Ok, this discussion has 60 arguments and we are getting nowhere. Why don't
we follow Google's example (what that is is for you to figure out)?
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:05 PM, Andreas K. jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:13 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20
Once it is published, can't it just go to Wikisource? Or would it have to be
CC-By or something like that. If so, Wikisource would still be the best
suited for that, we would just have to put it in a journal namespace or
something along that line.
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:17 PM, David Gerard
Next thing these people will shutdown wikipedia because the french law says
impre*scriptible*, and they will say that because wikipedia uses JS and so
is scriptable, it shouldn't be around. What don't you like about the licence
anyway? It is my opinion that the laws of the most influentual country
Or boycott their translations and start a WMF transwiki.
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/1/28 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com:
When the CIA uses MediaWiki and it does, we are
happy because as a result we do and did get feedback on the
So for every article we have 960 active editors? I assume you wrote that
wrong.
On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 November 2010 18:33, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 November 2010 23:09, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
Am I
After all, a person probably isn't going to donate ten times just because
ten different people appealed for funds.
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Peter Coombe thewub.w...@googlemail.comwrote:
I believe that the plan is to bring in the thermometer showing how
close we are to our target in the
For one thing, we have always been proud of how Wikipedia and its sister
sites have been ad-free. Why don't we get those half-breeds with their ads
and everything to do the revenue making? I mean, of course, Wikia. Having
ads on Wikipedia (or anywhere else) would be awful.
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at
I thought someone was saying that Wikia gets all kinds of special treatment,
or something like that.
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:32 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
On 8 November 2010 13:03, Arlen Beiler arlen...@gmail.com wrote:
For one thing, we have always been proud of how
I don't think I could stand it if we picked up advertising. I hate the way
wikia looks, and therefore have an aversion to contributing in any way to
its progress. Can you imagine! We actually link to Wikia sites and give them
traffic (though I guess that is better than filling up wikibooks and
I think you have hit the nail on the head. Now we just need to drive it in
the rest of the way.
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Tue, 2/11/10, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:36 AM,
wjhon...@aol.com
wrote:
Let's have our readers vote.
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 11:49 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/1/2010 6:16:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jay...@gmail.com writes:
The PLOS Medicine article is based on a dataset of 78 interventional
studies, 81 observational studies, and only
The point is that you search for a book on Amazon, and find a book for 50
dollars that is just a conglomeration of articles that were put together by
a computer, not a human, and therefore have little value. It is just a big
rip off.
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 2:32 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
Precisely my feeling on this. I just recently read that out of over 40
studies on something, only ~7 claimed they had no ill side effects (6 of
those being FDA tests). I don't remember where I saw it, but that is
basically how it was, I think. It is common knowledge that manufacture
funded
13 matches
Mail list logo
