On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 9:06 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
This is effectively the only cross-project list at the moment. And it
is the canonical place to raise certain important issues and
announcements.
It has become popular to disparage this list as a poor place to have
Why should all Wikimedians have the same culture and ideas and way of
thinking as you? Why should Wikimedians who have a culture be excluded from
setting up a chapter?
Besides that I think you're paraphrasing way too much. The grant request
only suggested that this kind of costs are just costs
Erik Moeller e...@... writes:
What do you suggest? Are there models from other mailing list
communities that we should experiment with to create a healthier, more
productive discussion culture? What, based on your own experience of
this list, would you like to see change?
I'll try to gather
A proposal from me that I have entered on
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Improving_Foundation-l
Wikiinfrastructure to support and ease moderation
-All users on foundation-l must have an User account on Meta, with
automatic mailsignal when discussion page is changed
-Document wanted behavior
Fully agreed with Ray: If someone doesn't know how to use delete
button, then such person is not quite competent to use mailing lists.
It reminds me on criticism toward wikis: Ah, someone may change my
edits! I don't want to use that system anymore!
On 2009-09-11, phoebe ayers
Hoi,
I think the discussion is about making foundation-l more inclusive. We know
that there is a large group of people who will not contribute to
foundation-l because they find the tone damaging. When this is reduced to
being able to use the delete button you forget that the damage is already
Hi Thomas, and all who showed concern about Wikimedia Portugal's planned
expenses.
I am one of the persons who calculated that budget, and thus I feel I should
provide you with some information.
First of all, I'd point out that none of us has any experience in
nation-wide nonprofit
* Wikisource -- better native support for side-by-side translations,
annotations, and extracting/citing primary source material from the
other sites like Wikipedia would be very helpful.
Same thing is in need for Wikiquote as well while I do believe
that
... extracting/citing primary source
I think we're talking about two groups of people and thinking here:
1) a group of people who have the principle be bold in their coat of arms
and love to say anything that comes to mind, no matter whether that might be
rude or not.
2) the people who see discussion more as a social process which is
-All users on foundation-l must have an User account on Meta, with
automatic mailsignal when discussion page is changed
If I'm not mistaken it (implicitly) suggests that all mail signatures
should contain a reference to that account (and/or SUL).
I would support that and I never did it yet
... I'd think there should be no objection to publishing
the entire log. And if minutes is taken to mean simply a summary of
the discussion, no doubt that would be welcome as well.
I do believe that if such objections will ever have place they should
be processed with all due respect and
I've noticed that some signatures on this list do contain account/SUL
information, but seemingly those are in minority (much less than 50%)
Mine does not, and I am not planning to use another e-mail for this list.
-Document wanted behavior rules on meta in the same way as on wikipedia
If we are just throwing out random ideas...
I've long wanted to see an open source project to create a world
family tree, i.e. document the ancestry and connections between
everyone ever. There are a couple high profile closed source / fee
based projects aiming to do this, but no successful
2009/9/11 effe iets anders effeietsand...@gmail.com:
Why should all Wikimedians have the same culture and ideas and way of
thinking as you? Why should Wikimedians who have a culture be excluded from
setting up a chapter?
We're not talking about culture, we are talking about lunch. They are
2009/9/11 Waldir Pimenta wal...@email.com:
Hi Thomas, and all who showed concern about Wikimedia Portugal's planned
expenses.
I am one of the persons who calculated that budget, and thus I feel I should
provide you with some information.
Thank you very much, I appreciate your willingness to
2009/9/11 Waldir Pimenta wal...@email.com:
We would love to receive advice on how we can make the chapter work (well)
with people so spread across the country (almost all the involved people
live in different cities), and since much of the money WMF has was
volunteer-contributed, we will take
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 4:49 AM, Waldir Pimenta wal...@email.com wrote:
Hi Thomas, and all who showed concern about Wikimedia Portugal's planned
expenses.
I am one of the persons who calculated that budget, and thus I feel I should
provide you with some information.
First of all, I'd point
Nathan wrote:
I'm curious - Portugal isn't on this list of officially recognized
chapters[1], but the grant criteria[2] say that grants are contingent
on chapter recognition by the WMF. Has that happened and just not made
it to meta?
