I can't follow your reasoning there. Ensuring that Commons can be safely
viewed by minors is not censorship, in my opinion. I am actually fine with
uncensored pornographic content for adults, but I think we will end up
cutting ourselves off from the younger generation if we don't cooperate
with
I am amazed by the Keep votes the various deletion requests for images in the
BDSM gallery -- files that are not actually used by any project -- are getting.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2010/05/08#May_8
Editors are saying, with a straight face, that there is no
For me, this statement is at the first line a support for Jimmy's
effort. It is a soft push from the board to the community to move in a
direction. Both Jimmy as well as me believe that the best way for the
board to do things is to give guidance to the communities. But, this
topic is
--- On Sat, 8/5/10, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com wrote:
Then another idea is to keep on Commons only those pictures which are
non-controversial and suggest local project to keep their controversial
pictures local? For example en Wikipedia keeps fair use pictures locally
and it is OK. If
Given that several Commons admins had dropped out, and bearing in mind the
clean-up campaign called for by the board and Jimbo, I put in an RFA at
Commons, saying I would help clean up pornographic images *that are not in use
by any project*.
The result so far: 14 Opposes, 1 Support.
You get
So... are we now going to start writting USfamilyfriendlypedia(tm) ?
There is plenty of stuff to be delete then... not only penis and
vagina pictures... For example delete all biographies of porn-stars,
articles about addictive violent computer games, and there is tons of
things to be deleted
--- On Tue, 11/5/10, wjhon...@aol.com wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
If there is enough of a perceived need for content filtering, someone will fill
that void. That someone does not need to be us. Google does this job with
their image browser already without the need for any providers to actively
I am sorry about the horrible formatting in my last post (any advice
appreciated). I'll try this again.
--- On Tue, 11/5/10, wjhon...@aol.com wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
If there is enough of a perceived need for content filtering, someone
will fill that void. That someone does not need to
--- On Tue, 11/5/10, wjhon...@aol.com wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I would suggest a child-safe approach to
Commons, is simply to use the Google image browser with a
moderate filter setting. Try it, it works.
Actually, it doesn't. For example, if you search for
masturbation
This post by David does prove that it is possible to argue, with intellectual
integrity, that there are more important things at stake than getting Commons
into schools.
Andreas
--- On Wed, 12/5/10, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
From: David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com
Subject:
Jehochman has suggested that we need legal advice from the Foundation at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content
with respect to § 2257[1}, and I tend to agree with him. The relevant
discussion is here:
--- On Tue, 11/5/10, Aryeh Gregor simetrical+wikil...@gmail.com wrote:
The obvious solution is not to display images by default
that a large
number of viewers would prefer not to view. Instead,
provide links,
or maybe have them blurred out and allow a click to unblur
them. You
don't hide
Someone uploading a nude picture of their ex-girlfriend can be far more
injurious to the woman concerned than the same person uploading an image of her
making tea.
Requiring an OTRS release from the model for any nude and sexually explicit
content seems appropriate to me.
Andreas
--- On
Another great post.
You are right: this is a separate issue from the original censorship/content
filtering debate, but it is an important issue that the proposed Sexual
content policy on Commons should address.
Recapping some thoughts around this:
*No image showing an actual living person
Sounds like a good idea. It would put drafting the Sexual Content policy on a
more solid footing, and maybe avoid problems later on.
Andreas
--- On Thu, 20/5/10, Stillwater Rising stillwateris...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Stillwater Rising stillwateris...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l]
I guess people the world over know that at least one member of the board has
been quite active in the selection process of late. ;)
Also, in cases of illegal content, the Foundation may well find -- or have
found -- itself in a position to direct that material be deleted, thus playing
an
I used the interwiki links all the time in this manner at work, and still do.
It was one of the things that turned me on to Wikipedia and caused me to start
contributing, and eventually to register an account.
As others have said, if the interwiki links had not been visible by default, I
One thing that is undoubtedly good is that users now have the choice of
displaying lists like the interwiki links, or not. The system seems to do a
reasonable job remembering a user's preferences. Someone who prefers the
interwiki links hidden can get them off his screen with a click.
