Admins are once again given even more extensive content powers ?
And that's a good thing right Captain Kirk?
It's a good thing right?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
Let me rephrase in a slightly less trollish manner.
Admins should never be given powers over content. Not now, not then, not ever.
Admins have no business being involved in content of any type ever :)
In every possible universe.
Will
-Original Message-
From: Wjhonson wjhon
Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wed, Aug 24, 2011 9:44 am
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] AbuseFilter to be enabled on all Wikimedia wikis by
default today
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 8:21 PM, Wjhonson wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Admins should never be given powers over content
Give me permission.
I am volunteering to head up the abuse filter team.
Thomas don't mistake my point for some other point.
I am not suggesting that admins AS EDITORS should veer away from content
creation, but rather that admins using their clubs should not be given more
clubs with which to
, Wjhonson wrote:
The year of publication applies to published material. The year you
make it public, to the public, for public consumption.
of course, that is the definition of publication
But look at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/303.html
Unpublished works (in the United States
For plagiarism to cause injury you have to specify the type of injury in your
suit.
And then the case is not about laws about plagiarism per se, of which there are
none, but laws about the type of injury you are claiming.
For example unfair trade as in I made all these designs and posted them
,
because they are trying to make some sheded point more concrete.
It's not concrete in the U.S., you have to show what specific sort of actual
injury occurred.
-Original Message-
From: Robin McCain ro...@slmr.com
To: Wjhonson wjhon...@aol.com
Cc: foundation-l foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
I don't believe your claim that you can take something which is PD, make an
exact image of it, slap it up in a new work of your own (enjoying copyright
protection automatically) and then claim copyright over that PD image in your
work.
Copyright applies to the presentation of your work,
The year of publication applies to published material. The year you make it
public, to the public, for public consumption.
Unpublished material, if it enjoys copyright protection at all, would be based
on the year of creation. That however might be a red herring if it, in fact,
does not
Feedback: Approval based systems only work on a tiny subset of articles as they
disenfranchise the vast majority of contributors who don't have a multi-tiered
content approach at all.
-Original Message-
From: Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
is interpretation and would therefore be considered OR which is
not allowed at Wikipedia.
2011/7/27 Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net
On 07/27/11 12:42 PM, Wjhonson wrote:
David how is an exact quote a summary or interpretation?
An exact quote, backed up by the actual audio track is... exact.
You
is that if someone
isagrees with my translation, it can be fixed (I have fixed a few
ranslations on en.wp myself).
011/7/29 Wjhonson wjhon...@aol.com
No that's not what it would mean.
It would mean that if a Spanish language source is used on an English
language page, we should quote
Nope, never said that.
I disagree with the idea that this is usually done however I have no
objections to it's being done.
Never did.
My point is, and was that the source should be quoted in its original language.
-Original Message-
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
To:
All sources can be cited without falling afoul of original research
Original research only covers claims without sources at all, or claims made
from yourself as the source.
Any source, including citing to a video interviews, is never original research.
I don't really get by the way, why this is
You should not create your own videos and then publish them on Wikipedia.
You should create videos or audio tracks of oral interviews, and then publish
them.
Then allow others to add that material to Wikipedia where appropriate.
That's my two cents.
-Original Message-
From:
For actual quotations from sources, you should quote the source exactly.
Then you will never be using original research.
You are going the next step and summarizing and interpreting. Don't do that.
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com
To: Wikimedia
, Wjhonson wrote:
For actual quotations from sources, you should quote the source exactly.
Then you will never be using original research.
I don't actually understand what this means. If you look at the articles
reated:
ttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Oral_Citations#Articles.2F_Discussions_
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 12:09 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
Hallo, (responses inline)
On Thursday 28 July 2011 12:27 AM, Wjhonson wrote:
Achal I was responding to Thomas not to you
Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wed, Jul 27, 2011 12:39 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Oral Citations project: People are Knowledge
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Wjhonson wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
For actual quotations from sources, you should quote the source
Linking the full audio allows the user to dig into the material without
trusting your selection.
