for a scholarship, you can fill out the application form
here: https://secure.wikidc.org/wm/schols/
Good luck!
Sage Ross
Wikimedia DC
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 5:02 AM, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
I'm not sure this analysis is correct. A lot of people now don't get news by
going directly to the site but on social media platforms like Twitter and
Facebook. Of course, for that to work, we need to publish stories
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 6:35 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Sage Ross once discussed with me the idea of having Wikinews be foremost a
source of news about the Internet. It could report on news and goings-on on
various Web sites. The idea made the idea of Wikinews almost seem
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Orionist orion@gmail.com wrote:
We do have a great substitute for the like button which is barnstars and
other awards.
Maybe a version of WikiLove could be built for Commons that leaves a
barnstar or similar for the creator of a file, without leaving the
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Casey Brown li...@caseybrown.org wrote:
Yeah, that does happen sometimes. The cause is usually template
vandalism, where a vandal adds some content to an unprotected
template that's used in a few pages. This makes it difficult for new
users to find out what
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Ryan Lomonaco wiki.ral...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure what kind of on-wiki discussions you might expect to see,
Sage.
I think he might have been going with Chris' assertation that every
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 3:08 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
We have a range of ideas about how e-mail could be used for
retention/engagement
Here's one more for the idea pile...
If the operations reasons for not mass-enabling email notifications
can't be overcome (or even if they
On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 11:28 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Suggested principle: stuff should go on meta unless there's a very
good reason for it not to. The strategy and usability stuff should
have been on meta or mediawiki.org in the first place, for example. A
wiki for every
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 6:54 AM, Shiju Alex shijualexonl...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
Some feature is required in the MediaWiki software that enable us to see a
list of keywords used most frequently by the users to search for non-exist
articles. If we get such a list then some users like him
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:29 PM, Gregory Kohs thekoh...@gmail.com wrote:
David Gerard says:
+
2009/12/15 Steven Walling steven.walling at gmail.com
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l:
* Have you added your new blog to Open Wiki Blog Planet and the
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Sage Ross
ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.comragesoss%2bwikipe...@gmail.com
wrote:
For what it's worth, I agree with David Gerard that Open Wiki Blog
Planet is not properly subject to Wikipedia
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Laura Hale la...@fanhistory.com wrote:
Fan History would be a good fit for helping the Wikimedia Foundation in
terms of helping the Foundation meet some of its goals towards providing
information, helping establish credibility and gaining a more female
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Jon Davis w...@konsoletek.com wrote:
I don't think that the WMF acquiring FanHistory would make them a
competitor with Wikia, after all, Meta already has a propsosal for a
Wikitainment ( http://wmf4.me/EFf2D ) which goes to show that the WMF
community wants
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Mohamed Magdy mohamed@gmail.com wrote:
This really sucks.
As Kat Walsh alluded to on ... Facebook?!?... free/libre real-time
services are more important than a lot of Wikimedians think (because
we've spent so long pushing back against merely social uses of
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote:
It is settled case law in the US that restorations are not
copyrightable as they lack sufficient originality. The intent is to
create a slavish copy of the original work. Even if it takes a great
deal of skill and
Italian Wikimedians are reporting that Wikimedia Italia (the Italian
local chapter) and former chapter president (and former Wikimedia
board member) Frieda Brioschi are being sued for an outrageous sum
over alleged defamation in a (now-deleted) biography on Italian
Wikipedia:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Cary Bass c...@wikimedia.org wrote:
These works are Public Domain. Anyone can use them without credit. Since
your restoration work did not add any additional copyright, there is no
requirement even to credit Wikimedia Commons.
While the project can request
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 3:07 AM, wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
The last time someone just said 'Creative Commons license' on one of my
pics they were linking back to the flickr page which has the CC license
link. Now most dont bother saying CC though they do link back to the
flickr
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Geoffrey Plourdegeo.p...@yahoo.com wrote:
The Commons Force proposal represents a clear and present danger, both for
whoever hosts it and participates in it. It is not for a third party to
intervene in a contract between two people and only two people.
This
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 6:10 PM, wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
Sage Ross wrote:
If a copyleft license is being violated, that is potentially of
concern beyond the two legal parties, since properly using the license
would mean that derivative works are also part of the commons
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 4:05 AM, Domas Mituzasmidom.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Gerard,
Remember, the Signpost is an en.wp publication. It is not really the
place
to announce such things.
it is up for Signpost editors if they want to include it or not. Not
your business :)
BR,
I guess I
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 3:26 PM, Gregory Kohsthekoh...@gmail.com wrote:
Being that it was a topic of rousing discussion here last week, Wikimedians
may be interested in a brief summary of the Omidyar/Wikimedia/Wikia
connection, as authored by me and published by the non-profit, Internet
Review
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Anthonywikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 7:15 PM, Sage Ross
ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.comragesoss%2bwikipe...@gmail.com
wrote:
[Halprin] didn't deny that, in a social rather than
contractual sense, he was considered for a seat on the board
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Anthonywikim...@inbox.org wrote:
If Omidyar Networks had not offered a grant, but offered to put Halprin on
the board, would the board have accepted it? I don't see anyone with
knowledge of the situation saying no.
