On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:33 PM, wrote:
> I doubt the local basement startup band actually needs to distribute 5MB
> songs over a p2p network. That the bandwidth used would hardly trouble
> their hosting site.
>
> Its such nonsense by Nesson and others at PK and the EFF that ASCAP want
> to coun
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
> about the
> relationship between the fundraising campaign and actual lawmaking.
> That's not entirely your fault, since the writer threw in some filler
> about the activity of an administrative agency, apparently because this
> tangent gave hi
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Benjamin Lees wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>>
>> If you don't have a strong background in a field then drinking from
>> the fire hose of full-complexity concepts is hard no matter if you are
>>
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> I strongly disagree. There is a big difference between simple language
> and simple concepts. Children need simple concepts (basically, you
> can't assume as much prior knowledge because they haven't had time to
> learn things that adults con
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> This will NOT get things out of spam that are already in it, though.
> Search for "in:spam to:lists.wikimedia.org" to find them and "Not
> Spam" them manually.
Gah! The search result for that gives me _thousands_ of messages. ...
and it s
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 1:00 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> counter argument in a respectful discussion between colleges we build
If I can't even manage to say "colleague" without screwing it up, how
can we assume that anything I say was an insult to anything and not
just some k
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 11:08 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
> I don't think scapegoating Wikipedia's gender imbalances to biological
> differences is especially helpful. And the suggestion that it may not be
> possible to dumb-down Wikipedia enough to attract women is ridiculous
> (and offensive). Regar
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 8:26 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
> There's been discussion of the gender gap among Wikimedia editors on
> and off for many years now, and it's a focus of the strategic planning
> process. This is a part of a larger issue of how to get members of
> underrepresented groups to edi
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Eugene Eric Kim wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 2:03 PM, wrote:
>>> Sorry for top-posting.
>>>
>>> Austin, think about who "everyone" is. The folks here
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 3:37 PM, David Levy wrote:
> Sue Gardner wrote:
>> Feedback is great, but it irritates me when people start using words
>> like "stupid" -- that's what I was responding to.
>
> Perhaps you misread the context. Austin wrote the word "stupid" as a
> hypothetical example of no
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 2:03 PM, wrote:
> Sorry for top-posting.
>
> Austin, think about who "everyone" is. The folks here on foundation-l are
> not representative of readers. The job of the user experience team is to try
> to balance all readers' needs, which is not easy, and will sometimes i
On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 2:24 AM, Michael Peel wrote:
>
> On 2 Jun 2010, at 22:51, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
>> A tiny benefit to a hundred
>> million people wouldn't justify making wikipedia very hard to use for
>> a hundred thousand
>
> Can you justify that th
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Aryeh Gregor
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> Who cares if people click them a lot? The space they formally
>> occupied is filled with nothing now.
>
> Interface clutter is not psychologically free. Empty s
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Amir E. Aharoni
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> For part 1, see [1].
>
> In his reply to User experience feedback [2], Howief says: "the language
> links were used relatively infrequently based on tracking data".
>
> Is there any data about their usage since the switch to Vecto
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 2:25 AM, Adam Cuerden wrote:
> With respect, the work on the Sexual Content proposal as pretty much
> thrown out all of Jimbo's work, and is proceeding from a direction
[snip]
You're linking to something from May 17th. It would be much more
productive to focus on matters w
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Rob Lanphier wrote:
>> casual reader, it might as well be called the "Hyperion Frobnosticating
>> Endoswitch". It will be a blank slate as far as journalists and the world
>
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Rob Lanphier wrote:
> On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 10:21 AM, William Pietri wrote:
>
>> That did cross my mind, and it was tempting. But practically, many busy
>> journalists, causal readers, and novice editors may base a lot of their
>> initial reaction on the name alo
On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 10:34 AM, David Levy wrote:
>> So I think it's fine if the name has a positive connotation.
>
> And that connotation should be "we're countering inappropriate edits,"
> not "we assume that everything's okay, but we'll humor the concerns."
>
> Of course, I'm not proposing th
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> I have created a poster suitable for distribution to journalists
> http://myrandomnode.dyndns.org:8080/~gmaxwell/flagged_protection.png
I have revised the graphic based on input from Andrew Gray and others.
http://myrandomnode.dynd
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 2:13 PM, Rob Lanphier wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm preparing a patch against FlaggedRevs which includes changes that Howie
> and I worked on in preparation for the launch of its deployment onto
> en.wikipedia.org . We started first by creating a style guide describing
> h
On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Rob Lanphier wrote:
> implementation, and there's no "flagging" in the proposed configuration.