Then other editors can select other pieces, or remove your selection.
I personally don't equate Selection with Interpretation.
To me interpretation is modifying the original source using other
: People are Knowledge
On 07/27/11 12:42 PM, Wjhonson wrote:
David how is an exact quote a summary or interpretation?
An exact quote, backed up by the actual audio track is... exact.
You are not summarizing it, and you are not interpreting it either.
You are presenting it.
If that is to be the case
Although he reneged on his offer to buy
http://knol.google.com/k/bose-201-series-ii-direct-reflecting-bookshelf-speakers#
The Speakers Which Almost Destroyed Knol
I as well as others support welcoming Kohs back to this list by unbanning him.
I agree with the sentiment that the ban was over
Well maybe you can point out what exactly he did to get himself banned from
this list?
When it occurred I also had the same reaction that I still have. It didn't
make sense to me.
It still doesn't. His presence here was not disruptive to me.
-Original Message-
From: Fred
Something better than Wikipedia ?
I can think of something right off the bat.
Kill the copyright police who do nothing useful and harm the project immensely.
Go back to the more transparent rationale that copyright infringement rests
solely upon the person who uploaded the copyrighted item,
Again you are referring to the hosting or presentation of non-free content and
I am not.
I am not referring to the DISPLAY of videos within Wikipedia.
Only the LINKING of videos from Wikipedia.
99.% of Youtube videos have no licensing information at all so there is no
way to tell if they
If you don't see the significant value in including video content, then I would
suggest that you don't see the significant value in including photographic
content either. I would suggest that's an outdated value system.
A picture is worth a thousand words, an audio is worth ten thousand, a
Links by themselves are not copyrightable, and are not unfree.
So your argument, which you keep repeating is not germane to this point.
The point is, the copyright police have taken a fear (of something which has
never occurred in actual law), and made it a point of battle.
We are arbiters of
Pick a spot that you think is appropriate.
But you are missing the point.
The point in not to continue forward *under the current restrictions and
requirements*, that is a dead horse.
The glamour is off the rose.
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Morton
One type of image being Image of Muhammad ?
-Original Message-
From: Philippe Beaudette phili...@wikimedia.org
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wed, Jun 29, 2011 1:35 pm
Subject: [Foundation-l] Call for referendum
*Please distribute
Because Commons is to be used by the world, not just sister projects.
If the New York Times Online links a picture in from Commons (and credits it
properly) are we going to make their later-historical story useless by deleting
the picture ?
-Original Message-
From: Fred
In a message dated 5/25/2011 3:33:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
midom.li...@gmail.com writes:
There're lots of great ideas around the world, feeding the hungry and
curing the cancer among them.
Domas your responses are not helpful at all. You are simply stirring the
pot to no point.
In a message dated 5/25/2011 11:01:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
midom.li...@gmail.com writes:
You forgot to tell if all of my responses or just some, and if there's
really no point at all, or there might be some.
Anyway, thanks for this helpful contribution!
Refactoring my comments :
In a message dated 5/22/2011 1:35:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
There are many core problems that affect this issue. One of which is
'Verifiability not truth' which seems a laudable concept when applied to
hearsay, and to allow articles on the paranormal
In a message dated 5/22/2011 8:23:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
morton.tho...@googlemail.com writes:
But the idea that I have a right to edit Wikipedia or You
have no right to do that is incorrect, because WP is a private website.
You make the word private have no meaning.
What would be a
In a message dated 5/22/2011 4:38:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
smole...@eunet.rs writes:
Aren't these languages written with Chinese characters and thus their
speakers can read and write the Chinese Wikipedia?
