Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Serbia billboard campaign
Hi, The billboards look pretty cool! -- Huib "Abigor" Laurens Tech team www.wikiweet.nl - www.llamadawiki.nl - www.forgotten-beauty.com - www.huiblaurens.nl - www.wikiweet.org ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Serbia billboard campaign
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 11:38 PM, Milos Rancic wrote: > Now we have Jimmy's and Stallman's billboards all over Belgrade. I'll > send photos ASAP. For now, there are their images at > http://likilik.org/ > http://likilink.org/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Your abuse of moderator status
It has been said already in different ways but since it appears not to be being followed. As much as i may disagree with some of what he said and the way he said it talking about Ottava on this list at the moment has become at best off-topic. Continuing to talk about our concerns and problems about a user who is either on moderation or no longer subscribed to the list (and therefore much less likely to be either a current problem on the list or able to respond) is neither on-topic or to be honest fair. Neither of the two emails should have been sent in the first place and even ignoring that the conversation has gone on to long. Let's end this. James Alexander Jamesofur On Sunday, June 27, 2010, Geoffrey Plourde wrote: > Now if we were to get into a pissing contest over the top organizers of > Wikiversity, I would say the persons most likely to be considered founders > would be John Schmidt, Cormac Lawler, and Robert Horning. Ottava does have a > point that he is one of the most senior active custodians, since not that > many of the custodians are active. > > > > > > From: Thomas Dalton > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > Sent: Sun, June 27, 2010 5:55:48 AM > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Your abuse of moderator status > > On 26 June 2010 14:44, Andre Engels wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Jeffrey Peters >> <17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu> wrote: >>> Austin, >>> >>> Maybe you didn't realize but I am the top organizer of Wikiversity. > > Wikiversity has a "top organizer"? What does that mean? > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > -- James Alexander james.alexan...@rochester.edu jameso...@gmail.com ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Your abuse of moderator status
Now if we were to get into a pissing contest over the top organizers of Wikiversity, I would say the persons most likely to be considered founders would be John Schmidt, Cormac Lawler, and Robert Horning. Ottava does have a point that he is one of the most senior active custodians, since not that many of the custodians are active. From: Thomas Dalton To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Sent: Sun, June 27, 2010 5:55:48 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Your abuse of moderator status On 26 June 2010 14:44, Andre Engels wrote: > On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Jeffrey Peters > <17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu> wrote: >> Austin, >> >> Maybe you didn't realize but I am the top organizer of Wikiversity. Wikiversity has a "top organizer"? What does that mean? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against "copyleft"
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Kim Bruning wrote: > On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 11:04:19PM +0100, David Gerard wrote: > > > http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/ascap-assails-free-culture-digital-rights-groups/ > > > > They're actually gathering money to fight free content. > > > > We may need to do something about this. > > I'd love to know what they're thinking. > > A quiet, noncommittal inquiry with some folks at ASCAP > might be enlightening. > > No matter how they treat the request, it'd be good recon. > And you never know, sometimes one can make a friend. :-) > > Who can we send? > > sincerely, >Kim Bruning > > -- > [Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment] > gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72 > 5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72 > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > If this is a serious proposal to pursue, I can do that with a couple phone calls. -- ~Keegan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Your abuse of moderator status
On 06/28/2010 01:00 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote: > I make my changes, and move on, and never look back. Thus, I never weep > over the massacre made on my beautiful workmanship. Weeping does not turn > into gnashing of teeth, and does not proceed into daggers of vengeance, then > to the remorse caused by unwanted punishment. > I believe there was some research which claimed that quality of articles tended to decrease dramatically if they were not watched by their main authors. --vvv ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Your abuse of moderator status
In a message dated 6/27/2010 12:45:55 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes: On 27 June 2010 20:42, William Pietri wrote: > Given that this is recurring drama-creating behavior, perhaps we can > move on to the "ignore" stage of WP:RBI. On enwiki, we did that ages ago. I don't believe he is blocked on Wikiversity (yet). >> -- Challenging the use of the word "ages" above. _http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User: Ottava+Rima_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Ottava+Rima) To me ages implies a term longer than six months. An interesting and verbose block log. Unsolicited and probably unwanted advice, possibly from a person who has a similar personality -- I have learned to never, ever, ever look at my Watchlist. I make my changes, and move on, and never look back. Thus, I never weep over the massacre made on my beautiful workmanship. Weeping does not turn into gnashing of teeth, and does not proceed into daggers of vengeance, then to the remorse caused by unwanted punishment. Interesting that a recent mod (prior to banning) was to Ada Lovelace. I *just yesterday*, believe it or don't, posted an update on Ada's pre-modern ancestry to the gen-med list. / soc.gen.med group. Odd co-incidence. Makes me wonder what cosmic significance I'm supposed to draw here. Will "Co-incidentally connected" Johnson ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against "copyleft"