I had the impression that WMF had been
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 5:10 AM, Deliriumdelir...@hackish.org wrote:
Sage Ross wrote:
Hence the desirability of creating a free alternative to Amazon's
reviews.
I buy this, but my main question would be: why Wikimedia? It doesn't
seem to have a lot to do with collaborative editing, wikis
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 9:42 AM, teun spaansteun.spa...@gmail.com wrote:
The only question which your statement here raises is why you limit yourself
to reviews. Imho there might be a considerable market area for people who
have opinions to voice on politics, religion, etc.
Reviews are
The press release QA,
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Omidyar_Network_Grant_August_2009QA
, notes the following:
Wikimedia and Omidyar have developed targets related to financial
sustainability (the percentage of operating expenses supported by
individual donations), global
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Rjd0060rjd0060.w...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 3:34 AM, Philippe
Beaudettepbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Earlier today a number of adjustments were made to votes which
geography-based tip-line is something that Wikimedia still has a
chance to be the first organization to do well. I think finding a way
to play a major part in the ongoing changes in the journalism world
ought to be a high priority for the Foundation.
-Sage Ross (User:Ragesoss
a
chance to be the first organization to do well. I think finding a way
to play a major part in the ongoing changes in the journalism world
ought to be a high priority for the Foundation.
-Sage Ross (User:Ragesoss)
___
foundation-l mailing list
Translators may (or may not) be interested in translating these
interviews, as I think the questions and answers have a decent a ratio
of substance to flamebait compared to some of the questions on meta.
Cheers,
Sage Ross (User:Ragesoss)
___
foundation-l
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Peter Gervaigrin...@gmail.com wrote:
So it seems just what I have guessed: the reporter misinterpreting someone.
The slashdot summary includes the choice quotes that are a bit out of
context, but in the original article it starts off the section with
Avenaim by
.
But our nominally viral licenses don't do that. We've come to accept
that using CC-SA images as illustrations does not extend copyleft
requirements to the accompanying text.
-Sage Ross (User:Ragesoss)
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 7:05 AM, Peter Gervaigrin...@gmail.com wrote:
Ultimately the issue for professional photographers who might want to
donate their work is copyright. 'To me the problem is the Wikipedia
rule of public use,' says Jerry Avenaim, a celebrity photographer. 'If
they truly
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 10:19 AM, genigeni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/18 Yann Forget y...@forget-me.net:
In the case of the NPG, it is quite clear that the cost of the
digitalization is small compared with the potential benefit.
There are people and organisations willing to pay to have a copy
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:07 AM, John at Darkstarvac...@jeb.no wrote:
Is it possible to find some common grounds on why and how a
GLAM-organization should use Wikimedia Commons? Forget about troublesome
disputes with specific organizations. Why should they use us and is it
possible for us to
A Wikipedia Signpost article intended to recount the facts and context
of the legal threat is in progress:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-07-13/Copyright_threat
Comments, suggestions, and contributions are welcome. In particular,
there is some discussion on the
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 12:21 AM, Kat Walshk...@mindspillage.org wrote:
The Executive Director for Digital Policy of the J. Paul Getty Trust
has written an article on digitally-reproducible works of public
domain art, and museums' mission, arguing why and how museums should
properly make these
Cross-posting to Wikien-l...
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Erik Moellere...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Unfortunately,
community-created help pages tend to accumulate vast amounts of
instruction cruft that distracts from simple high-level information.
Maybe it's time English Wikipedia (at least)
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Nikola Smolenskismole...@eunet.yu wrote:
Дана Wednesday 10 June 2009 16:36:38 Florence Devouard написа:
But frankly, I am super pleased to find out that one of the pict I
uploaded 4 years ago are now featured in Britannica :-)
And they made a honest effort to
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Brion Vibber br...@wikimedia.org wrote:
IMHO any restriction that's not present in the default view isn't likely
to accomplish much. The answer an objecting parent wants to my daughter
saw
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:03 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps the problem is that the particular photograph sends a
sex-positive, not a clinical message. Why shouldn't it? It's not a
pathological state; it's not shameful. Using a clinical image
indicates there is something
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
The biggest problem for Wikinews in my mind is that delivering news is a
competitive and innovative business. In the on-line and comprehensive
encyclopedia vacuum, Wikipedia was able to be get there first, with the
most and draw
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 11:58 PM, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
Quite frankly the advice that you should only use five subjects makes no
sense. The appeal to Nielsen's authority is not going to work on me or
anyone else who understands why the scientific method exists. It's
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Mike Linksvayer m...@creativecommons.org
wrote:
p.s. Personally, discussions of offline here and everywhere (say,
accessibility of educational materials) are absurdly myopic.
Consideration
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
Sage Ross wrote:
This is a typical pattern when a complex technology is introduced in
the presence of a simpler one; it's not a simple matter of
replacement, and old technologies (where the infrastructure is easy
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 9:24 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote:
So IPs can create articles on de?
Yes, I think this is switched off on en: only.
That's something I've wanted to see change for a long time.
In which direction?
The direction of (once again) allowing anonymous
47 matches
Mail list logo
