library to
considering such printed materials obsolete.
Risker
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
to raise
your concerns than a WMF-wide mailing list intended to deal with
cross-project or all-project issues. An individual editor being banned on
one specific project does not meet that threshold.
Risker
On 11 March 2012 12:49, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Great now if only that where
all over the web and are
well outside our control.
I can understand why legislators will have to really think carefully about
this one. Even within our own communities, there are wildly different
opinions on this issue.
Risker/Anne
On 11 February 2012 12:30, Delirium delir...@hackish.org wrote
process for the
chapter seats is somehow more representative of the movement. It
concerns me a lot that the 97% of active Wikimedians who are not chapter
members seem to not be considered part of the movement.
Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
On 1 February 2012 17:22, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 February 2012 22:17, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
This is well and good, but it gives the impression that the current three
elected members of the board are somehow considered not representative
On 1 February 2012 17:38, Stuart West stuw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:17 PM, Risker wrote:
it gives the impression that the current three
elected members of the board are somehow considered not representative of
the movement It
concerns me a lot that the 97% of active
On 1 February 2012 18:17, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
In what way do chapter-selected seats improve the running of the WMF,
Thomas? The Board has no say in who is being selected, and there is no
basis in fact to say
? Will opinions from non-chapter members (who make up 97%
of Wikimedians) be considered?
Thanks,
Risker/Anne
On 31 January 2012 19:05, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote:
The Wikimedia chapters are seeking to appoint two candidates to sit on the
Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees
Thanks for your prompt responses, Beria. I have a few follow-ups.
On 31 January 2012 22:43, Béria Lima berial...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Risker. let's go by question.
*Why is the discussion happening on chapterswiki, instead of in an open
place where all Wikimedians can at least read
. This
is called learning from experience, and it is a talent that is highly
prized within the WMF family of projects. After all, there is not a one of
us who has not made an error in action or judgment.
Please stop.
Risker
___
foundation-l mailing list
On 31 December 2011 21:40, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 January 2012 02:38, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps, Thomas, you might want to reflect that your point of view is not
the only one worthy of consideration. If you have concerns about the
spending
On 31 December 2011 21:46, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 January 2012 02:42, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I have, Thomas - which is exactly why I commented as I did. It is you
who
have raised the issue of spending in this thread, which was initially
about
how
to
people, and try to find a way to explain what your concerns are without
making vague allusions and being so combative.
Best,
Risker
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo
Since that 0:00 UTC is always confusing to me, would I be correct to assume
that this would be taking place Wednesday evening in North America?
Risker
On 19 December 2011 19:28, Steven Walling swall...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey all,
I think most Foundation-l subscribers know Philippe
Just think...if it is included in an online advertisement, Wikipedia could
use SOPA to bring down the film for copyright infringement
Risker
On 17 December 2011 06:20, Ole Palnatoke Andersen palnat...@gmail.comwrote:
It was mentioned on the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee
, not the WMF staff, who approved the use of a central notice
banner. Whether or not that is within their scope is a separate issue
that should be discussed elsewhere.
I am pleased to see the creation of a page at Meta to discuss Central
Notice requests.
Risker/Anne
editorship on the English Wikipedia project. I'm curious to
know if scholars have shown much interest in studying some of the other
projects as much as they've initiated studies on enwp.
Risker/Anne
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CentralNotice_banner_guidelines
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki
Hi Jerome - please show me where it says that; I've not been able to verify
that interpretation at all. My understanding is that the 30,000 are users
with fewer than 100 edits per month on average, not that they are new users.
Risker/Anne
2011/12/10 Jérôme Hergueux jerome.hergu...@gmail.com
I
it well
documented.
Something that has never been clear is the reason that English Wikipedia
editors were identified as the preferred target; there does not appear to
be anything in this study that is particularly oriented toward Wikipedia
activity.
Risker/Anne
2011/12/10 Jérôme Hergueux
Hi Klaus - Since it appears that this deletion is clearly labeled an OFFICE
action, have you communicated with the WMF legal counsel? DCMA takedowns
are not the only reason for OFFICE deletions.
Risker
On 11 November 2011 13:16, Klaus Graf klausg...@googlemail.com wrote:
WMF has deleted some
@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
As far as I know, General Counsel Geoff Brigham has a page on Meta.