> Additionally, "protection" in our world implies "no editing" whereas this
[snip]
> - Must not introduce obsolete terminology (e.g. there's no "flagging" in
> our pr
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Kim Bruning wrote:
> WebM is a new open source video codec; That's interesting
> with a BSD-ish license; Ok, that's amazing
> Google did it; That's huge.
>
> The question to this esteemed community is thus:
> Shall we start using it? :-)
Careful about rushing in t
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Nathan wrote:
> I'm not sure the presence or absence of a legal imperative is fully
> relevant to the underlying question. The Commons project has a moral
> responsibility to take reasonable steps to ensure that subjects of
> sexually explicit media are (a) of lega
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Kalan wrote:
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 22:44, Jay Walsh wrote:
>> We've seen a lot of comments about the size of the puzzle globe, and I don't
>> disagree that it might benefit from being increased in size slightly. I
>> feel this might also affect the overall
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Austin Hair wrote:
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 6:32 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
>> I think you missed it because it wasn't really discussed before as
>> part of the vector update... right? I admit I didn't read all the
>> announcements, but was this discussed/announced
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Noein wrote:
> Thank you for this deep analysis. While claiming that we should not
> compromise any of the principles, you didn't address directly the
> possibility that we won't reach everybody if we don't compromise.
> Reaching every human is a (currently and ap
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 10:50 PM, Jay Walsh wrote:
> It seemed like an opportune moment to take our 2D globe, lovingly created by
> WP user:Nohat and improved/modified a cast of many other volunteers back in
> 2003, and take it to a truly 3D object. If we were going to undertake this
> process
Wikimania 2011 has come, yet again another location in the middle-east.
It seems to me that every major populated geographic region has a
multitude of sites which could create viable wikimania candidacies—
and this has certainly been supported by the past applications.
A leading application takes
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
[snip]
> However, I also see the issue from another frame that is not part of
> Tim's spectrum. Sexual photographs, especially those of easily
> recognized people, have the potential to exploit or embarrass the
> people in them. I place a high
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
[snip]
> But more generally, yes I suppose I may be overstating. Studying
> religious views on sex and pornography is interesting, because those
> views align closely with the laws and norms of wider society. Unlike
> wider society, religious c
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#An_initial_notice_to_reduce_surprises
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> I just had a thought -- what if it were possible for a user to categorically
> block views of any images that are not linked to in any project's article
> pages? Presumably, those Commons images that are found in articles are
> relevant and ap
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Derk-Jan Hartman wrote:
> This message is CC'ed to other people who might wish to comment on this
> potential approach
> ---
>
> Dear reader at FOSI,
>
> As a member of the Wikipedia community and the community that develops the
> software on which Wikipedia runs,
I thought it might be useful to here if I shared some of my
experiences with commons.
Like many people I've had the experience of bumping into a human
sexuality related commons category or gallery and thinking "Holy crap!
Thats a lot of [gallery name]. Freeking teenage pornofreaks!".
But unlike
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Victor Vasiliev wrote:
>> Think future, not past. Think project, not Jimmy.
>
> We do think future: if Jimmy had already carelessly intervened twice
> and caused controversies both time, how can we except the story will
> not repeat.
> We do think project: if we alr
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> It comes down to the size of the tent. If you want students in Saudi
> Arabia to be able to use Wikipedia it has to be structured one way. If
> you want to please gay college students you structure it another way.
[snip]
The deletions performed
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 1:07 PM, David Levy wrote:
> Samuel Klein wrote:
>
>> I don't think this is a technical issue at all. Considering how
>> flexible and reversible wiki-actions are, it seems eminently
>> appropriate to me for the project founder to have 'unlimited
>> technical power' on the
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:37 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
> I don't disagree, but I meant what I said about *single* most important issue!
>
> And I'm not sure that's how I'd frame it. The board statement seemed
> pretty clear; reaffirming existing policy. I guess it depends a bit on
> what capacity yo
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 12:27 PM, Sydney Poore wrote:
> I fully endorse every aspect of Mike Godwin's comment.
>
> The Boards statement makes it clear that their view is that Community
> discussion is needed to find long term solutions to the issue. And that "not
> censored" should not be used to h
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 2:55 AM, teun spaans wrote:
> Would it stand any chance to file against Foxnews for slaunder?
> It seems they are also actively approaching organizations who donated
> support to wikimedia.