All the Latin languages: Italian, French, Spanish, English, and so on are
In a message dated 5/22/2011 9:31:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
fredb...@fairpoint.net writes:
Legally, Wikipedia is private property belonging to a nonprofit
corporation. If the United States government, or some other government,
owned it and regulated it in such a way as to guarantee public
In a message dated 5/22/2011 9:53:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
li...@caseybrown.org writes:
Indeed, it doesn't mean that necessarily. However, your analogy
doesn't apply in this situation and Nikola was right. Many of the
Chinese languages share a common writing system and only differ in
In a message dated 5/22/2011 10:39:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
andreeng...@gmail.com writes:
In Chinese writing a character shows a word, irrespective of how the
word is pronounced. So if we would use a Chinese style writing system,
you could write [your] [dog] [is] [dead], and a Frenchman
Publish means to make public. To make available to the public.
Telling your buddies in the locker room is not publishing.
No it isn't. Telling one mate down the pub might but multiple people
is kinda dicey. I assume more than one person has access to the
User:Oversight feed.
Exactly what
{{fact}}
I dispute that private communications are public.
Err you are aware that the courts regard sending the information on a
postcard counts as publishing?
-Original Message-
From: geni geni...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
It is not up to us to decide that something is private. If it's been
published, then it is public.
If it's been published in a reliable source, than it's useable in our project.
We routinely suppress disclosure of private information. When do the
details of an affair become public? And
As you say any photograph of a person obviously living, and yet who died
before 1941 is in the Public Domain in India.? This is true regardless of any
other point raised about the source of the photograph as you again say.
The first step is to get agreement on those points for the Indian
It's my understanding that sweat of the brown does not create a copyright
at all.
That was the entire argument behind the claim that phonebooks had no
copyright protection.
Similarly pure indexes have no copyright protection since they exhibit no
creativity at all.
Bad news for indexers.
In a message dated 4/26/2011 12:08:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
smole...@eunet.rs writes:
Translation is not sweat of the brow. Copyright law of Germany, for
example, explicitly states that translations are copyrighted:
http://bundesrecht.juris.de/urhg/__3.html . Copyright law of Serbia,
In a message dated 4/26/2011 4:42:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
waihor...@yahoo.com.hk writes:
Baidu do not translate anything copy from English Wikipedia or Japanese
Wikipedia, but just keep the full content without attribution and changing
anything. There are totally about 50 articles
In a message dated 4/25/2011 9:34:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
jrg...@gmail.com writes:
My interest in a legal opinion is not to know if what they do is legal or
not.
My interest is to know for example what can they do if I copy the content
they previously have translated from an English
I always thought that translations were considered wholely derivative,
that is that a new copyright is *not* created, by translating.
In a message dated 4/25/2011 1:57:34 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
sainto...@telus.net writes:
On 04/25/11 9:33 AM, Joan Goma wrote:
My interest in a
In a message dated 4/5/2011 6:08:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
bnewst...@wikimedia.org writes:
Another quick note on the Movement Communications Manager posting that we
are hoping to fill at WMF. We have a number of applicants, but very, very
few are from the Wikimedia community. We would
Sarah I understand your point, but the required qualification just above the
non-English states : Exceptional English writing is critical for this role,
including the ability to write time-sensitive, efficient, compelling, and
clearly understandable communications products for a wide range of
While I am all about openness and journalism, I had a recent incident which
made me re-think something on these lines.
I had a few years back, started creating an open visible search-indexed index
to ArbCom proceedings.
Some editors however edit using their real names, not something I would
In a message dated 3/1/2011 12:08:25 PM Pacific Standard Time,
wikipe...@frontier.com writes:
If
people actually understood how collaboration on a wiki works, it would
be much easier for them to accept the projects for what they are, rather
than creating drama about things they aren't.
-Original Message-
From: Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tue, Mar 1, 2011 3:49 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Storyteller job opening
On 3/1/2011 2:41 PM, Pronoein wrote:
Thank you for your answer Michael. However:
«Note
In a message dated 2/26/2011 6:12:10 AM Pacific Standard Time,
dger...@gmail.com writes:
So, for WIkibooks: what's the tuna? What's the compelling attraction
that will keep people lured in?
