Florence Devouard wrote:
On 7/31/10 5:21 PM, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
But all of the above are nice dreams about the future. Is there any
proven experience from the past that demonstrates why personal
meetings between Wikimedians are not just fun for them, but actually
beneficial to the
This has been an interesting thread to follow, there should be one
non-Wikimania, because it does matter. I've met several Wikimedians at the
couple meet-ups I've been to with whom on-wiki I had many disagreements
with. Meeting face to face clears that air with the human contact. James
I am very shocked. :(
I'll definitely miss you my friend.
Belayet [[User:Bellayet]]
--
Belayet Hossain
http://www.facebook.com/bellayet
http://twitter.com/bellayet
http://bellayet.wordpress.com (Bangla)
Knowledge is universal
...so share it.
Hillel
If I am not for myself, who
Cary,
I don't know what to say, I will miss you :(
--
Huib Abigor Laurens
Tech team
www.wikiweet.nl - www.llamadawiki.nl - www.forgotten-beauty.com -
www.wickedway.nl - www.huiblaurens.nl - www.wikiweet.org
___
foundation-l mailing list
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 2:09 AM, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.comwrote:
This has been an interesting thread to follow, there should be one
non-Wikimania, because it does matter. I've met several Wikimedians at the
couple meet-ups I've been to with whom on-wiki I had many disagreements
Hi all;
Some days ago I was contacted in my user talk in Spanish Wikipedia about a
request for deletion in German Wikipedia.[1] An user opened a request for
deletion[2] for an user edits ranking[3] which my bot updates regularly in
German Wikipedia (also in many more projects[4][5]). Finally, the
Cary, I will miss you. It is/was/will be a pleasure to work with you.
I wish you all the best for your next phase of life. Hope to see you in
Haifa :)
Raymond.
Am 03.08.2010 00:01, schrieb Cary Bass:
It is with deep regret that I tell you I will be leaving the staff of
the Wikimedia
2010/8/3 Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:13 AM, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, reading the Privacy Policy[10] of the Wikimedia Foundation, you can
see:
User contributions are also aggregated and publicly available. User
contributions are aggregated
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 3:56 AM, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/8/3 Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:13 AM, emijrp emi...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, reading the Privacy Policy[10] of the Wikimedia Foundation, you
can
see:
User contributions are also
That's shocking, indeed. What about all those pages on WMF sites who say
if you don't know who to ask, ask Cary and similar things? :-/
Thomas Dalton, 03/08/2010 01:12:
On 2 August 2010 23:51, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Cary, you'll be missed. The WMF absolutely should try to replace you,
Hi all,
to give a little insight here: about two years ago the German Wikipedia
community reached consensus that, for the page
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BZ (which is basically user
statistics and ranking), an opt-in is required. That means only those users
may be listed there who
Personally, I don't see any intrinsic problem with different wiki
communities having different policies about what kinds of auxiliary
content they will accept (as long as it doesn't interfere with the
basic mission of the project).
I will say though that trying to control the ways that already
Hi!
The privacy policy is clear. Your number of edits is public. And it can be
published in aggregated forms by other uses. And if you edit Wikipedia, you
accept the Privacy Policy. Also, on the top of the Privacy Policy page you
can read:
Foundation privacy policy is what kind of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 37-01--10 03:59 PM, James Alexander wrote:
That being said I'm not totally sure that basic info like edit counts should
be disallowed since most of them are given by the software itself (and still
is) not to mention the toolserver. Perhaps more
So if the incentive to improve it will end and the people who contribute
will switch over.. you have nothing to complain about, because the quote
unquote imposed skin will die out. End of problem.
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 2:55 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Brandon Harris wrote:
This
Agreed. A good example; on the English Wikipedia, I'm a massive law nerd
with 40-something legal GAs and FAs to my name. I'd never even have studied
the subject if it wasn't for a group of Wikipedians, some of whom have later
helped me with or collaborated on articles. The importance of social
On 3 August 2010 02:32, Brandon Harris bhar...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 8/2/2010 6:12 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
A lot of the complaints I heard regarding the Vector rollout were based in
the fact that the Wikimedia Usability team has subverted and bastardized the
term usability in an attempt to
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/us/03fbi.html?hpw
The FBI sent a cease desist letter to the WMF demanding the removal
of the FBI seal from the English Wikipedia; Mike replied with, in the
words of the New York Times, a primer on the law. Well done, Mike.