But the
--- On Mon, 7/6/10, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
There is a piece of user js which was implemented on en
which does
this, incidentally:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Manishearth/Scripts#Wikipedia_interwiki_translator
- it turns, eg, Espanol into Spanish (t), with the
There is currently a discussion at the en:WP content noticeboard whether we
could or should
1. Use collapsed galleries for particularly graphic sexual images (requiring
the reader to click Show to see the content)
2. Display them openly, as has been normal practice so far
3. Dispense with
Call me an optimist -- I retain the hope that such discussions may not remain
circular forever, but eventually might come to resemble a spiral, with some
upwards movement, as has happened in other areas like BLP.
In discussions around these issues, it is easy for people on both sides of the
As many of you are aware, Commons has been developing a proposed policy
regarding sexual content at [[Commons:Sexual content]].[1] It is now stable and
ready for review by third parties - if you haven't read it yet, please look it
over and provide any feedback on the talk page. We want to move
From: Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de
What I find not convincing is the slogan No censorship. I
think this is a bad argument.
Actually, I wish we'd rename [[WP:NOTCENSORED]] in en:WP to something more
sensible, for similar reasons. It is too often used as a justification for poor
editorial
Thanks Alec. I wouldn't like to see Wikipedia fork either.
Excirial's suggestion -- which I understand to mean enabling readers to
self-censor the type of content that offends them, or that they don't want
their children to see -- strikes me as the way we can have our cake and eat it.
It's
--- On Sat, 24/7/10, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
- That IPs are shown a mildly censored version,
and that seeing the uncensored version of Wikipedia requires
registering an account and setting the preferences up
accordingly.
And this is where it all breaks down. Once you start
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
Yes, the devil is in the details, and in working out
the correct parameters for default IP access. Each language
version of any project could make its own determination in
this regard. Arabic, no Mohammed images; India, no sex and
kissing; Dutch and
Date: Sunday, 25 July, 2010, 10:54
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
to see its content.
Yes, the devil is in the details, and in working out
the correct
parameters for default IP access. Each language
version of any
project could make its own determination in this
regard. Arabic, no
Mohammed
--- On Sun, 25/7/10, Fajro fai...@gmail.com wrote:
Machine translation is always unsuitable to produce usable
articles, but can
help to start new ones in smaller wikipedias.
I second that. About 50% of machine translation output is gibberish, or worse,
plausible-sounding text that actually
Milos, when I am talking about the possibility of a censored default for IP
access, I am talking about the types of censorship Flickr and YouTube are
using. They categorise their content on the basis of whether it is moderate or
explicit adult content.
This has not resulted in Serbian YouTube
From: Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com
And what about words? Do you think that one devoted
homophobic
Christian would be willing to see [relevant] citation
inside of some
general article that Jesus was gay?
If it is not acceptable to someone to see pornographic
content, it is
highly
Having tried it tonight, I don't find the Google translator toolkit all that
useful, at least not at this present level of development. To sum up:
First you read their translation.
Then you scratch your head: What the deuce is that supposed to mean ...?
Then you check the original language
It's a bit of a Keystone Kops joke for the FBI to complain about Wikipedia
being irresponsible here, when the Director of National Intelligence himself
publishes the seal on his website, in almost infinitely scalable detail:
http://www.dni.gov/100-day-plan/100_FOLLOW_UP_REPORT.pdf
A.
--- On
Incidentally, britannica.com removed the seal today from their article on the
FBI.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/203351/Federal-Bureau-of-Investigation
You can see the edit in the Article History. However, at the time of writing,
the seal is still included in the Media section of
Indeed. I should have written The Office of the Director of National
Intelligence, because that's who www.dni.gov belongs to, according to its
banner.
A.
--- On Wed, 4/8/10, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote:
To be fair, the DNI is a relative a
friend of mine and I am pretty sure he
Also raised on the Sexual content talk page in Commons are uploads by
User:Midnight68. Some users feel these are out of scope at Commons, and may
violate child pornography laws:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Archive001.jpg
the relevant Wikipedia communities, are garbage. Why feed that
garbage into the system?
There should be alarm bells ringing at Google here.
A.
Andreas Kolbe написа:
Having tried it tonight, I don't find the Google
translator toolkit all
that useful, at least not at this present level
--- On Sun, 8/8/10, Lars Aronsson l...@aronsson.se wrote:
This is where our experience differs. I'm working faster
with the Google
Translator Toolkit than without.
Whether faster or not is a function of a number of variables:
- How well do you know the languages and subject matter
I read that thread and noticed a lot of confusion. One translator
admitted she never even tried it, but still had lots of negative stuff
to say; more than one person said they found it useful (see
Esperantisto's response), and other people seemed to not realize there
was a difference between
combinations seem to do much better.