The recent mass deletions have made it harder to refute their
outrageous claims— sin
When I heard that Jimmy had taken an axe to explicit images on commons,
I thought it was good news as I've been frustrated and disappointed by
my own inability to convince the commons community that some things,
like the bulk copying of erotic imagery from flickr— hundreds of
images with little to
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 7:49 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 3 March 2010 12:28, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
>> Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for your copyfight. There is plenty
>> of reason to exclude this material regardless of the copyright/legal
>> concerns, and plenty
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 9:50 PM, Techman224 wrote:
> It has come to my attention that the Wikimedia Foundation through its "Office
> actions" policy removed and oversighted the
> signing keys for Texas Instruments calculators under a DMCA takedown notice
> on October 7, 2009. Cary Bass then overs
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> Today Wikimedia's world-wide five-minute-average transmission rate
>> crossed 10gbit/sec for the first time ever, as far as I know. This
>> peak rate was achieved while serving roughly 91,
Today Wikimedia's world-wide five-minute-average transmission rate
crossed 10gbit/sec for the first time ever, as far as I know. This
peak rate was achieved while serving roughly 91,725 requests per
second.
This fantastic news is almost coincident with Wikipedia's 9th
anniversary on January 15th.
Geni is speaking of the huge banner on Enwp at the moment featuring Craig of
craigslist. Hit reload a few times if you haven't seen it. It links to a
clearly spoken statement of support for wikipedia.
To avoid you haivng to click and goofing up the counters, here is what it says:
"
I'm a proud s
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 6:51 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
> Hello Wikimedians,
>
> Austin and I thought it might be fun to have a Secret Santa New Year's
> drawing among Wikimedia friends! We're basing it on the MetaFilter
> community Secret Santa drawing, which has 256 participants and uses a
> websit
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Nathan wrote:
> Why would you even ask that question, let alone expect an answer? Last
> I checked, no Wikimedian also carried the title of "majority
> shareholder" or anything close. You're not entitled to sordid details
> of personnel management. Try to remember
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Mike.lifeguard
wrote:
> Granted, you may argue that forcing requests to be made public would
> force more stringent compliance with the standards, but you haven't even
> shown that there is an issue in the first place; you have merely assumed
> that it is so. Begin
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Anthony wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 12:45 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com
>> if you want only the last 3 revisions checked out , it takes about 10
>> seconds and produces 300k of data.
>
> 10 seconds? That's horrible. Have you tried using svn?
On a reas
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 4:38 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com
wrote:
> There are ways to optimize all of this. Most users will not want to
> download the full history.
Then why are you using git?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikim
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:55 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com
wrote:
> Hallo,
> I have gotten the wikipedia article for Kosovo in git.
> It is fast, distributed, highly compressed, redundant, branchable and usable.
>
> The blame function will show you who edited what version.
>
> Here Blame on t
-- Forwarded message --
From: Sean Moss-Pultz
Date: Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 1:51 AM
Subject: [openmoko-announce] WikiReader
To: annou...@lists.openmoko.org, List for Openmoko community
discussion
Dear Community!
Today, with the greatest of pleasure, I am ready to share with you th
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Happy-melon wrote:
[snip]
> It's not just that. On a technological level, considerable sections of the
> FlaggedRevs code are called on *every* page view, whether the page has
> FlaggedRevs behaviour or not. Even if it's eventually saying "no, carry on
> normally"
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Tim Landscheidt
wrote:
> So, should we find a term that is suitable for all six
> billion people on this planet, or should we covertly prefer
> users who are curious enough to just click on that link to
> find out what's behind it?
Obviously we should replace th
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
>>> Of course. But I wasn't expecting a turn up on English Wikipedia yet.
>>> I'm asking why the 25 lines of configuration that EnWP specified have
>>> not yet been added to the test wiki at
>>> http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Pa
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Steven Walling
wrote:
> Gregory,
> To address:
>
> "My leading hypothesis were either that the staff was incredibly
> overloaded with new initiatives like usability and strategywiki...WMF's
> priorities have become so warped due to petitioning by niche interests th
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
>>> and we're also concerned about the potential negative impact on
>>> participation.
>> Please help me understand the implications of this statement.
>
> It simply means that
>
> a) we want to make sure that for the production roll-out, the us
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
[snip]
> plan, and Brion is hoping to invest some of his remaining time with it
> in helping to get the extension ready for en.wp. It's not trivial: The
> scalability concerns at that size are a step more serious than with
> de.wp,
Of course. B
ng to meet its commitments on high
impact community initiatives?
Thank you for your time and consideration.
-- Forwarded message ------
From: Gregory Maxwell
Date: Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 7:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org Status?
To: Wikimedia developers
O
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 12:23 AM, Erik Zachte wrote:
> Gregory Maxwell:
>> Why are people without computers or reasonable access to computers
>> considered potential audience for editing a website?
