Hoi,
In your question the key thing to appreciate is that it is the .org part
that does not need to be in the Latin script any more. What I propose is
that we support the whole wikipedia.org part and wiktionary.org part
once in each script.
What the word is for Wikipedia is not my call. This is
I see. So you'd like to see double the number of site registrations; in
this case adding
维基百科.o?r?g? to zh.wikipedia.org
That strikes me as a significant expense for uncertain result; but it would
make a good strategy proposal -- especially if you can find users from ar,
zh, ru, and
By the way Hungary supports accented domains for some years now and
the experience shows that they are not used at all. Penetration is so
low that I couldn't even tell you one to test.
(We have, for example http://wikipédia.hu/, but it's rather a test
than a real usage.)
Apart from that
Hoi,
The Hungarian Wikipedia is written in the Latin script so the experience
cannot be compared.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/10/31 Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com
By the way Hungary supports accented domains for some years now and
the experience shows that they are not used at all. Penetration
Do you need to register domains under these new internationalised TLDs?
To me it seems to be the obvious solution, that the internationalised
TLDs will be aliases to the existing ones. So wikipedia.cn and 维基百科.
c?n? will point to the same target. That's how I would solve it and I
really see no
I think the community should be and is being treated as a majority
shareholder, even better! Office IT support is a typical thing that the
community is not affected by AT ALL. So I am not surprised no announcement
is being given on foundation-l about this. If any public list would be
relevant, it
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 08:02, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
The Hungarian Wikipedia is written in the Latin script
I'm kind of guessed that. :-]
so the experience cannot be compared.
It is not the same, but indeed they can be compared. Straight denial
doesn't always
- Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Try to remember that the Wikimedia Foundation
is a business...
No it isn't - the Foundation is a charity. The Foundation needs to retain the
confidence of the Wikimedia community in order to achieve its aims, and the
community plays a big role in the
In a message dated 10/31/2009 8:51:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes:
where sensationalised rumours get spread because of
a lack of accurate information.
I think it's a little pre-mature to say that it's a sensationalised rumour
speading because of a lack of
2009/10/31 wjhon...@aol.com:
In a message dated 10/31/2009 8:51:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes:
where sensationalised rumours get spread because of
a lack of accurate information.
I think it's a little pre-mature to say that it's a sensationalised rumour
In a message dated 10/31/2009 12:24:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes:
As I said above, he wouldn't be working a month's notice if he had
been fired. Resigned by mutual agreement is more likely. I guess
either a) he didn't fit in in the office, b) the job turned out
2009/10/31 wjhon...@aol.com:
In a message dated 10/31/2009 12:24:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes:
As I said above, he wouldn't be working a month's notice if he had
been fired. Resigned by mutual agreement is more likely. I guess
either a) he didn't fit in in
I agree with Lodewijk completely. One of the best reasons for this is
simple human dignity. People come and go from jobs all the time, it is
neither a scandal, nor a shame. Public speculation about such stuff is
offensive and embarassing.
Yes, to community-facing positions. Yes, to
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 10:22 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
And the reason for speculation is that people first found out by rumor
rather than foundation announcement. Basic communication management.
Get stuff out before someone else can put their spin on it.
I have to disagree. The
On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com 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
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
As I said above, he wouldn't be working a month's notice if he had
been fired.
You correctly qualified that with In my experience people don't
usually the first time.
In any case, the difference between laid off and
Geni, Thomas and MZMcbride suggest that the Foundation should announce
the dismissal of low-impact employees because otherwise the rumor mill
will make up stories. Perhaps you're right that the spread of rumors
is inevitable, but you don't seem to acknowledge your own role in
this. Even so,
2009/11/1 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
Yeah. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment
Here in the US, if a company doesn't mind its unemployment tax rate
going up, they can do pretty much whatever they want.
In the UK, what, if anything, can a company do if they want to
redefine a
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 8:19 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/11/1 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/11/1 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
In the UK, what, if anything, can a company do if they want
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Pedro Sanchez pdsanc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Gregory Maxwell argues that the Wikimedia Foundation should
voluntarily submit to the type of openness required of government
agencies; I suspect this is
In a message dated 10/31/2009 12:32:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes:
It's possible, but since that would require the WMF to intentionally
mislead the community and there is no evidence to support it, I think
it is unlikely to be the case.
That would be true
21 matches
Mail list logo