Philippe has also provided the email address to reach the entire legal
team.
Risker
___
foundation-l mailing
you
have grounds to complain that he is not responding to you directly and
publicly if you have not contacted him directly and publicly. Here is a
link to his Meta talk page:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Geoffbrigham
Risker
___
foundation-l
under the
same license?
Risker/Anne
[1] Excerpt from text of Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
Unported license (full text in English
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License)
A version of the applicable license
to suggest consideration be given to doing a double office
hour session for topic areas that impact projects globally and involve
editors from just about every time zone. Reading IRC minutes is not the
same as being involved in the discussion.
Thanks!
Risker
this particular
principle, one on which the Wikimedia projects are heavily dependent. It
does, however, identify a boundary (repeating defamatory content) that bears
some watching.
Risker
[1]
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/hyperlinking-doesnt-constitute-defamation-supreme-court-rules
of images, does not
have the same effect. I'm not trying to be provocative here, but I am
rather concerned that this does not seem to have been discussed.
Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https
On 10 October 2011 18:08, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 04:52:48PM -0400, Risker wrote:
Given the number of people who insist that any categorization system
seems
to be vulnerable, I'd like to hear the reasons why the current system,
which
On 10 October 2011 18:45, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 07:12:04PM -0400, Risker wrote:
I've seen it in operation.
Let me check: Have seen your image filter software actually
directly use categories from commons? Are you sure?
Yes, I have seen
On 10 October 2011 20:03, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 08:49:13PM -0400, Risker wrote:
No, I can't arrange a demonstration, Kim. I do not have net nannies on
any
system that I control. The systems on which I have encountered them are
not
publicly
On 10 October 2011 21:26, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
Risker,
The net nanny software could have been doing a keyword filter on the
word Sex, which would reject every page and image in
[[Category:Sexual positions]] because it contains the word sex.
That is not a category based
, with
the exception of the Founder seat which is approved on a regular basis.
The primary responsibility of Board members is to the Foundation, not to the
community or the chapters or to any other external agent.
This is all available for review in the Bylaws.[1]
Risker/Anne
[1] http
On 9 October 2011 12:48, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
Risker, 09/10/2011 18:40:
Two board members are selected by chaptersl however, the board has
certain
rights to refuse the selected candidates. Chapter-selected candidates
will
be appointed in 2012.
The WMF-wide
can understand Italian well might be able to provide a
brief summary of the situation to those of us who, sadly, depend on google
translate? I am unclear what the new law says that is leading
Italian-speaking Wikipedians to consider a blackout of the Italian
Wikipedia.
Risker
. It's not clear that the discussion has reached
an endpoint. It does seem like the protest statement could be
improved, perhaps with relevant links to contact politicians etc.
One has to wonder how the community will be able to discuss unlocking the
project if the project is locked.
Risker
on this
issue, that community needs to be the focus.
(As an aside, kudos to Milos' rapid response and ability to organize his own
local community in support of the concerns of our Italian counterparts.)
Risker
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l
is if you're a woman from
the US, your opinion is invalid. Your post here did not further the
discussion in any way, and I politely ask you to refrain from making such
posts in the future.
Risker
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
On 30 September 2011 10:44, Oliver Koslowski o@t-online.de wrote:
Am 30.09.2011 16:24, schrieb Risker:
The implication of your post is if you're a woman from
the US, your opinion is invalid. Your post here did not further the
discussion in any way, and I politely ask you to refrain
On 30 September 2011 10:36, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 September 2011 10:12, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
Up to now, all females from US (four of them) are in favor of filter
(though
On 30 September 2011 12:15, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 16:24, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Milos, I believe this is exactly the kind of post that Sue was talking
about
in her blog. It is aggressive, it is alienating, and it is intimidating
On 30 September 2011 12:32, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 18:29, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I think there is much that can be discussed on the range of topic areas
covered in this thread. But we must keep in mind that the views expressed
here
such information in articles that
overrides editorial judgment, regardless of quality, source or other
factors.
Risker
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 8 September 2011 01:57, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 September 2011 17:32, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
Every version of Mozilla has included the Dont load images option.