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 11:04:19PM +0100, David Gerard wrote: > http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/ascap-assails-free-culture-digital-rights-groups/ > > They're actually gathering money to fight free content. > > We may need to do something about this. I'd love to know what they're thinking. A quiet, noncommittal inquiry with some folks at ASCAP might be enlightening. No matter how they treat the request, it'd be good recon. And you never know, sometimes one can make a friend. :-) Who can we send? sincerely, Kim Bruning -- [Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment] gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72 5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Foundation-l
On 27 June 2010 21:30, Dennis During wrote: > I would have thought almost any copying (such as what the software routinely > does on, say, this very e-mail) would be at worst "fair use". You've copied the email as a by-product of replying to it to provide context. I think that is very clearly fair use. Copying an email in order to send it to new people doesn't sound like fair use to me. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Foundation-l
I would have thought almost any copying (such as what the software routinely does on, say, this very e-mail) would be at worst "fair use". COPYVIO follows On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 27 June 2010 15:29, Aphaia wrote: > > In a certain jurisdiction, only creative expression can be under > > protection of laws. I have no comment, since I don't follow the whole > > discussion, if it is related to the mail in question. > > Sure, but I think "creative expression" is usually interpreted very > broadly. It doesn't have to be artistic or anything, just something > more than raw facts presented in the same way anyone else would > present those facts. > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > COPYVIO ENDS -- Dennis C. During Cynolatry is tolerant so long as the dog is not denied an equal divinity with the deities of other faiths. - Ambrose Bierce http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cynolatry ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Your abuse of moderator status
On 06/27/2010 12:45 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 27 June 2010 20:42, William Pietri wrote: > >> > Given that this is recurring drama-creating behavior, perhaps we can >> > move on to the "ignore" stage of WP:RBI. >> > On enwiki, we did that ages ago. I don't believe he is blocked on > Wikiversity (yet). > Sorry I wasn't clear. When I said "we", I meant foundation-l, not anything broader. William ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Your abuse of moderator status
On 27 June 2010 20:42, William Pietri wrote: > Given that this is recurring drama-creating behavior, perhaps we can > move on to the "ignore" stage of WP:RBI. On enwiki, we did that ages ago. I don't believe he is blocked on Wikiversity (yet). ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Your abuse of moderator status
On 06/27/2010 12:10 PM, quiddity wrote: >> According to Ottava, he is in charge of Wikiversity - sort of its >> equivalent of Jimmy. He says the position was created through all of >> his hard work and dedication. >> > Huh? How so? > http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=Ottava+Rima&lang=en&wiki=wikiversity > http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=250&target=Ottava+Rima > Citation required (for everything mentioned above). > Interesting. That led me to rummage a little, and apparently this is not the first time Ottava Rima has had trouble meeting project behavioral norms. He's currently under a 1-year ban on the English Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottava_Rima_restrictions As part of that, Jayron32 describes what he sees as "Ottava Rima's standard MO": "He starts an entirely inappropriate discussion, and as soon as other editors call him on it, he starts to give 'official warnings' and all sorts of other inappropriate responses." Given that this is recurring drama-creating behavior, perhaps we can move on to the "ignore" stage of WP:RBI. William ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Your abuse of moderator status
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Nathan wrote: > On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Thomas Dalton > wrote: >> On 26 June 2010 14:44, Andre Engels wrote: >>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Jeffrey Peters >>> <17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu> wrote: Austin, Maybe you didn't realize but I am the top organizer of Wikiversity. >> >> Wikiversity has a "top organizer"? What does that mean? >> > > According to Ottava, he is in charge of Wikiversity - sort of its > equivalent of Jimmy. He says the position was created through all of > his hard work and dedication. Huh? How so? http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=Ottava+Rima&lang=en&wiki=wikiversity http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=250&target=Ottava+Rima Citation required (for everything mentioned above). ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Your abuse of moderator status
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 26 June 2010 14:44, Andre Engels wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Jeffrey Peters >> <17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu> wrote: >>> Austin, >>> >>> Maybe you didn't realize but I am the top organizer of Wikiversity. > > Wikiversity has a "top organizer"? What does that mean? > According to Ottava, he is in charge of Wikiversity - sort of its equivalent of Jimmy. He says the position was created through all of his hard work and dedication. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Foundation-l
