On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:17 AM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.p...@yahoo.comwrote:
I really hated the idea of posting limits at first, but must commend the
list mods for implementing it. Now that there is a specific cost to replies,
I have scaled back on the amount of emails I have sent and
Hoi,
When a group of people are to come up with a communal opinion, particularly
when this opinion is intended in order to judge a situation, a behaviour,
you can no longer dismiss this formed group opinion as just personal and
dismiss it as such. Obviously you can, because you do, but in this way
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi,
When a group of people are to come up with a communal opinion, particularly
when this opinion is intended in order to judge a situation, a behaviour,
you can no longer dismiss this formed group opinion as just personal and
dismiss it as such. Obviously you can,
Ryan Lomonaco wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:17 AM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.p...@yahoo.comwrote:
I really hated the idea of posting limits at first, but must commend the
list mods for implementing it. Now that there is a specific cost to replies,
I have scaled back on the amount of emails I
Reminder:
Our next strategy project office hours will be: '''20:00-21:00 UTC,
Tuesday 1 December'''.
Local timezones can be checked at
[http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=12day=1year=2009hour=20min=0sec=0p1=0
].
You can access the chat by going to
I think it is germane, because it means the choice we have is to ban a
pedophile from the start, before s/he gets a chance to cause any damage,
or to wait far too long to ban the pedophile, after much damage has
already been done. If the banning process were much simpler, efficient,
and
I agree with what Phoebe and William have written, and I'll just add a
few minor points and then a thought about the process of new project
creation.
* When dealing with the WMF and Wikimedia community, you might want to
avoid the language of business acquisitions; it's extraordinarily
unlikely
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.netwrote:
Ryan Lomonaco wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 2:17 AM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.p...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Another possibility would be imposing a throttle on replies
to threads, e.g. 5 per thread per day.
That's
On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 7:53 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree that we often wait far too long to ban disruptive editors, and
I also agree that this is not germane to the discussion.
I think it is germane, because it means the choice we have is to ban a
pedophile from the
Ryan Lomonaco wrote:
My reading of it was X replies per person per day in each thread. I agree
with you that there should not be a set limit per thread as a whole.
It might be interesting to combine that with a throttled number of
replies from one individual to another. At least for me, the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Could someone let me know why we need a bureaucratic process (I mean
bureaucratic without the connotative value) to approve new projects
when there has been exactly zero proposals since 2006 that actually
needed to be approved? (And in fact, there is
2009/11/29 Laura Hale la...@fanhistory.com:
As some one who has proposed a new project for the WMF (which would really
probably be an acquisition if it happened), some changes need to be made:
(...)
This sort of presupposes that WMF, on the whole, wants to acquire
projects. My understanding
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:28 AM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
The hand in hand with children wording seems to conflate physical
space with cyberspace. Please see my relevant reply to George William
Herbert.
There's a known and ancedotally (but not known to be statistically)
George William Herbert wrote:
There's a known and ancedotally (but not known to be statistically)
significant trend of pedophiles attracting victims online.
Also, apparently, of them coordinating amongst themselves to pass tips
about possible victims in specific areas.
I'm well aware. In
Ryan,
You are correct. I apologize for the ambiguity of my suggestion. To restate, I
was suggesting that users be restricted to a fixed or variable amount of posts
per thread per day. It could also be done by percentages after a certain amount
of time or posts, e.g. Post has 50 posts in a
Thats a great idea! The exchanges were the biggest clog previously, and this
seems like a reasonable warning to use.
From: William Pietri will...@scissor.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Mon, November 30, 2009
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Mike.lifeguard
mike.lifegu...@gmail.com wrote:
I mean to say that since 2006, and perhaps even further back, there have
been no proposals which should have been approved. Why do we need a
process to handle something which, in essence, *doesn't happen*?
Does it
Ryan Lomonaco wiki.ral...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see how that would be an issue. Notability is not a foundation
policy, it's a community guideline that was enacted by editors of the
English Wikipedia. Other projects within the WMF family would not
necessarily be subject to the same
G'day all :-)
I mentioned in a previous post (
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2009-November/056092.html)
that I was personally interested in getting some external advice from
Volunteering Australia (
http://www.volunteeringaustralia.org/html/s01_home/home.asp ) about good
Anthony wrote:
Right, because the only two possible solutions are to ban everyone and
to ban no one.
Obviously not. Likewise, we have more possible outcomes than banning
all known pedophiles and banning no known pedophiles.
Also, please address my point that banning self-identified
Hoi,
You might have waved a red rag, time to hoist the pirate flag... What
nonsense. Wikipedia is the Wikimedia Foundation's biggest project and indeed
it gets most of the attention and most of the tender loving care. HOWEVER,
there are other projects that are most definitely not encyclopaedic and
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 9:25 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
The hand in hand with children wording seems to conflate physical
space with cyberspace.
How about collaborating with children?
That's accurate, but I'm not quibbling over terminology. As I
explained to George, my
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 1:28 PM, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it is germane, because it means the choice we have is to ban a
pedophile from the start, before s/he gets a chance to cause any damage,
or to wait far too long to ban the pedophile, after much damage has
already
George William Herbert wrote:
Wikipedia's strong culture of pseudonymity and anonymity makes protecting
anyone, or detecting anyone, a nearly lost cause if they have any clue
and sense of privacy. Unlike real life, we can't make guarantees with
anything approaching a straight face.
However
24 matches
Mail list logo