A.
--- On Mon, 9/8/10, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Parallel text alignment (was: Push translation)
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Monday
--- On Mon, 9/8/10, Oliver Keyes scire.fac...@gmail.com wrote:
Let's linky here, Oliver: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MEDCOM
--
~Keegan
My bad. Anyway, to quote The role of the Mediation
Committee is explicitly
to try to resolve disputes, especially those *involving
content*
Bod Notbod, when you say, I see a lot of green, it's also worth looking at
what B actually means. The article on Doris Lessing for example, winner of the
Nobel Prize for Literature, is B class.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doris_lessing
It is woefully inadequate. It says there are three phases
I agree with that. The first step is to acknowkedge
that there is a problem.
But most people I have read about this topic even deny
that.
So we can't go further until this is accepted.
BTW this is also the case on the French Wikipedia, so
the issue is not
restricted
to the English
--- On Mon, 20/9/10, Robert S. Horning robert_horn...@netzero.net wrote:
When I see those involved with the Humanities, it is a very
different
environment. I merely mentioned to one historian that
I was writing a
Wikipedia article and wanted to ask him a relatively minor
question that
Will, I suspect the problem may often have to do with due weight. To judge due
weight, you need to have an overview of the literature, not a single source
that states what you want to add to the article.
It is the same problem in climate change articles, where editors that have no
overview of
--- On Tue, 21/9/10, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
The problem of access to old obscure works and journals
remains. The
challenge then is to make the obscure material more
available to keep
people from falling into recentism.
Old obscure works are often available with a full
German Wikipedia has had pending changes implemented *globally*, in all
articles, for several years now. Unlike en:WP, where numbers of active editors
have dropped significantly since 2007, numbers of active editors in de:WP have
remained stable:
Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com
wrote:
German Wikipedia has had pending changes implemented
*globally*, in all articles, for several years now. Unlike
en:WP, where numbers of active editors have dropped
significantly since 2007, numbers of active editors in de:WP
have remained stable
Anne,
Thanks for the extra perspective. The post-2007 decline in 100+ editors on
en:WP may indeed reflect a decline in vandalism reverts.
The most interesting point to me was that de:WP introduced flagged revisions in
spring 2008, across the board, and that editor numbers appear to have
Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Thursday, 30 September, 2010, 18:23
On 30 September 2010 04:02, Andreas
Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Anne,
Thanks for the extra perspective. The post-2007
decline in 100+ editors on
en:WP may indeed reflect a decline in vandalism
This suggests the problem is: how do you *get across to*
someone that
they're just ignorant, in a manner that is duplicable
across the wiki,
and do that without breaking our spectacular successes so
far?
Well, one way is to make clear to our editors that we expect them to make a bit
of an
No indeed. That's why I say the question is how to get
across to
idiots that they are, in fact, idiots - without breaking
what clearly
works fantastically well on Wikipedia. (How to avoid, for
instance,
falling into a credentialism death spiral.)
I guess it is also worth thinking about
Putting in place what are effectively featured article
standards would
for starting new articles would be a great way of killing
the project
if it was remotely enforceable.
Worse still articles like [[Canal]] would be effectively
unrwritable
by anyone. Since there is not going to be
So 30 seconds British library catalog search then forget
about it.
Which means that unless you happen to live with a library
that
includes a bunch of naval history or are prepared to spend
a non
trivial amount of money you can't edit say [[HMS Argus
(I49)]] (which
cites Warship 1994).
Citing sources doesn't help because if Wikipedians don't
like the
sources, they want to know why we've chosen this source and
not some
other. No matter how canonical it is, it'll be questioned,
because
they don't realize it's part of the canon.
You can make an argument based on how well
Experts complain about uncitability - they complain
that common
knowledge in the field doesn't actually make it into
journal articles
or textbooks, but is stuff that everyone knows.
I have a hard time believing that it should be impossible to find a source
which states something that
Geni, would you like to describe how you research
sources?
Entirely depends on what I'm doing. Sometimes I start with
an article
and go looking for refs.
Okay. Assume that all I am saying is: when you go looking for refs, look first
whether there are any academic refs out there that
We were talking
about very aggressive editors who know absolutely
nothing of the subject,
and drive away specialist editors.