I will go one step further.
What is Wikibooks at all?
The scope, content, purpose were really poorly
The problem with the approach that we can let the welcoming and
friendliness be an emergent behaviour, is that we're already many years into
this
and it's simply... not.
However the admin bit is an officially sanctioned method of enforcing
rules.
This is a lop-sided approach. To
In a message dated 2/27/2011 12:26:22 PM Pacific Standard Time,
dger...@gmail.com writes:
The scope was supposedly textbooks - how-to books.
The problem I see with free books is just that you really need something
that says... this is WHY you, the contributor would put in this amount of
In a message dated 2/25/2011 3:12:17 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jay...@gmail.com writes:
At the moment, we need admins who press buttons more than we need to
welcome new users. It is unfortunate, but that is how it is.
We need to find ways of reducing the amount of work needed, or
radically
In a message dated 2/25/2011 9:56:26 AM Pacific Standard Time,
smole...@eunet.rs writes:
To my knowledge, no one has ever tried it, but why not? In reality, some
people don't do what they know to do, but choose to become teachers. Maybe
there are people who know how to edit Wikipedia and
In a message dated 2/22/2011 10:16:25 PM Pacific Standard Time,
sjkl...@hcs.harvard.edu writes:
There's a shortage of core developers. There are quite a lot of PHP
developers who have built some sort of MediaWiki extension, or
otherwise hacked on it to make their own fork, however. We have
In a message dated 2/23/2011 11:16:00 AM Pacific Standard Time,
sgard...@wikimedia.org writes:
To belabour the videogame analogy a little further: Zack Exley and I
were talking about new article patrol as being a bit like a
first-person shooter, and every now and then a nun or a tourist
Ral I know you'd like to give the benefit of good faith to all admins.
However, if we actually have admins who are deleting articles so quickly
that they fat-finger the *reasons* then we have a serious problem.
No thinkee is quite close to admin abuse.
As a community we should be bending over
In a message dated 2/19/2011 4:18:52 PM Pacific Standard Time,
thewub.w...@googlemail.com writes:
Deletion log for Makmende:
* 00:37, 24 March 2010 Flyguy649 (talk | contribs) deleted “Makmende”
? (CSD G3: Pure Vandalism)
* 22:53, 23 March 2010 Malik Shabazz (talk | contribs) deleted
Something must be wrong with this stat counter.
Back in 2009, Main Page was getting two million views per month, more or
less
http://knol.google.com/k/will-johnson/most-popular-wikipedia-pages/4hmquk6fx
4gu/191#view
This counter show an amazing drop off if its now only getting about 12,000
You are mistaking the problem.
It's not that a piece of knowledge is not googleable.
It's that a piece of knowledge is not published whatsoever.
Never published. Anywhere. At any time. Ever.
That's quite a different animal.
-Original Message-
From: CherianTinu Abraham
In a message dated 1/20/2011 11:37:00 AM Pacific Standard Time,
dger...@gmail.com writes:
There's a lot of knowledge in fields which
everyone assumes, and which are transmitted academically, but not in a
format that teenage en:wp admins can grasp in five seconds.
Knowledge transmitted
One fix that developers could do, and which would address 93.6% of the
problem is to move the template editing out-of-normal-editing-space.
Disentangle the template code, from the editable text.
W
___
foundation-l mailing list
In a message dated 12/15/2010 9:57:31 PM Pacific Standard Time,
ezac...@wikimedia.org writes:
Technical problems:
First the dump server needed fixing , now the wikistats server is
broken: power unit is no longer.
Replacement is on order.
Erik Zachte
Is there any other way to get a
In a message dated 12/16/2010 2:14:01 AM Pacific Standard Time,
z...@mzmcbride.com writes:
Erik Zachte wrote:
On 12/16/2010 0:12, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Why are these tables so out of date?