~Nathan
On 3 August 2010 14:31, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/03/us/03fbi.html?hpw
The FBI sent a cease desist letter to the WMF demanding the removal
of the FBI seal from the English Wikipedia; Mike replied with, in the
words of the New York Times, a primer on the
replied with, in the
words of the New York Times, a primer on the law. Well done, Mike.
At least he didn't actually reference Arkell v. Pressdram.
He comes close, though. Do be sure to read the letter:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100803-wiki-LetterToLarson.pdf
- d
On 1 August 2010 04:08, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Jimmy O'Regan jore...@gmail.com wrote:
Open-Tran: http://open-tran.eu/
Is something like translatewiki.
Software here: http://code.google.com/p/open-tran/
They also provide their databases for
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 3:54 AM, Sebastian Moleski i...@sebmol.me wrote:
Hi all,
to give a little insight here: about two years ago the German Wikipedia
community reached consensus that, for the page
(...)
___
foundation-l mailing list
On 08/03/2010 12:01 AM, Cary Bass wrote:
It is with deep regret that I tell you I will be leaving the staff of
the Wikimedia Foundation at the end of December.
Hi Cary,
this is truly sad news for us!
I'm not sure how the foundation is supposed to replace you. (I'm
guessing a piece of
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 4:37 AM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote:
I will say though that trying to control the ways that already public
data might be aggregated is pretty unexpected from my American
viewpoint. It is also seems pretty clear that aggregation of edit
statistics is
On 3 August 2010 09:04, James Alexander jameso...@gmail.com wrote:
While I disagree with the policy I'm not sure we can say that they aren't
allowed to make it. I think a more restrictive policy would be allowed just
not less restrictive.
That's pretty much exactly what I was going to say. The
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
That's pretty much exactly what I was going to say. The German
Wikipedia is entitled to create whatever policies it likes as long as
they don't go against global policy (and being more restrictive isn't
against the
An'n 03.08.2010 09:13, hett emijrp schreven:
User contributions are also aggregated and publicly available. User
contributions are aggregated according to their registration and login
status. Data on user contributions, such as the times at which users edited
and the number of edits they
An'n 03.08.2010 18:58, hett Marcus Buck schreven:
An'n 03.08.2010 09:13, hett emijrp schreven:
User contributions are also aggregated and publicly available. User
contributions are aggregated according to their registration and login
status. Data on user contributions, such as the times
+ all of us ! :(
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Belayet Hossain bella...@gmail.com wrote:
I am very shocked. :(
I'll definitely miss you my friend.
Belayet [[User:Bellayet]]
--
Belayet Hossain
http://www.facebook.com/bellayet
http://twitter.com/bellayet
http://bellayet.wordpress.com
Sebastian Moleski wrote:
That's not quite what the rule tries to accomplish. Rather, the point is
this: personal data being public does not allow anyone to aggregate such
data in a way such that the result is still tied to individual people (also
called 'profiling'). Why is that so? Because
Robert Rohde wrote:
Personally, I don't see any intrinsic problem with different wiki
communities having different policies about what kinds of auxiliary
content they will accept (as long as it doesn't interfere with the
basic mission of the project).
I will say though that trying to
On 3 August 2010 19:33, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Currently the data collection and processing doesn't follow its
recommended code of good practice of the UKs DPA and may even be in
breach of it:
http://www.ico.gov.uk/ebook/ebook.htm
That's quite a long document. You could point out
Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 3 August 2010 19:33, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Currently the data collection and processing doesn't follow its
recommended code of good practice of the UKs DPA and may even be in
breach of it:
http://www.ico.gov.uk/ebook/ebook.htm
That's quite a long
The issue is when someone aggregates the data and associates with an
individual, and then makes publishes it. Or uses that data to make
public statements about a user.
we don't associate data with individual, we associate data with pseudonym.
otoh, whatever people talk here about
Domas Mituzas wrote:
The issue is when someone aggregates the data and associates with
an individual, and then makes publishes it. Or uses that data to
make public statements about a user.
we don't associate data with individual, we associate data with
pseudonym.
