Ok, this discussion has 60 arguments and we are getting nowhere. Why don't
we follow Google's example (what that is is for you to figure out)?
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Andreas K. wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:13 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>
> > On 20 October 2011 16:02, Andreas K. w
Once it is published, can't it just go to Wikisource? Or would it have to be
CC-By or something like that. If so, Wikisource would still be the best
suited for that, we would just have to put it in a journal namespace or
something along that line.
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:17 PM, David Gerard wrot
I like a lot of what has been said, and would like to add my part.
Milos Rancic wrote:
There are two types of Wikimedia projects: those which could be
> reasonably treated as extensions of Wikipedia and those which couldn't
> be. For example, Wiktionary (as it is presently) and Wikibooks are
> ob
Are you sure it isn't a theme preview site? ;)
On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 4:00 PM, wrote:
> On 06/03/2011 15:23, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> > On 6 March 2011 10:40, wrote:
> >> So how cool is this?
> >>
> >> http://copyright.co.tv/
> >>
> >> Refresh the page, click a few links, ... anyone see
Next thing these people will shutdown wikipedia because the french law says
impre*scriptible*, and they will say that because wikipedia uses JS and so
is scriptable, it shouldn't be around. What don't you like about the licence
anyway? It is my opinion that the laws of the most influentual country
Or boycott their translations and start a WMF transwiki.
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Teofilo wrote:
> 2011/1/28 Gerard Meijssen :
> > When the CIA uses MediaWiki and it does, we are
> > happy because as a result we do and did get feedback on the use of our
> > project. When the CIA wants t
So for every article we have 960 active editors? I assume you wrote that
wrong.
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Risker wrote:
> On 18 November 2010 18:33, David Gerard wrote:
>
> > On 18 November 2010 23:09, John Vandenberg wrote:
> >
> > > Am I 'paid editing' when I write articles during 9-5
After all, a person probably isn't going to donate ten times just because
ten different people appealed for funds.
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Peter Coombe wrote:
> I believe that the plan is to bring in the "thermometer" showing how
> close we are to our target in the later stages of the fu
I thought someone was saying that Wikia gets all kinds of special treatment,
or something like that.
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 8 November 2010 13:03, Arlen Beiler wrote:
> > For one thing, we have always been proud of how Wikipedia and its sister
>
For one thing, we have always been proud of how Wikipedia and its sister
sites have been ad-free. Why don't we get those half-breeds with their ads
and everything to do the revenue making? I mean, of course, Wikia. Having
ads on Wikipedia (or anywhere else) would be awful.
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 5
I don't think I could stand it if we picked up advertising. I hate the way
wikia looks, and therefore have an aversion to contributing in any way to
its progress. Can you imagine! We actually link to Wikia sites and give them
traffic (though I guess that is better than filling up wikibooks and
wiki
I think you have hit the nail on the head. Now we just need to drive it in
the rest of the way.
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> --- On Tue, 2/11/10, John Vandenberg wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:36 AM,
> >
> > wrote:
> > >..
> > > There have been plenty of studies
The point is that you search for a book on Amazon, and find a book for 50
dollars that is just a conglomeration of articles that were put together by
a computer, not a human, and therefore have little value. It is just a big
rip off.
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 2:32 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 2 Nov
Let's have our readers vote.
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:49 PM, wrote:
> In a message dated 11/1/2010 6:16:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> jay...@gmail.com writes:
>
>
> > The PLOS Medicine article is based on a dataset of 78 interventional
> > studies, 81 observational studies, and only 47 scienti
Precisely my feeling on this. I just recently read that out of over 40
studies on something, only ~7 claimed they had no ill side effects (6 of
those being FDA tests). I don't remember where I saw it, but that is
basically how it was, I think. It is common knowledge that manufacture
funded research
One thing I ran into was Sucrolose. Manufacture tests had concluded it had
no side effects, while independent studies rattled off the side effects like
an auctioneer (not quite that bad, but there were a lot).
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Risker wrote:
> On 31 October 2010 21:53, Fred Baude
Still, it is quite well known that manufacture funded studies come up more
often than not with entirely different results than if they are not funded
by the manufacture.
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 7:08 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 10:02 AM, David Goodman
> wrote:
> > But the
17 matches
Mail list logo