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesArticlesNewPerDay.htm
Technical problems:
First the
Is the current CC license retroactive to all of the old versions from the
beginning to now?
W
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
In a message dated 12/14/2010 2:55:59 PM Pacific Standard Time,
v...@fct.unl.pt writes:
The Wikimedia projects power structure is definitely a serious
candidate for such analysis.
What is this?
Link ?
Will
___
foundation-l mailing list
Why are these tables so out of date?
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesArticlesNewPerDay.htm
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
In a message dated 12/14/2010 8:21:09 AM Pacific Standard Time,
steven.wall...@gmail.com writes:
This is fantastic, and the timing could not be better.
If anyone finds anything noteworthy, please add it to the timeline of
Wikipedia that we're building at the 10th anniversary wiki,[1] as
In a message dated 12/10/2010 12:45:46 AM Pacific Standard Time,
jayen...@yahoo.com writes:
Apart from summarising COM:PORN*, all that the draft sexual content
policy
was meant to do, actually, was to address two cases:
* Material that is illegal to host for the Foundation under Florida
In a message dated 12/10/2010 6:52:05 AM Pacific Standard Time,
zvand...@googlemail.com writes:
It is difficult to say how many people refuse to donate to Wikimedia
because they want to donate to Wikipedia. People should know that you
can't donate to a website itself but only to the
In a message dated 12/9/2010 11:06:30 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes:
Google does it, archive.org (wayback machine) does it, we can copy
them for caching and searching i assume. we are not changing the
license, but just preventing the information from
In a message dated 12/10/2010 12:08:37 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jayen...@yahoo.com writes:
Suggest you read the draft policy, rather than the votes.
You're suggesting that all the no votes are simply trolls then?
That's a lot of no votes to just cast them off as people who didn't read
the
In a message dated 12/10/2010 2:12:44 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes:
Well, lets backtrack.
The original question was, how can we exclude wikipedia clones from the
search.
my idea was to create a search engine that includes only refs from
wikipedia in it.
In a message dated 12/10/2010 1:31:20 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes:
If we prefer pages that can be cached and translated, and mark the
others that cannot, then by natural selection we will in long term
replaces the pages that are not allowed to be cached
In a message dated 12/10/2010 1:10:26 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes:
My point is we should index them ourselves. We should have the pages
used as references first listed in an easy to use manner and if
possible we should cache them. If they are not cacheable
In a message dated 12/10/2010 2:58:08 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes:
my idea was that you will want to search pages that are referenced by
wikipedia already, in my work on kosovo, it would be very helpful
because there are lots of bad results on google, and
In a message dated 12/9/2010 2:51:39 AM Pacific Standard Time,
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes:
yes it would be great. As i said, it could just include all pages
listed as REF pages and that would allow people to review the results
and find pages that should not belong.
We also need
What is the perceived limitation(s) on mirroring this email list ?
That is, making copies of it, on other sites.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Is this like the difference between colour in Great Britain and color
in the U.S. ?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
In a message dated 12/7/2010 9:38:23 AM Pacific Standard Time,
przyk...@o2.pl writes:
The more mentions you have in the press, and the more visibility you
have in social media and blogs, the more likely you are to seem legitimate
and
“notable” -- a precondition for inclusion.
In a message dated 12/4/2010 6:50:38 AM Pacific Standard Time,
geni...@gmail.com writes:
Actually we have at least 3.
Editor, admin bureaucrat, steward, dev.
everyone, arbcom
Everyone, foundation, foundation board.
Not three Geni, one.