>
>> Why are people whom are effectively illiterate considered potential
&g
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Erik Zachte wrote:
> Examples are: article views per hour, unique visitors, percentage of
> potential audience reached (unique visitors per million speakers). All of
Why are people without computers or reasonable access to computers
considered potential audience
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 10:47 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
[snip]
> The key question is whether the full history dump was ever considered
> to be a project that needs WMF funding to be allocated, as opposed to
> letting it be solved by the normal open source model.
Post the root password to the dat
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 2:19 PM, wrote:
> You can't combine a CC-BY work with a CC-BY-SA work without either
> imposing a SA limitation on the CC-BY work,
Which anyone can do when combining CC-By and CC-By-SA works by others.
(If you don't want people adding random limitations to your works;
do
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 2:04 PM, wrote:
> It makes no difference. Wikipedia licenses everything on for commercial
> use. As you cannot relicense someone else's work, you cannot use a NC
> license worked. Most NC licensees probably wouldn't mind wikipedia
> reusing stuff, but they don't want big m
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:55 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com
wrote:
>> I would like a professional opinion on the question :
> Better stated, I would like your opinion on this, if it is not off topic.
>> Is wikipedia non commercial or commercial non profit?
> Is working on the wikipedia mor
In the thread "WMF seeking to sub-lease office space?"
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Austin Hair wrote:
(to Gregory Kohs)
[snip]
> I've placed you on indefinite
> moderation with the goal of improving the signal:crazy ratio.
With something like 40 posts made to that thread after Mr. Kohs' last
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
> It does, but this is not an official meeting for the board to conduct
> business, it's a meeting to provide people in the community with a
> chance to have a discussion with the new board members. As such, I'm not
> sure it's meaningful to have
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Samuel J Klein wrote:
[snip]
> Speaking of which, I'm also looking for someone to organize the
> minutes. [NB: you don't have to be present during the chat to do
> this.] Again, pls contact me off-list.
Doesn't the board have a role designated to take minutes at m
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Benjamin Lees wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
>> I propose the foundation-announce-l mailing list be set up with the
>> following posting rules:
>> 1) One post per person per thread. That includes the initiator of the
>> thread.
>
> Tha
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/8/28 Anthony :
>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Stephen Bain wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:58 AM, Anthony wrote:
>>> > It seems to me to be begging the question. You don't answer the question
>>> > "how bad is vandalism" by ass
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:24 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> I think part of the problem is that there were some odd ideas about
> how the Advisory Board would work. For example, it has a chair. I
> can't work out why. Why would the advisory board ever meet as a group?
> Being an expert is only of use
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 9:30 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> And yet ... this is what every successful wiki does. Wikipedia is
> extremely structured. The writers are not always expected to know the
> structure; gnomes do the tidying up.
You must have an enormously different idea of extremely struc
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Casey Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> I think that fits the definition of "sell", others
>> may disagree but it is semantics and is unimportant.
>
> Is it unimportant? We're discussing how this action is perceived as
> having
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> I hedged my language because I don't believe it is that simple. I do
> believe the money and the seat are linked, but I don't believe just
Thats quite fair, however:
> anyone could buy a seat for $2M. For example, I doubt Mr. Kohs would
> b
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Guillaume Paumier wrote:
[snip]
> It is very common for members of the board of a non-profit
> organisation to donate money to support this organisation.
It was my understanding that the appointment was of Matt Halprin, not
the Omidyar Network.
On Wed, Aug 26, 200
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Brian wrote:
> The reason we let such a tiny fraction of the community vote is because of
> an irrational and inflated fear of fraudulent votes. The risk has been blown
> entirely out of proportion and absolutely no technical measures have been
> been pursued. The B
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Brian wrote:
> This kind of fear mongering attitude is why we can't allow more members of
> the community to vote. You'd rather spread FUD about vote buying than design
> a system that allows the largest number of community members to vote.
What on earth are you ta
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
> Let me say for the record that I'm not at all happy with this data
> being released, since it allows vote-buying. Even if the numbers given
Although I was trying to avoid advertising it in public this was
something I'm aware of and had pointe
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Steven Walling wrote:
> I think everyone needs to calm down a little.
> Remember that we just got 2 million dollars to further our mission, and that
> the board seat appointment (which isn't an unusual practice, at least in my
> experience) does nothing to impede ou
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Nathan wrote:
> One thing I'm curious about... Why did this announcement come from Greg?
I simply saw it on PRNewswire and figured folks here would appreciate seeing it.
