On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 7:52 AM, Ryan Lomonacowiki.ral...@gmail.com wrote:
The rules did disenfranchise me, for example. It doesn't bother me that I
can't vote, but that said, I would've liked to vote if eligible. I am not
active on Wikipedia, but I do follow the mailing lists, and have
Hello,
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Milos Rancicmill...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that mailing lists posts should be treated as edits.
Thank you; this sentence made my day.
--
Guillaume Paumier
[[m:User:guillom]]
___
foundation-l mailing list
Hoi,
When we have consensus on that one, someone has to count them.. So what
piority do we give it and, what do we bumb down the list ? Alternatively who
is volunteering to write the necessary software anyway and how are we going
to get it operational ??
PS I like the idea grin
Thanks,
Brian brian.min...@... writes:
In my view, the only reason to limit voting to editors with a certain number
of edits is to limit the effects of ballot stuffing.
Not as much ballot stuffing as canvassing. Most of the inactive users do not see
the sitenotices and therefore they aren't aware that
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Guillaume Paumierguillom@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Milos Rancicmill...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that mailing lists posts should be treated as edits.
Thank you; this sentence made my day.
Thank you, too. We share our happiness with
Hoi,
When it is agreed that people can vote based on their mail contributions,
the one thing necessary is connecting people to their WMF user. When this
information is available on a user, the global user may be made known as a
voter. In my opinion you do not want to involve people when there is
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Gerard
Meijssengerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi,
When it is agreed that people can vote based on their mail contributions,
the one thing necessary is connecting people to their WMF user. When this
information is available on a user, the global user may be
And what about the people reading all the mail of all the mailing list, they
know Wikimedia damn, they too should be allowed to vote.
And the people making donations, they're supporting the projects too, they
should get a vote.
Or not. I'm not fond of the idea. Contributors to the project elect
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 19:32, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
A few years ago, I had asked that IRC have a searchable archive of
discussions. I was told that there were daily logs and I could get one if I
asked. I asked, and was denied. Until IRC commits itself to openness, it
should have
2009/7/31 Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com:
For me, the analogy is simple: just because you get a driver's license once
doesn't entitle you to drive for the rest of your life.
Unless you actively do something wrong and get disqualified, yes it
does. The analogy works for not letting
Right on. I detect ageism supplementing the recentism.
But seriously folks, if fraud were the issue then confirmed identify would
overcome the problem. The number-of-recent-edits criterion has two effects
that bother me.
1. It effectively puts the vote firmly in the hands of producers not
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 2:40 AM, Milos Rancicmill...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 7:52 AM, Ryan Lomonacowiki.ral...@gmail.com wrote:
The rules did disenfranchise me, for example. It doesn't bother me that I
can't vote, but that said, I would've liked to vote if eligible. I am not
2009/7/31 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com:
It occurs to me that when people donate money to something, it is to
some degree with an expectation that the recipient entity grows to
eventually gain a certain kind of financial self-sufficiency. Is this
not also the case with Wikimedia and many
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Tim Starlingtstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I'm taking Stevertigo off moderation. He has agreed by private email
not to continue the dispute resolution mailing list thread. Stevertigo
is a long-serving and trusted (if passionate) member of the community.
You
genigeni...@gmail.com wrote:
Nope. Many charities of various sizes rely on year to year donations.
Financial self-sufficiency is mostly limited to various internet
projects that manage to replace donations with ads and merchandise.
Keep in mind Geni, that Wikipedia is not so much an internet
2009/7/31 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com:
Note also that anytime someone is blocked/moderated from a public or
open list, its a common-sense requirement that the list be given
notification of the block/moderation, along with an explanation of
why. This is standard practice on wikien-l, and I
2009/7/31 stevertigo stv...@gmail.com:
My impression is that Wikimedia currently lives year to year on
donations, and that reserves are sufficient to pay a skeleton crew of
fundraisers. I'm sure its been discussed before though, but yes, it
would seem to make sense for Wikimedia -
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:09 AM, stevertigostv...@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway, for the record, the last message I sent to that thread -
itself quite obviously (from its content) intended to be my last
message on that thread - was never posted.
I killfiled the thread, as I noted in two e-mails to
You know, this comes up every year. And there's always good argument to
both sides but there's never consensus to actually change it. There has
been an election in one form or another since 2004, and except in 2004
where the requirement was having an account that is at least 3 months
old or be
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Kwan Ting Chan k...@ktchan.info wrote:
You know, this comes up every year. And there's always good argument to
both sides but there's never consensus to actually change it. There has been
an election in one form or another since 2004, and except in 2004 where
The Strategic Planning wiki is a good place to discuss this idea and
how it changed and/or implemented:
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals/Geonotice_improvements
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Proposals/Geonotice_improvements
-Sage
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Sage
Philippe Beaudette wrote:
I'm sure that if there is significant response to the edit count
requirement, next year's committee will happily (he said confidently,
with no intent to volunteer for next year's committee) review it then.
LOL, how many have you been on now? :P There's no
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Austin Hairadh...@gmail.com wrote:
I killfiled the thread, as I noted in two e-mails to the mailing list.
The usual process for this involves flagging for moderation all
topics with that subject line, and additionally any members I think
likely to try to
Can you guys air your dirty laundry in private? This is not really an
appropriate topic to be sending to all the list subscribers, I'd think.