And it is simple
to filtering, particularly those that seem
to focus on the content should be displayed in the way the authors
intended, I'm concerned there would be equally significant opposition to
even this simple matter.
Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l
as well,
obviously, and there are some that would be rated as Adults only in many
countries too.
But we already know that, so I wonder why you ask this?
Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https
On 7 September 2011 17:32, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 7:26 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 September 2011 17:18, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:55 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 September 2011
our doors
demanding just that...
oh, wait.
They already exist, and have for years. We call them mirrors.
Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo
a feeling they've not really
figured out their own vision of chapters, which makes things more confusing
for everyone.)
Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo
standard chapter agreement. While I recognize that such a document can't
really be crowd-sourced, it might be helpful to at least have it publicly
available for reading. That is, unless each chapter agreement is
significantly customized for the needs of the individual chapters.
Risker/Anne
On 30 August 2011 11:09, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
It does strike me as odd that, given the legendary openness of
Wikimedia-related projects and activities, at least the basic provisions
of
the chapter
On 30 August 2011 19:35, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 1:42 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
..
Thanks, Bence. Given that the document that is creating so much fuss is
*not* publicly available, and there are many references to current
agreements
simply aren't
in place for them to do so. I'd like to see some very serious effort on the
part of the WMF to help chapters develop these structures, both for existing
chapters, and for the Global South chapters that are currently in early
development.
Risker/Anne
2011/8/28 Delphine Ménard notafi...@gmail.com
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
See now, this is the kind of thinking that raises a lot of questions
about
chapters receiving the very large amounts of money that many got the last
time around. In the real
Perhaps a little explanation as to why we are having a second steward
election this calendar year might be helpful; it's not entirely clear to me,
at least.
As well, will currently seated stewards be undergoing review?
Risker/Anne
On 22 August 2011 00:41, Benjamin Chen cnchenmi...@gmail.com
from the till for a few minutes?
If it requires more time to do due diligence, then it will take more time.
Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation
the results. Perhaps you
should explain why you think that.
Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
vote, Milos. Your bots do not get to vote. Your auxiliary
account does not get to vote, unless you forego voting on your main
account.
Risker/Anne
[1]http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/en#Rules
___
foundation-l mailing list
not seeing
an upside to this practice, and a huge number of downsides. Strongly
encourage the project to revisit this.
Risker/Anne
On 10 July 2011 13:08, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
Do they have notaries in the Netherlands? Why not simply ask them to mail
a notarized statement that I am Foo
On 10 July 2011 16:28, Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 19:18, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
The next question becomesand what does this trusted person do with
the
information? If it is destroyed promptly, then there's really not much
point
to templates
without unnecessarily adding to anyone's workload.
Risker/Anne
Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network
-Original Message-
From: Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com
Sender: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 02:04:32
To: Wikimedia
common anymore.
Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
), and because public revelation of some of the information
may repeat the harm that was caused by the banned user in the first place.
I too would like to see the development of a process for global banning of
users who have created serious problems on either the global or the
multiple-project level.
Risker
On 3 June 2011 13:11, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 3 June 2011 10:00, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I too would like to see the development of a process for global banning
of
users who have created serious problems on either the global or the
multiple-project level
and are all separate individuals.
In other words, the initial harm was significant, and the deception has
continued unabated to this day.
Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman
, it occurs to me that there are
certain exemptions built into the privacy policy:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy#Access_to_and_release_of_personally_identifiable_information
Specifically, I would wonder if exemptions 3 and 6 are potentially germane
to this situation.
Risker/Anne
of an image identifiable even if the facial features are not
included in the image.
It should probably be emphasized that this would apply equally to projects
that host fair use or other images, and is not simply an expectation on
Commons.
Risker/Anne
often enough.
Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
instead of deleted, or never even
made it into article space; they often come up as top google hits for the
subject, because Google crawls user space. (They don't seem to crawl user
talk or article talk, or if they do, they do not include them in their
results.)
Risker/Anne
: not because of the injunction, but because it was contentious and
negative information that could not be reliably sourced. Our BLP policy has
worked.
Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https
any names, but I can understand that perspective. As it
is, there are plenty of non-UK citizens/residents watching the articles
involved to address the situation, so generally speaking UK
residents/citizens should not feel they are obliged to put themselves at
risk.