I have no clue why it wasn't already posted here but the coordination
of press-releases can be
Omidyar Network Commits $2 Million Grant to Wikimedia Foundation
SAN FRANCISCO and REDWOOD CITY, Calif., Aug. 25 /PRNewswire/ --
Omidyar Network today announced a grant of up to $2 million over two
years to the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that
operates Wikipedia, one of the
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Gregory Kohs wrote:
> I wonder what takes so long to upload a small data file?
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Board_elections/2009/Votes&oldid=1606753
>
> Let's see... August 25 minus August 12 equals nearly two weeks of delay (and
> subterfuge?)...
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 1:36 AM, Svip wrote:
> But that's without mentioning the horrible state of the localisation
> in general: Wrong context translations, just wrong translations and
> many spelling errors.
Contextual errors I can understand, figuring out all the right
contexts for a message c
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Lars Aronsson wrote:
> Kaare Olsen wrote:
>
>> What I think is the primary reason for the Danish Wikipedia
>> being much smaller than the "neighbouring" languages is that
>> Danes generally are internationally minded and pride themselves
>> on being good at English
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
[snip]
> Greg, I think your email sounded a little negative at the start, but not
> so much further down. I think you would join me heartily in being super
> grateful for people doing this kind of analysis. Yes, some of it will
> be primitive a
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 6:06 AM, Robert Rohde wrote:
[snip]
> When one downloads a dump file, what percentage of the pages are
> actually in a vandalized state?
Although you don't actually answer that question, you answer a
different question:
[snip]
> approximations: I considered that "vandalis
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 12:15 PM, Nathan wrote:
[snip]
> certainly see why it would be frustrating for him: he's much more reasonable
> in voice chat than over text, and if the audio were widely circulated it's
> possible he would have come in a few places higher in the election.
Mr. Kohs may have
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Gregory Kohs wrote:
> At some time into the WMF Board candidates campaigning season, the
> Wikivoices project undertook a sort of "candidates debate", where a Skype
[snip]
> I was a bit concerned with several things:
In addition to the concerns you raised the forma
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Aryeh Gregor wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Cox, Serita
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Google's new search engine, Caffeine, is supposedly kicking Wikipedia
>>> entries further down results page. Thoughts? Comments?
>>>
>> So what? Wikipedia's
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 5:09 PM, David Goodman wrote:
> Perhaps we should try using the titles for things that other people
> use--not for g-rank, but as signs that we recognize that an
> encyclopedia is made for the readers.
Eh— It's unsolvable in some cases... People frequently use multiple
term
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Cox, Serita wrote:
> Google's new search engine, Caffeine, is supposedly kicking Wikipedia
> entries further down results page. Thoughts? Comments?
> http://software.silicon.com/applications/0,39024653,39484015,00.htm
[from my comments in #wikimedia-tech the other
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Pavlo Shevelo wrote:
> Maybe my English is not good enough but I don't get it:
Your English is far better than my Ukrainian. I apologise for not
being more clear.
> Either you suggest that it will be possible or you're quite sure about that?
> ... and what about
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Pavlo Shevelo wrote:
>> A full pairwise defeats table will be posted shortly.
>
> Would you please add detailed statistic summary (number of people
> voted, %% of eligible wikipedians, dice and slice of those to projects
> groups etc.) ?
> ... I mean as detailed as
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Steven Walling wrote:
[snip]
> Thoughts? Am I being too nervous, or do others see that potential too?
I didn't.
Speaking of PARC, does anyone have any contacts with them?
I wrote asking about how they removed vandalism from their revert and
have not had a reply (
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 3:58 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
[snip]
> Brianna Laugher was receptive to the idea of having
> Wikimedia projects hotlink or cache images from galleries.
So there have been a number of statements against doing something like
this, but (unsurprisingly) I don't think they have b
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 1:24 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
> Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> I'm interested in knowing the nature of the error (understanding is
>> the key to avoidance in the future!)
>
> It was my fault, and it was pretty much identical to the error I made
> in
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/8/12 Gregory Maxwell :
>> It is my understanding that the parties incorrectly stricken
>> previously were not contacted. I believe that an attempt should be
>> made to contact stricken parties, even if it means de
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Philippe
Beaudette wrote:
>> I'm interested in knowing the nature of the error (understanding is
>> the key to avoidance in the future!)
>>
>> I'd also like to know if any users were denied the ability to vote who
>> should have been permitted on account of this er
Betsy Megas wrote:
> Due to an error in a script that was used to generate the list of
> authorized voters for this election, roughly 300 votes were cast by
> users who were not qualified based on the posted election rules
> (requiring that voters have made at least 600 edits before 01 June
> 2009
1 - 100 of 143 matches
Mail list logo
