> Marcus wrote: >> Creating a technical solution like that is the task of the foundation. >> The _real_ task of the foundation.
Cimon wrote: > "Lot of momentum around the idea", is currently most > persistently promoted by the same precise individual > who began the "ethical breaching experiment" project I wasn't thinking of privatemusings, but of Marcus's comment and the recent comments on this bugzilla bug (about supporting ICRA): https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=982 Again, I'm generally opposed to this particular idea. But Marcus is right about the foundation's role in supporting technical solutions where needed. Community groups that need a well-defined technical solution should ask boldly for it. Wedrna, later: > The *ONLY* rating and classification system that I can support > is a descriptive one. That is, it describes the nature of the > content, and allows humans or computers to filter it accordingly. > The infrastructure would be technically simple. Yes. Our categorization system already exists and should suffice. David Levy writes: > Deletions are easily reversible. Multi-wiki image transclusion > removals, distrust in the Wikimedia Commons and resignations > from Wikimedia projects? Less so. True. The resignations are deeply unfortunate, and I hope those who have left will still contribute to the ensuing discussions - their opinions are among those badly needed to find the right way forward. SJ Anthony writes: > (BTW, shouldn't Larry Sanger have a founder flag too?) No, he gets an Instigator flag, enabling him to chiefly instigate an argument with the Cunctator on any page. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