I see an equal proportion of very aggressive editors among
the expert
as well as the non-expert editors. Expertise does not
necessarily
mean a devotion to
Seems to me you would not be the right editor to
embark on this then. :) Best to leave it to someone who
speaks Japanese, and they should have a look what
scholarly literature there is available, including Japanese
scholarly literature.
err by that standard the person would have to be
It's very distracting, and completely unnecessary.
There are ways of
bundling citations into one footnote at the end of
each paragraph,
while still making clear which citation supports which
words. But it's
It doesn't distract me at all,
Me neither. As a reader, I find it
As an editor, it makes it very difficult to edit, when you
have three
words then a {{cite}} template.
You're right there. It's a bloody headache finding the words of the article in
amongst all the citation templates when you're trying to edit.
A.
Documentation of consent has been discussed several times on the COM:Sexual
content talk page:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_content
One interesting idea raised a few days ago was that we could have a drop-down
menu on the upload page for self-made images. This would
--- On Mon, 18/10/10, Virgilio A. P. Machado v...@fct.unl.pt wrote:
I strongly disagree with both
decisions.
Sincerely,
Virgilio A. P. Machado
(Vapmachado)
While I appreciate the situation the moderators are in, I'm afraid I disagree
too -- in particular in Peter's case, whose
Those sound like typical problems with external links on
Wikipedia, not anything specific to Wikia. It's a shame that
there isn't an easy way to only see the links in the article
namespace, though, as that might make this list of links
somewhat more useful (and a lot smaller)...
Is this
--- On Sat, 23/10/10, SlimVirgin slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:
Someone working for the company that makes Lipitor would try to stop
mainstream media sources being used in the article, because it's the
media that has been pointing out problems with these drugs. And that's
exactly what happens on
--- On Sun, 24/10/10, SlimVirgin slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:
By excluding high-quality media sources you're elevating the lowliest
scientist as a source, and the vested interests that finance the
research, above the most senior and experienced of disinterested
journalists. That makes no
They can argue, but if we keep our heads, they cannot
overturn a founding
principle. As in the Atorvastatin article when
patients are running to
their doctors, saying, My God, I can't think, and it
is observable by
medical practitioners that indeed they can't, it's a
significant event.
Can you address the issue of vested interests? If a drug
company has
financed all or most of the peer-reviewed work, your
argument is that
we should nevertheless reply on those studies exclusively,
and not
allow high-quality mainstream media who may be pointing to
problems
before anyone
From: David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com
Date: Monday, 25 October, 2010, 6:57
Whether or not we want it to be,
whether or not it ought to be,
Wikipedia is being relied on. Our foundational principles
do not
control the outside world. What we have produced is
being used as the
nearest
Can you address the issue of
vested interests? If a drug
company has
financed all or most of the peer-reviewed work, your
argument is that
we should nevertheless reply on those studies
exclusively,
and not
allow high-quality mainstream media who may be
pointing to
problems
Nice. Worth noting though that the articles were informatics articles,
rather than medical articles.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2929539/table/T0004/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2929539/table/T0003/
A.
From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
Here is a
--- On Mon, 1/11/10, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
You don't seem to have read the cited article. And to
be changing the
subject. Peer review decides what is to be published,
based on quality
and significance. Errors are made as scientists hold
views as to what
that is at any
--- On Tue, 2/11/10, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:36 AM,
wjhon...@aol.com
wrote:
..
There have been plenty of studies on drugs, which were
not paid for, by
anyone with a vested monetary interest in changing the
drug's market outlook.
Being flippant
The controversial content study by Robert Harris and Dory Carr-Harris was
completed a few weeks ago.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content
What is the board's view of the recommendations that resulted from the study?
Are there any ongoing deliberations
John, by your rationale, every scholarly journal that follows defined
ethics guidelines *requiring* that the funding be disclosed impugns the
authors' integrity. Does it really?
There is a difference between transparency and assumption of wrongdoing;
and history is full of people who resisted
--- On Sun, 7/11/10, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
It is
appropriate that journals expect that researchers provide
information
to _them_ about potential conflict of interests, so it can
be
available for peer-reviewers both before and after
publishing.
In case this was not
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Funding Sources of Medical Research, was
Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing...