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Andrew Garrett wrote: > I don't know why you bothered putting him on moderation if you were > just going to forward all of his emails to the list. Please, keep the > discussion off this list, in order to prevent the disruption which you > sought to limit by placing Jeffrey on moderation. I only actually forwarded one e-mail, which I found relevant given the prior slew of misaddressed e-mails—which found their way onto the list through no fault of mine. Had I known it would have resulted in additional tangents, rather than everyone simply chuckling and moving on, I would have kept it for my own amusement. Austin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Foundation-l
On 27 June 2010 15:29, Aphaia wrote: > In a certain jurisdiction, only creative expression can be under > protection of laws. I have no comment, since I don't follow the whole > discussion, if it is related to the mail in question. Sure, but I think "creative expression" is usually interpreted very broadly. It doesn't have to be artistic or anything, just something more than raw facts presented in the same way anyone else would present those facts. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Gathering for chapters and potential chapters at Wikimania
It has been proposed that people from chapters and people wanting to form chapters get together at Wikimania in order to share experiences and offer each other advice. I am trying to organise such a gathering. I'm currently proposing an informal gathering during the Saturday morning coffee break. If you would be interested in attending such a gathering (either at that time or another time), please add your name to this page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_Chapter_Gathering If there is sufficient interest, I will contact that Wikimania organisers and try to get us a room. Since we don't have much time before Wikimania starts, please add your names quickly! ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Foundation-l
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 27 June 2010 13:55, Dennis During wrote: >> Are you saying that one can't disclose correspondence to any third-party >> without consent of both parties? In what jurisdictions? > > The law is a little out-of-date. When someone sends you a physical > letter you can give that letter to anyone you like, since it is a > piece of tangible property that you own (unless you've signed a > non-disclosure agreement, or something). However, giving someone an > email involves copying it, so copyright becomes a factor. I think > forwarding an email without permission is, technically, a copyright > violation in any jurisdiction that hasn't created an exception to the > usual law for it (I suppose some jurisdictions might interpret sending > an email as including an implied license to copy it, so don't require > a statutory exception, but I don't know of any such interpretations). In a certain jurisdiction, only creative expression can be under protection of laws. I have no comment, since I don't follow the whole discussion, if it is related to the mail in question. > What jurisdictions have such exceptions, I don't know. Google will > find you plenty of discussions (some reasonably well-informed) about > this issue. > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > -- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reconsidering the policy "one language - one Wikipedia"
Hello,
It seems to me doubtless that there is a substantial number of active
Wikimedians who see the need in a simple or children-encyclopedia and
would like to invest some of their own sweat, blood and tears. Others,
who disagree, may stand on the side line and comment if they like.
There are a lot of single questions when defining the exact scope
etc., but the main question remains: Would WMF accept such a project,
or would it reject it for being just another Wikipedia in already
existing languages. So, how different the new project must be from
Wikipedia. The original fear is that a linguistic group is split into
two communities whereas the forces usually should be concentrated in
one Wikipedia. A Wikipedia in "simple English", we were told, is
essentially a Wikipedia in English.
But if a project, for example, directs itself to a relativeley limited
group of readers (children), with consequences for the content
(limited length of articles, no explicit images), usage of language
(no hard words), wouldn't it be different enough from a "usual"
Wikipedia?
Kind regards
Ziko
2010/6/27 Ting Chen :
> Hello Milos,
>
> reading your mail below I am wondering why your reaction on my first
> mail was so aggressive. It looks to me as if your consideration is not
> that far away from mine. Especially I wrote in my suggestion that first
> of all the project must have a very clearly defined scope and audiance,
> second that it should have a more rigid editorial and anti-vandal
> mechanism and third that we need more research.
>
> Greetings
> Ting
>
> Milos Rancic wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 2:09 AM, Mark Williamson wrote:
>>
>>> The difference was that Wikipedia was not made for young people.
>>>
>>> If I run a social group for adults and there are issues with children
>>> who visit, I can blame it on their parents and say they should control
>>> them better. If I run a social group for children, I'm now a childcare
>>> provider and have a greater degree of responsibility.
>>>
>>
>> It is not [just] about blaming each other. It is about underestimating
>> child capacities and playing with their trust.
>>
>> Child is perfectly able to recognize what is "for adults" and what is
>> "for children": everything not marked ("marked" in various ways) as
>> "for children" is for adults. And they are able to treat differently
>> those two types of phenomena. "For adults" is not safe, while "for
>> children" is safe. Depending on circumstances, "for children"
>> phenomena could be also boring to them, but safe.
>>
>> And if we want to make a project in which children will trust as safe,
>> we have much higher responsibility than we have for creating any other
>> project not marked as a "project for children".