Risker/Anne
, the Main Page talk page...
Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
a third would consider themselves native speakers of at
least one other language.
Risker
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
unqualified!!
Risker
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
(or imply), Ideally your native
language is not Urdu.
The problem is that that's not what the ad says. As Risker pointed
out, you're going way into left field here.
* What is the question you are asking?
* What is the moral point you are attempting to make?
* What is your recommended
, Wikiproject:XXX requires that only Harvard style
references be used in articles under our aegis. Please resubmit your edit,
properly formatted.) We can do better.
Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe
that leads them to the Manual of Style, for example.
Featured article writers discuss what it really means on a regular basis,
so there's little hope an inexperienced editor will be able to follow the
contradictions in it.
A few thoughts to bring us back where we started.
Risker/Anne
On 9 April 2011 23:39, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9 April 2011 23:27, Casey Brown li...@caseybrown.org wrote:
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
This is an area where every project is going to have its own take on
things,
and we can probably
on the committee.
Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 14 March 2011 11:03, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 March 2011 15:01, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
David, I strongly object to your continued twisting of my words,
The link to your precise words is there. It's what you actually said.
Or are you claiming those links
On 14 March 2011 11:29, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 March 2011 15:21, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
But for the second time now, you are derailing a discussion on one topic
(in
this case, whether there is a benefit in breaking up large projects, and
in
the prior case
these issues.
Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
to this and with the
appropriate subject line, about accessibility generally speaking, but this
isn't that thread.
Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation
please add a link to the latest filing? Thanks.
Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
.pdf
The section on salaries begins on Page 7.
Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
to rebalance an article that gives undue weight to negative issues, or
to remove salacious trivia about a BLP subject, knows how incredibly
frustrating it can be to bring articles into line with policy.
Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l
that involve sex, race, age or nationality. It strikes me that
I see probably 50 language-skill-related userboxes for every userbox that
confirms geographic location or sex.
Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe
couldn't keep up with the workload.
Risker/Anne
[1] http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- Forwarded message --
From: wjhon...@aol.com
Date: 18 November 2010 18:51
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Paid editing comes of age
To: risker...@gmail.com
In a message dated 11/18/2010 3:50:30 PM Pacific Standard Time,
risker...@gmail.com writes:
We are extraordinarily
every time it is mentioned it
is done in a way to tell readers that this is not only normal, it is
required.
Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
include a
recommendation to those who use Gmail to review all of their Google-related
accounts and ensure that they remove all links.
Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman
in the bylaws
to indicate that.
Risker/Anne
[1] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_bylaws
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 20 October 2010 16:47, Muhammad Yahia shipmas...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
The board defines both community and chapter. I'm not sure that the
board does ultimately answer to the community; there's nothing in the
bylaws
? Thanks.
Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 29 September 2010 21:07, Jimmy Wales jwa...@wikia-inc.com wrote:
On 9/28/10 7:41 PM, Risker wrote:
Yes it is, and it's an important one. Several of us had already been
working on a plan for the second trial, and those of us discussing had
widely agreed that it would be much more
that rationale.
Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
more strongly encourages a
range of solutions. I don't have any answers, just observations.
Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
. Of course, having it deployed
doesn't mean it will actually be used: there are 30% fewer articles on
pending changes now than there were at its peak, and we never did get past
1600 articles in the first trial because very few administrators felt the
cost/benefit ratio was acceptable.
Risker/Anne
to make that statement, it was your place to have
corrected him forthwith. How unfortunate that you have placed a respected
developer in this position.
Risker/Anne
[1]
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english/106702/match=pending+changes
On 28 September 2010 16:15, Erik
, they're a
lot harder to replace than they used to be. Your stats should tell you
that.
Risker/Anne
On 28 September 2010 16:39, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
2010/9/28 Risker risker...@gmail.com:
Thank you for confirming that English Wikipedia does not have a choice in
whether
of them were told they were voting for another trial, with the
tool left on in the interim, not for permanent installation. And even with
it just being put forward as a second trial, the support for continuing
dropped 10% in two weeks.
You're losing the hearts and minds battle here, guys.
Risker
, it's
almost impossible to consider developing a second trial, since it doesn't
seem like it will matter what criteria for continued use the project
determines.
Risker/Anne
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