---
Rjd0060
rjd0060.w...@gmail.com
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 2:07 PM, stevertigo stv...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Austin
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Philippe Beaudette
pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Allow me, please, to reinforce this, wearing my election committee
member hat.
This years' rules were mostly carryovers from last years' rules. When
we started, we looked around, realized that no
stevertigo wrote:
It's a little late for this. Besides you didn't killfile the thread
(whatever that translates to in grown-up terms) - you
moderated/blocked me, and did so without serious or even sufficient
public notification. The seven-word private reply you gave me (quoted
below somewhere)
**
____ _ __ _
/ / /\ \ (_) | _(_)___(_)_ __ ___
\ \/ \/ / | |/ / |_ / | '_ \ / _ \
\ /\ /| | | |/ /| | | | | __/
\/ \/ |_|_|\_\_/___|_|_| |_|\___|
.org
Year: 2009 Week: 31 Number:
Brian wrote:
The WMF is a far cry from the original vision of it as a membership
organization. Also, the board propagates stale laws under the notion of
status quo for which the original consensus is no longer remembered. There
is further no top down effort to ask the community if they have any
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Kwan Ting Chan k...@ktchan.info wrote:
Brian wrote:
I'm going to take particular issue with the last point here.
On 3 June *2008*, right after last year election, Jesse Plamondon-Willard
(Pathoschild), one of last year election committee member, posted on
On Jul 31, 2009, at 1:13 PM, Brian wrote:
There
is further no top down effort to ask the community if they have any
good
ideas, and then ask the community what they think about the best of
those
ideas. That, in my view, is a broken system.
Really? Been to the strategic planning wiki
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Philippe Beaudette
pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Jul 31, 2009, at 1:13 PM, Brian wrote:
There
is further no top down effort to ask the community if they have any
good
ideas, and then ask the community what they think about the best of
those
stevertigo schreef:
It occurs to me that when people donate money to something, it is to
some degree with an expectation that the recipient entity grows to
eventually gain a certain kind of financial self-sufficiency. Is this
not also the case with Wikimedia and many charitable donations to
Addendum to Wikizine 113:
Bigipedia episode 1 is not longer available on the BBC website. Episode
2 is available.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00lszrc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigipedia
--
Contact: walter AT wikizine DOT org
Wikizine.org - news for and about the Wikimedia community
Dear everyone,
As a reminder, we also discussed suffrage requirements on this list last year:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-April/042105.html
As a response to concerns over the proposed requirement that there be
50 edits between April and June before the election, this
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Sage Rossragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
One of the great frustrations of Wikinews for me is that it doesn't
have a system for identifying and pointing users toward opportunities
to get out into the offline world and do original reporting. A
fine-grained
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Philippe
Beaudettepbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Jul 31, 2009, at 1:13 PM, Brian wrote:
There
is further no top down effort to ask the community if they have any
good
ideas, and then ask the community what they think about the best of
those
ideas.
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 4:45 PM, phoebe ayersphoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Dear everyone,
As a reminder, we also discussed suffrage requirements on this list last year:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2008-April/042105.html
As a response to concerns over the proposed
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Walter Vermeirwal...@wikipedia.be wrote:
An other way would be that Wikimedia is funded by some international
body, like UNESCO. The WMF budget for 2009-2010 is 9,4 million US
dollar. That is not a lot on a global scale.
I find it very normal that
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Kwan Ting Chank...@ktchan.info wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_file
Any emails to the mailing list with that subject line get auto deleted. And
you can see, no email with that subject line has appeared since.
2. I would supect we are the moderators
So you are saying that list administrators are technocrats only, that
they just carry out technical tasks and aren't asked to exercise their
own judgement and that you believe the order for your moderation was
handed down from someone else, someone who you would like to be
exposed?
Just checking.
2009/7/31 Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com:
On critical complex topics, the Foundation could benefit from more
discussion and better planning. Why have we made it so hard to start
new Projects?
I would suggest that we use the strategy call for proposals to
re-surface some of the most important
2009/8/1 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
* a wiki for the global community of makers to share designs and
prototypes for both functional and entertaining objects, which is
becoming increasingly important as fabbing facilities become
commonplace;
Commons could do this tomorrow if the blender
2009/7/31 geni geni...@gmail.com:
2009/8/1 Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org:
* a wiki for the global community of makers to share designs and
prototypes for both functional and entertaining objects, which is
becoming increasingly important as fabbing facilities become
commonplace;
Commons
2009/7/31 Mohamed Magdy mohamed@gmail.com:
Hi W,
What is going on with IdeaTorrent? are we going to have one or not? do we
need to have a Meta poll or something?
I don't think there's any opposition to implementing one. I think for
us to officially set it up we'd want to rig it up with
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Mark Williamsonnode...@gmail.com wrote:
So you are saying that list administrators are technocrats only, that
they just carry out technical tasks and aren't asked to exercise their
own judgement and that you believe the order for your moderation was
handed
The last post in that thread wasn't blocked because of its content, it
was blocked because the thread itself was blocked. I could try to
reply to it now with a little paragraph about sunshine and rainbows
and it wouldn't go through. Nobody read that message and made the
decision not to post it to
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:04 PM, Mark Williamson node...@gmail.com wrote:
The last post in that thread wasn't blocked because of its content, it
was blocked because the thread itself was blocked. I could try to
reply to it now with a little paragraph about sunshine and rainbows
and it
47 matches
Mail list logo