Has anyone become Arbcom without being an
In a message dated 11/30/2010 11:47:48 PM Pacific Standard Time,
aph...@gmail.com writes:
After I mentioned Wikimedia troll, Will thought it meant him and sent
me some mails. I told him it was an in-joke (Bostonian Maniacs may
remember that) but not further. Besides annotation to a joke is
In a message dated 11/30/2010 11:11:10 AM Pacific Standard Time,
birgitte...@yahoo.com writes:
And like everyone who contributes to this list, they also send other
messages to the list that are useful or contribute a perspective that
would
otherwise be absent from the list. They should
In a message dated 11/30/2010 11:58:07 AM Pacific Standard Time,
birgitte...@yahoo.com writes:
Your recent postings have definitely been foolish. You seem to be going
out of
the way to misinterpret everyone's words in the worst possible light. Why
should
you assume the phrase donor is
In a message dated 11/30/2010 4:46:02 PM Pacific Standard Time,
z...@mzmcbride.com writes:
The phrase you're looking for is, An ounce of prevention is a pound of
cure. Either be an active part of this mailing list and moderate as
appropriate or give up the damn post already. The current
In a message dated 11/29/2010 2:14:38 AM Pacific Standard Time,
midom.li...@gmail.com writes:
This isn't Wikipedia, this is Wikimedia. You can cite me, if you want.
Go on record, then I'll cite you.
An email list is not a citable source, per our policy.
However a page on the server is
If that's the case, I would suggest, if it does not do so already, that the
server also grab details about How did you get here? such as keywords
used, or page-come-from and so on.
Also I would want it to grab geographic location (where known), which would
help us to know, for example, if
In a message dated 11/29/2010 11:33:05 AM Pacific Standard Time,
midom.li...@gmail.com writes:
Hi!
Go on record, then I'll cite you.
An email list is not a citable source, per our policy.
Why would I care about your policy? Which policy is 'our' policy? Why does
it apply to anything
In a message dated 11/29/2010 8:48:40 PM Pacific Standard Time,
russnel...@gmail.com writes:
Those with the passwords are accountable to the foundation, which is
accountable to the donors. The foundation needs to make sure that the
money
donated to it is spent wisely, and not frittered
In a message dated 11/29/2010 9:34:40 PM Pacific Standard Time,
russnel...@gmail.com writes:
Huh?? Editors are donors as well, as are people who contribute to mailing
lists, as are you.
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 12:13 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 11/29/2010 8:48:40 PM
In a message dated 11/29/2010 10:00:38 PM Pacific Standard Time,
pbeaude...@wikimedia.org writes:
To suggest that the WMF (which means what, exactly, in this context?
Staff? Mailing list participants?) does not feel accountable to anyone but
donors is to make a careless generalization,
I'm afraid our Tatar is correct in some senses and others in this thread
are in a failing or failed mode.
Each web server, of which the WMF has a few, collects details on the
behaviour of IPs, in logs. Those logs can be and probably have been requested
by
certain government officials, most
My belief is that this is not so. Checkuser logs are not the same thing as
IP logs.
Are you suggesting that should a court, three months-and-a-day after a
logged in user made a libelous edit, order the WMF to release the IP address of
that user, they would not be able to do so? I suggest
In a message dated 11/28/2010 2:34:37 PM Pacific Standard Time,
erikzac...@infodisiac.com writes:
Repost with shortened url:
WJhonson:
The issue with the AOL Search Scandal is a red herring. People are
not going to be searching for their own phone number or Social
Security numbers
In a message dated 11/28/2010 3:36:34 PM Pacific Standard Time,
russnel...@gmail.com writes:
You misbelieve. Listen to Aude. She knows what she's talking about.
I'd rather have Aude cite a reliable source.
People are not reliable sources. No living person is such an authority
that we
How exactly do config files tell us what the WMF is retaining?
That the error logs are manually purged tells us that they are in fact
retaining details.
What I asked was an official statement of what and for how long.
The config files do not answer that question.
At any rate you didn't link to
Again Aude, this is your statement only. This is not an official
statement of what the policy is or isn't, nor what is or isn't done under any
policy which may or may not exist. You may be satisfied that you are right,
but
I would rather have a citable source. Humans are not citable
1 - 100 of 239 matches
Mail list logo
