Read
http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/11/25/160236/Contributors-Leaving-Wikipedia-In-Record-Numbers
Article is based on Felipe Ortega's research. There are two claims
from this article:
1. English-language version of Wikipedia suffered a net loss of 49,000
contributors, compared with a loss of
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:36 AM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
Read
http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/11/25/160236/Contributors-Leaving-Wikipedia-In-Record-Numbers
Article is based on Felipe Ortega's research. There are two claims
from this article:
1. English-language version of
Hoi,
So you have an idea ... please share it and explain why you think it will
make a difference. It does not really help to leave with a cliff hanger ...
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/11/26 Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com
Read
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
So you have an idea ... please share it and explain why you think it will
make a difference. It does not really help to leave with a cliff hanger ...
2009/11/26 Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com
(Actually, I have
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
Your question is not constructive because new rules of the list
include the rule that 30 messages per month per person should be a
limit.
http://strategy.wikimedia.org
No posting limit. Little bureaucracy. Ideas welcomed
Hoi,
Please assume good faith.. I am truly interested in good ideas.. It is
exactly because I value your opinions that I asked. The fact that there is
moderation is intended to prevent unproductive discussions. My intention is
to be to the point, clear in my statements and questions and publish as
--- El jue, 26/11/09, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com escribió:
De: Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com
Asunto: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not bureaucracy, said bureaucrat and
deleted article
Para: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Fecha: jueves, 26 de
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:29 PM, Felipe Ortega
glimmer_phoe...@yahoo.es wrote:
This is Andrew Dalby's quote, not mine.
I would like to hear from Felipe clarification of the claim
that 49,000 contributors left Wikipedia. If it is so, then en.wp
has around ten times more fluctuation of
I already pointed out that you cannot impose friendliness. Our current
state is one in which any particular admin may sit on any particular editor
with or without adequate cause and that editor has nearly no power to affect a
hearing. There is no advocate for the editors who are not admins.
In a message dated 11/26/2009 3:39:23 AM Pacific Standard Time,
valde...@gmail.com writes:
The final solution is that only people who are already expert in the
processes can impose their point of view and in fact en.wikipedia
don't assure a neutral point of view but the point of view of
We had that. They called themselves the Association
of Member's Advocates. They were disbanded because
everyone saw them as a huge waste of time with 0 net
benefit.
-Chad
On Nov 26, 2009 8:56 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I already pointed out that you cannot impose friendliness. Our current
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Association_of_Members%27_Advocates
As for having some level of who polices the policeman at least on
Wikipedia we already have bureaucrats, checkusers, admins, arbitrators,
oversighters, stewards... So I'm pretty sure we've got the checks and
balances
on 11/26/09 9:06 PM, Chad at innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
We had that. They called themselves the Association
of Member's Advocates. They were disbanded because
everyone saw them as a huge waste of time with 0 net
benefit.
Everyone? I'm not familiar with the one you mention, but, let's
On Nov 26, 2009 8:56 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Any arrested person has
the right to an attorney, provided free of charge by the state.
That is
what we need. Advocate-attorneys who are on the side of the arrested
editor.
I'm totally okay with discussing this concept, but arguments
What we really need are highly skilled encyclopedists doing their highly
demanding work.
What we need is an Office of the Editor Advocate. Any arrested person has the
right to an attorney, provided free of charge by the state. That is what we
need. Advocate-attorneys who are on the side of
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:54 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/26/2009 3:39:23 AM Pacific Standard Time,
valde...@gmail.com writes:
The final solution is that only people who are already expert in the
processes can impose their point of view and in fact en.wikipedia
don't
16 matches
Mail list logo