And? People use the same
On 3 August 2010 15:48, Domas Mituzas midom.li...@gmail.com wrote:
The issue is when someone aggregates the data and associates with an
individual, and then makes publishes it. Or uses that data to make
public statements about a user.
we don't associate data with individual, we
Risker wrote:
On 3 August 2010 15:48, Domas Mituzas midom.li...@gmail.com wrote:
The issue is when someone aggregates the data and associates with an
individual, and then makes publishes it. Or uses that data to make
public statements about a user.
we don't associate data with individual,
On 08/03/2010 10:04 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Domas Mituzas wrote:
The issue is when someone aggregates the data and associates with
an individual, and then makes publishes it. Or uses that data to
make public statements about a user.
we don't associate data with individual, we
On 08/03/2010 10:38 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Risker wrote:
On 3 August 2010 15:48, Domas Mituzasmidom.li...@gmail.com wrote:
People can edit for years without creating an account, and they may well
have a static IP address. Besides simply writing down that data is
aggregated
On 3 August 2010 16:38, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Risker wrote:
On 3 August 2010 15:48, Domas Mituzas midom.li...@gmail.com wrote:
The issue is when someone aggregates the data and associates with an
individual, and then makes publishes it. Or uses that data to make
public
masti wrote:
On 08/03/2010 10:04 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Domas Mituzas wrote:
The issue is when someone aggregates the data and associates with
an individual, and then makes publishes it. Or uses that data to
make public statements about a user.
we don't associate data with
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Domas Mituzas wrote:
The issue is when someone aggregates the data and associates with
an individual, and then makes publishes it. Or uses that data to
make public statements about a user.
we don't associate data with individual, we associate
Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
In 2006 Wikimania in Boston there was a brief, informal meetup of
chapter committee, existing chapters boards members and people thinikg
to establish their own chapters. I don't know if it was the results of
only this meeting but several weeks/months after this meeting
Hi, wiki-list!
No ethics here then.
Excuse me, what is your complaint?
I don't really get the point you are trying to make.
There are few simple things, but apparently you have problems to grasp them :)
1. Your readership data is not revealed to third parties. Your point if a UK
ISP
Ray Saintonge wrote:
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Domas Mituzas wrote:
The issue is when someone aggregates the data and associates with
an individual, and then makes publishes it. Or uses that data to
make public statements about a user.
we don't associate data with
This is just a reminder. :) We'd love to see more people attend.
*RecentChangesCamp* is an
openhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Space_Technology
conference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconference on online
collaborative practices centered around
wikishttp://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wiki.
RCC
Domas Mituzas wrote:
Hi, wiki-list!
No ethics here then.
Excuse me, what is your complaint?
I don't really get the point you are trying to make.
There are few simple things, but apparently you have problems to
grasp them :)
1. Your readership data is not revealed to third parties.
On 3 August 2010 22:05, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
No ethics here then.
Tell me, have you ever contributed *anything* to this list, or to a
Wikimedia project, that wasn't trolling?
- d.
___
foundation-l mailing list
David Gerard wrote:
On 3 August 2010 22:05, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
No ethics here then.
Tell me, have you ever contributed *anything* to this list, or to a
Wikimedia project, that wasn't trolling?
How is it trolling to simply question a few assumptions? And to answer
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
2. As an editor, you are participating in a collaborative process,
which has quite a lot of meritocracy, so your contribution to the
project matters.
Either an action/edit is good or it is not. Why would previous editing
history make any difference
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 7:51 AM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Domas Mituzas wrote:
Hi, wiki-list!
No ethics here then.
Excuse me, what is your complaint?
I don't really get the point you are trying to make.
There are few simple things, but apparently you have problems to
grasp
.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100803-wiki-LetterToLarson.pdf
- d.
I can second that - that letter (in the above PDF link) is amusing as it is
well argued - A must read. Bravo Mike :-)
The story has now been picked up by other news agencies from the geeky
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100803
The story has now been picked up by other news agencies from the geeky
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100803/00013910465.shtml to the
mainstream http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10851394 all of which
pointing out this delightfully snarky letter. I for one discovered this
story
No ethics here then.
Tell me, have you ever contributed *anything* to this list, or to a
Wikimedia project, that wasn't trolling?
How is it trolling to simply question a few assumptions? And to answer
your question yes.