I'm not sure what part of the criteria you're reading to
2009/9/11 Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net:
Nathan wrote:
I'm curious - Portugal isn't on this list of officially recognized
chapters[1], but the grant criteria[2] say that grants are contingent
on chapter recognition by the WMF. Has that happened and just not made
it to meta?
I'm not
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net wrote:
I'm not sure what part of the criteria you're reading to paraphrase them
in those contingent terms. To quote from the page itself, If your
chapter is still in development, you can still apply for funds
(especially when
Hoi,
The likely and obvious answer is to someone who is known and trusted to be
involved in this.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/9/11 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
2009/9/11 Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net:
Nathan wrote:
I'm curious - Portugal isn't on this list of officially
On Sep 11, 2009, at 9:13 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
We're not talking about culture, we are talking about lunch. They are
human beings, the same as we are, they have the same needs when it
comes to food.
This, in fact, is one of the great fallacies of international
organizations. Failure
2009/9/11 Philippe Beaudette pbeaude...@wikimedia.org:
On Sep 11, 2009, at 9:13 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
We're not talking about culture, we are talking about lunch. They are
human beings, the same as we are, they have the same needs when it
comes to food.
This, in fact, is one of the
Hoi,
You are doing it again. You insist that for them being Wikimedians they must
share the same values the same culture as you do... It must be true because
you insist on it. Somehow I do not buy it.
thanks,
GerardM
2009/9/11 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
2009/9/11 Philippe
2009/9/11 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com:
Hoi,
You are doing it again. You insist that for them being Wikimedians they must
share the same values the same culture as you do... It must be true because
you insist on it. Somehow I do not buy it.
If they value themselves over our
Hoi,
Relevant is what our aim is. Our aim is to bring the total sum of knowledge
to everyone. Now, that means that we have to be Portuguese in Portugal,
Dutch in the Netherlands and I leave you to be British in Britain. In the
end that is what we ask people to contribute to.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/9/11 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com:
Hoi,
Relevant is what our aim is. Our aim is to bring the total sum of knowledge
to everyone. Now, that means that we have to be Portuguese in Portugal,
Dutch in the Netherlands and I leave you to be British in Britain. In the
end that is
the main question should be whether it is worth it in that case. I.e., will
it improve the chances of the chapter becoming successful? And I believe you
are just as I am not able to make that estimate without at least some
understanding of Portuguese culture.
Lodewijk
2009/9/11 Thomas Dalton
2009/9/11 effe iets anders effeietsand...@gmail.com:
the main question should be whether it is worth it in that case. I.e., will
it improve the chances of the chapter becoming successful? And I believe you
are just as I am not able to make that estimate without at least some
understanding of
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 1:14 PM, effe iets anders
effeietsand...@gmail.com wrote:
I think we're talking about two groups of people and thinking here:
1) a group of people who have the principle be bold in their coat of arms
and love to say anything that comes to mind, no matter whether that
Isn't temporarily blocking such a user a way to calm him/her down? I
Yes it might be the way, but far not universal way.
And it should be the last (ultimate) in moderator toolkit, far not the
first to be used.
--Pavlo Shevelo
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:42 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 9:45 PM, Pavlo Shevelo pavlo.shev...@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't temporarily blocking such a user a way to calm him/her down? I
Yes it might be the way, but far not universal way.
And it should be the last (ultimate) in moderator toolkit, far not the
first to be used.
Yep.
May I respectfully suggest that further discussion on this thread be
taken offlist until new arguments come to light which have not already
been posted?
-- brion
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
On 9/11/09 12:45 PM, Pavlo Shevelo wrote:
Isn't temporarily blocking such a user a way to calm him/her down? I
Yes it might be the way, but far not universal way.
And it should be the last (ultimate) in moderator toolkit, far not the
first to be used.
The fundamental mechanism of moderation
--- On Fri, 9/11/09, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Moderate this list
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Friday, September 11, 2009, 1:49 PM
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 1:14 PM,
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:36 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
As someone who does not think heavy-moderation is a good answer to the
problem, I think you are missing the point.
