm just not going to do it
right now).
Yes, we know already,
2010/1/21 Apoc 2400 apoc2...@gmail.com:
Is there anyone here who can do something about this before it becomes an
even bigger wheel-war?
Try ArbCom. Keeping admins in check is their job.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To
2010/1/18 quiddity pandiculat...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
...
elsewhere. Our rules generally don't say we can't use information unless
it has *two* sources; and in this case it's obvious that the reason the
information is hard to
2010/1/4 Shlomi Fish shlo...@iglu.org.il:
I personally detest all WYSIWYG web-based editors. They are slow and clunky
and produce broken markup, and just get in the way. I'm also not fond of
WYSIWYG word processors and prefer using XHTML or DocBook/XML or other non-
WYSIWYG markup languages.
2010/1/4 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2010/1/4 Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com:
So lets not confuse the usability goals or making editing SIMPLE,
NON-INTIMIDATING, and DISCOVERABLE all of which are very much wiki
concepts, with the values of WYSIWYG which encourages increased but
2010/1/4 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
2010/1/4 Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com:
I think that, fundamentally, WYSIWYG isn't the right model for
Wikipedia or even wikis in general. What fits our model is what you
get is what you mean. We really shouldn't want most editors worrying
too
2009/10/22 Surreptitiousness surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com:
stevertigo wrote:
So the question is, how do we aggregate and sort arguments such that
we can apply a meta process for quickly discerning good, valid,
arguments, from those that aren't? Other than IAR that is?
Didn't we
2009/10/20 Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com:
I like this. Ideally IAR should never be invoked, as its not a rule; IAR
should be assumed. That said, I agree with the call and want to give props
for the detailed explanation, which should help smooth things over.
I disagree. Following rules
2009/10/20 Ryan Delaney ryan.dela...@gmail.com:
This is a bizarre, but ancient, misunderstanding of IAR. All IAR means is
that priority number one is doing what is right, rather than pedantic
allegiance to a dictatorial interpretation of rules. Since IAR is not itself
a justification for
2009/10/8 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
If you are in the US and you blog and are paid or receive oher
commercial benefits for it, the FTC requires you to reveal the
relationship:
1 - 100 of 394 matches
Mail list logo