>>
>> ___
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>
> --
> Ting
>
> Ting's Blog: http://wingphilopp.blogspot.com/
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
--
Ziko van Dijk
Niederlande
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] encouraging women's participation
Probably related: http://www.womensenews.org/story/women-in-science/100623/it-jobs-offer-growth-women-are-bailing-out ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Foundation-l
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 10:29:28AM +0200, Peter Gervai wrote: > Good contributors shouldn't be driven > away even if they became obssessed or believe they're gods. Maybe he > needs a vacation (a longer one), not a kickban. > Vacation is fine. > Good contributors have earned the "right" to spend some time on them > before we administratively kick them out. Try not to handle such > things too lightly. No, they have not. VestedContributor is an antipattern. sincerely, Kim Bruning -- [Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment] gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key FEF9DD72 5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A 01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Foundation-l
On 27 June 2010 13:55, Dennis During wrote: > Are you saying that one can't disclose correspondence to any third-party > without consent of both parties? In what jurisdictions? The law is a little out-of-date. When someone sends you a physical letter you can give that letter to anyone you like, since it is a piece of tangible property that you own (unless you've signed a non-disclosure agreement, or something). However, giving someone an email involves copying it, so copyright becomes a factor. I think forwarding an email without permission is, technically, a copyright violation in any jurisdiction that hasn't created an exception to the usual law for it (I suppose some jurisdictions might interpret sending an email as including an implied license to copy it, so don't require a statutory exception, but I don't know of any such interpretations). What jurisdictions have such exceptions, I don't know. Google will find you plenty of discussions (some reasonably well-informed) about this issue. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Your abuse of moderator status
On 26 June 2010 14:44, Andre Engels wrote: > On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 3:32 PM, Jeffrey Peters > <17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu> wrote: >> Austin, >> >> Maybe you didn't realize but I am the top organizer of Wikiversity. Wikiversity has a "top organizer"? What does that mean? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Foundation-l
Are you saying that one can't disclose correspondence to any third-party without consent of both parties? In what jurisdictions? On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 4:53 AM, K. Peachey wrote: > He is also a "bit" miffed about you forwarding the message to the > list, as you are probably aware, emails are still copyrighted. > > -Peachey > > -- Dennis C. During ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Please help review [[Commons:Sexual content]]
As many of you are aware, Commons has been developing a proposed policy regarding sexual content at [[Commons:Sexual content]].[1] It is now stable and ready for review by third parties - if you haven't read it yet, please look it over and provide any feedback on the talk page. We want to move forward on adoption soon. Dcoetzee has requested feedback from the English Wikipedia, and we'd appreciate it if you can all help spread the news to your own local wikis, since this affects everyone. Thank you! [1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Foundation-l
He is also a "bit" miffed about you forwarding the message to the list, as you are probably aware, emails are still copyrighted. -Peachey ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Foundation-l
I don't know why you bothered putting him on moderation if you were just going to forward all of his emails to the list. Please, keep the discussion off this list, in order to prevent the disruption which you sought to limit by placing Jeffrey on moderation. -- Andrew Garrett http://werdn.us/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Foundation-l
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 01:51, Kim Bruning wrote: > Hmm, we had a similar issue with ru.wikibooks at one point, where some people > thought they were "in charge", and had to be removed. Apart from Jeffrey acting really quite weird I believe there should be at least a round of trying to convince him that his views need serious revision. (Not about copyright, mind you, but about calling others names, starting ad hominem debates and offtopic rants and considering himself the leader of the pack.) Good contributors shouldn't be driven away even if they became obssessed or believe they're gods. Maybe he needs a vacation (a longer one), not a kickban. Good contributors have earned the "right" to spend some time on them before we administratively kick them out. Try not to handle such things too lightly. ps: "Take my advices, I never have used them anyway." -- byte-byte, grin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Reconsidering the policy "one language - one Wikipedia"
Hello Milos,
reading your mail below I am wondering why your reaction on my first
mail was so aggressive. It looks to me as if your consideration is not
that far away from mine. Especially I wrote in my suggestion that first
of all the project must have a very clearly defined scope and audiance,
second that it should have a more rigid editorial and anti-vandal
mechanism and third that we need more research.
Greetings
Ting
Milos Rancic wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 2:09 AM, Mark Williamson wrote:
>
>> The difference was that Wikipedia was not made for young people.
>>
>> If I run a social group for adults and there are issues with children
>> who visit, I can blame it on their parents and say they should control
>> them better. If I run a social group for children, I'm now a childcare
>> provider and have a greater degree of responsibility.
>>
>
> It is not [just] about blaming each other. It is about underestimating
> child capacities and playing with their trust.
>
> Child is perfectly able to recognize what is "for adults" and what is
> "for children": everything not marked ("marked" in various ways) as
> "for children" is for adults. And they are able to treat differently
> those two types of phenomena. "For adults" is not safe, while "for
> children" is safe. Depending on circumstances, "for children"
> phenomena could be also boring to them, but safe.
>
> And if we want to make a project in which children will trust as safe,
> we have much higher responsibility than we have for creating any other
> project not marked as a "project for children".
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
--
Ting
Ting's Blog: http://wingphilopp.blogspot.com/
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