These bold/imprudent sort of people have useful contributions in sharing
their positions. It is the
Yes. You are right about that. So, may we (insiders) promise not to
have such discourse? :)
It's a problem with mailing versus face to face meeting: it's
impossible to see whether you crossed your heart or crossed you
fingers while writing that :-P
[Disclaimer: It's just Friday evening joke,
-Document wanted behavior rules on meta in the same way as on wikipedia
(wp:et, wp:not, no chat, do not overload etc)
What wikipedia? I have no idea what the en.wp rules are for discussions,
and I do not wnat to be blocked on this list for not having this idea. On
ru.wp, my home project, we
http://philanthropy.com/news/prospecting/9484/new-youtube-feature-helps-charities-raise-money-with-videos
So, any videos we can do this with?
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
2009/9/11 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
http://philanthropy.com/news/prospecting/9484/new-youtube-feature-helps-charities-raise-money-with-videos
So, any videos we can do this with?
Didn't Jimmy do a video message as part of the last fundraiser? It
would be great to put something like that
2009/9/11 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com:
2009/9/11 David Gerard dger...@gmail.com:
http://philanthropy.com/news/prospecting/9484/new-youtube-feature-helps-charities-raise-money-with-videos
So, any videos we can do this with?
Didn't Jimmy do a video message as part of the last
I believe what was meant by this is that we should codify policies the
same way that all large Wikipedias have codified policies, NOT that we
should adopt the same policies as en.wp or any other for that matter.
If we're talking about Wikipedias - yes.
But if we are talking about moderation
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Pavlo Shevelo pavlo.shev...@gmail.com wrote:
Or you mean 'codification' as 'put all rules systematically/structured
and in written'?
If so it's exactly the basic proposal of Anders Wennersten:
That's usually what codification means :-)
Mark
That's usually what codification means :-)
Ah-ha!
Many thanks! :)
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 1:43 AM, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Pavlo Shevelo pavlo.shev...@gmail.com
wrote:
Or you mean 'codification' as 'put all rules systematically/structured
Tisza, this is very well put.
On 9/11/09, Tisza Gergő gti...@gmail.com wrote:
- the discussion space is divided by time, not by topic. What little
topic-based
Yes. put another way, 'there is no natural namespace to fill and
revise over time as all useful discussions are traversed'
- the
Fair enough, Brion :-) -- I'm just going to amplify and elaborate a
little on Jennifer's original mail. I think some of this is on the
meta page, but I'll say it here anyway.
The purpose of the chapters grant process is to make money available
to people to get good work done. The basic assumption
On Sep 11, 2009, at 7:06 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
LiquidThreads was developed for that
purpose, but it seems to have been largely discarded, with no
significant
interest from the community, the foundation or the usability team -
why?
This may be part of the solution, but there is more
Ya..I think must go on
--Original Message--
From: Philippe Beaudette
Sender: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
ReplyTo: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Use of moderation
Sent: Sep 12, 2009 08:03
On Sep 11,
See and give me ide for trafic and rank alexa good/bad is my blog...this is
my blog???!! http://www.karina-9.blogspot.com
Sent from my AXIS Worry Free BlackBerry® smartphone
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
Perhaps we need a peripheral Wikipedia layer for items meeting V, but
where N being based on general assumptions: a level for verifiable
articles that don't meet current notability standards.
It could be a separate project, Wikidirectory--just as we moved out
dicdefs, and quotations, and so on,
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 1:00 AM, Brion Vibber br...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 9/8/09 3:56 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/9/8 Pedro Sanchezpdsanc...@gmail.com:
Geographical/atlas/map kind ofproject
granted, there's wikimapia and other external equivalents
but we (Wikimedia) are lacking it
Is
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 7:20 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps we need a peripheral Wikipedia layer for items meeting V, but
where N being based on general assumptions: a level for verifiable
articles that don't meet current notability standards.
It could be a separate
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 7:40 PM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
snip
In my opinion, What is really missing for example is the ability to
find all the articles that occur in a geographic location.
I would like to see all the articles about Beijing for
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 11:59 PM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote:
If we are just throwing out random ideas...
I've long wanted to see an open source project to create a world
family tree, i.e. document the ancestry and connections between
everyone ever. There are a couple high profile
54 matches
Mail list logo
