I totally agree, and no offense to the people who have contributed to help
pages, but I find them very unhelpful and sometimes downright wrong.
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 31, 2014, at 4:55 AM, Sarah Stierch I Still stand by hand holding...personal out weighs what we attempt...
___
*On Behalf Of *Carol Moore dc
> *Sent:* Thursday, 31 July 2014 10:24 AM
> *To:* Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the
> participationof women within Wikimedia projects.
> *Subject:* Re: [Gendergap] [Spam] Re: Sexualized environment on Commons
>
alf Of Carol Moore dc
Sent: Thursday, 31 July 2014 10:24 AM
To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the
participationof women within Wikimedia projects.
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] [Spam] Re: Sexualized environment on Commons
On 7/30/2014 5:51 AM, Marie Earley wrote:
>Thing
On 7/30/2014 5:51 AM, Marie Earley wrote:
>Things that I think might help:
Help pages wise, I'm sure they'd love to see you at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Help
I know I wasted a couple years learning the hard way because the Help
pages didn't seem intuitive enough.
Thanks Pine!
~ A.
On Jul 30, 2014, at 3:27 PM, "Pine W"
mailto:wiki.p...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Marie,
Thanks very much for this overview of your early experience as an editor. Would
you mind sending this email to the editor growth team so that they can look at
your experience for ideas about wh
Marie,
Thanks very much for this overview of your early experience as an editor.
Would you mind sending this email to the editor growth team so that they
can look at your experience for ideas about what they can improve? Their
email list is called "Editor Engagement" and you can find it on
lists.w
this is a video on how to edit Wikipedia - which
new editors is this likely to attract?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhvsVaTymzM Recruitment of better editors =
better content = attracting better editors = crowding out the bad.
Marie
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 21:59:59 -0700
From: petefors...
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Sarah wrote:
> The new hovercards (which I otherwise love) have created another problem,
> in that lead images show up when your cursor hovers over a wikilink.
>
Good point. In general, it would be good to have a more thorough process
for exploring difficult-to-a
The new hovercards (which I otherwise love) have created another problem,
in that lead images show up when your cursor hovers over a wikilink.
You would have to be reading an article where potentially offensive images
are in linked pages, so this won't be a problem across the board. But it's
easy
Thanks to Andrew Gray for covering some of the history.
Kerry, there is further material that you might find of interest in a
recent (May 2014) discussion on the Wikimedia-l mailing list:
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/engine?do=post_view_flat;post=466380;page=1;mh=-1;list=wiki;sb=post_lat
Well, I am unsurprised that it has been considered before, as it's the
obvious solution. Sad that the Board lacked the will to see it through.
But it doesn't mean that it could not or should not be raised again. Social
justice issues rarely succeed on their first attempt. If we took that
attitude,
Hi Kerry,
Sad as it is to be the bearer of dispiriting news...
A proposal more or less similar to this was made by the Board in 2011
(some kind of image filtering on a user-selected basis) -
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Controversial_content
The debate about whether (and/or how
12 matches
Mail list logo