Pls, stop. It is no problem (but probably hard work) to
John Vandenberg wrote:
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 7:51 AM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Domas Mituzas wrote:
Hi, wiki-list!
No ethics here then.
Excuse me, what is your complaint?
I don't really get the point you are trying to make.
There are few simple things, but apparently you have
from the geeky
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100803/00013910465.shtml
to the
mainstream http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10851394 all of
which
pointing out this delightfully snarky letter. I for
one discovered this
story not online but in reading the Sydney Morning
Herald today
://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100803/00013910465.shtml
to the
mainstream http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10851394 all of
which
pointing out this delightfully snarky letter. I for
one discovered this
story not online but in reading the Sydney Morning
Herald today which calls
Incidentally, britannica.com removed the seal today from their article on the
FBI.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/203351/Federal-Bureau-of-Investigation
You can see the edit in the Article History. However, at the time of writing,
the seal is still included in the Media section of
On 3 August 2010 23:23, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 3 August 2010 22:05, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
No ethics here then.
Tell me, have you ever contributed *anything* to this list, or to a
Wikimedia project, that wasn't trolling?
How is it trolling
No ethics here then.
Tell me, have you ever contributed *anything* to this list, or to a
Wikimedia project, that wasn't trolling?
How is it trolling to simply question a few assumptions? And to answer
your question yes.
[citation needed]
- d.
please :)
Another cease-and-desist, perchance? Hopefully the Streisand Effect will
take hold and every news organisation reporting this will reproduce the seal
in loving, high-definition detail.
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 12:33 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
Incidentally, britannica.com removed
Indeed. I should have written The Office of the Director of National
Intelligence, because that's who www.dni.gov belongs to, according to its
banner.
A.
--- On Wed, 4/8/10, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote:
To be fair, the DNI is a relative a
friend of mine and I am pretty sure he
My opinion -
Once the information is published (by the WMF) you can do anything you want
with it, within the scope of what is legal. dewiki's privacy policy
isn't endorsed by the WMF, who run the site, and so I wouldn't consider it
binding in any way. They may choose to delete things that violate
Hi all,
some of you might know the Signpost, a community-written and
community-edited newspaper, based on the English Wikipedia and
covering stories, events and reports related to Wikipedia, its sister
projects and the Wikimedia Foundation:
News and notes: Canadian political edits, Swedish royal wedding,
Italian right of reply bill, Chapter reports
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-08-02/News_and_notes
In the news: Gardner and Sanger on why people edit Wikipedia, Fancy
and frugal reading devices, Medical
masti wrote:
On 08/03/2010 10:38 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Risker wrote:
On 3 August 2010 15:48, Domas Mituzasmidom.li...@gmail.com wrote:
People can edit for years without creating an account, and they may well
have a static IP address. Besides simply writing down that data
The issue is the aggregation and collation of the data and making it
available to others. Why would you consider that some one's edit history
is any less personal than what they borrow from the library?
...
Why so? Editing history reveals your interests, maybe your politics,
perhaps your
On 2 August 2010 23:01, Cary Bass c...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I enjoy working with each and every one of you.
Likewise. Thanks for everything you've done for us, Cary, and good
luck with your studies.
AGK
___
foundation-l mailing list
Oliver Keyes wrote:
Agreed. A good example; on the English Wikipedia, I'm a massive law nerd
with 40-something legal GAs and FAs to my name. I'd never even have studied
the subject if it wasn't for a group of Wikipedians, some of whom have later
helped me with or collaborated on articles. The
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Incidentally, britannica.com removed the seal today from their article on the
FBI.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/203351/Federal-Bureau-of-Investigation
You can see the edit in the Article History. However, at the time of
writing, the seal is still included
OMG I MET ROBERT I LUV HIM SO is disruptive. Does anyone know where he was
educated? It isn't listed is potentially helpful. And so on.
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 1:44 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
Oliver Keyes wrote:
Agreed. A good example; on the English Wikipedia, I'm a massive
Erik,
Will critics of less-than-best-practices within the Wikimedia Foundation be
considered for invitation to the Wikimedia Research Committee, or is there
some sort of loyalty litmus test going to be applied?
I've sent my self-nomination by private e-mail anyway, but I thought a
public
72 matches
Mail list logo