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Monday, 8 November, 2010, 0:22
On 7 November 2010 12:26, David
Gerard dger...@gmail.com
wrote:
From: SlimVirgin slimvir...@gmail.com
If PediaPress's software is open-source the Foundation
surely wouldn't
need to buy it. This is what I'm finding confusing, and
that's partly
because of my lack of technical knowledge. But as I see it
Wikimedia
has developers, paid and unpaid, lots of
Glad to read this question here, have often wondered about this myself.
User:Emelian1977, an African American PhD student named Brenton Stewart,
conducted a survey of Black American Wikipedians in 2008. I can only find a
short write-up of his study online:
---o0o---
If the Foundation wanted to enquire, or do something about the relative
dearth of African American editors, a good person to contact would probably
be Henry Louis Gates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Louis_Gates
He's a Harvard professor, famous for having been arrested on the front
porch
It happens more and more often that books copy from Wikipedia. I found verbatim
parts of an article I had written in a book published by John Wiley Sons the
other day. No attribution whatsoever.
It's a headache for the copyright team on en:WP because they have to figure out
which came first.
I had a rather different impression of events around Pieter. I remember several
times where he got admins on his case because he nominated copyvios for
deletion which said admins had uploaded to Commons.
I'm also not sure whether a sarcastic reference to German efficiency in a talk
page
And thanks for the prod... we've been slow to put together
the working
group that I mentioned in my last message, but it is still
happening.
In the meantime comments on the recommendations are
certainly welcome.
More soon, I hope!
Yes please. Greg has predicted that this study and its
From: private musings thepmacco...@gmail.com
Hi all,
I thought I'd note for those interested in the latest from
the
community side of the 'controversial content' discussions -
the
Commons 'Sexual Content' proposal has just gone into a
polling stage
for the second time;
--- On Tue, 7/12/10, Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 17:31, Fred
Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
wrote:
http://www.inc.com/managing/articles/201001/wikipedia.html
It is not a bad article. Basically tells the company to
establish
their presence, to join the
--- On Mon, 6/12/10, Mariano Cecowski marianocecow...@yahoo.com.ar wrote:
Date: Monday, 6 December, 2010, 19:40
I'm sorry we are putting more energy
into what should be banned from commons instead of searching
for mechanisms to protect those readers who would prefer to
stay away from such
, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com
escribió:
De: Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com
Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of
Controversial Content
Para: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Fecha: jueves, 9 de diciembre de 2010, 22:46
--- On Mon, 6/12
--- On Fri, 10/12/10, wjhon...@aol.com wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
From: wjhon...@aol.com wjhon...@aol.com
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
--- On Sat, 11/12/10, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
People don't read they react. In the UK a couple of years
ago there was
a petition that gathered 50,000 signatures against a
proposal to ban all
photography in public spaces. As a point of fact there was
no such
proposal.
This might need some eyes and attention:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidentsoldid=401953034#Creation_of_articles_from_leaked_classified_documents
It concerns Wikipedia articles reproducing the content of the recent
Wikileaks releases,
Fred,
I agree. However, any [[WP:UNDUE]] argument of the kind you are making,
Copying a list of potential military targets from a classified document
would seem out of bounds unless a source generally considered reliable
has widely distributed the list.
will not win the day. See the
--- On Sun, 12/12/10, David Moran fordmadoxfr...@gmail.com wrote:
From: David Moran fordmadoxfr...@gmail.com
Taking the nonexistence of an article
on a particular subject as positive
evidence of an editorial judgment by our best sources is
an unsupportable
argument. Wikipedia is not here
Perhaps we should write a guideline that editors should please wait with
the Wikileaks articles until there is secondary-source coverage, and that
they should sum up *that coverage* rather than the original document.
If Wikisource should decide they can host the original documents, it is
always
, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com
wrote:
This might need some eyes and attention:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidentsoldid=401953034#Creation_of_articles_from_leaked_classified_documents
It concerns Wikipedia articles reproducing
Thanks, interesting. Go to
http://www.wiki4enterprise.org/index.php?title=Editoraction=edit
for example, and click on [Rich Editor] (above the button bar at the top of
the edit window). This gives you a WYSIWIYG display in the edit window.
Users can toggle between the two types of display.
Could Phoebe, Jan-Bart or Kat please give us an update on the activities of
the working group looking into the recommendations resulting from the 2010
Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content?
Have any conclusions been drawn, and are there any plans or discussions about
implementing any of
ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content --
update
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Cc: Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com
Date: Sunday, 20 February, 2011, 19:35
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 5:26 AM
--- On Tue, 8/3/11, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
I guess I would like editors to have access to archives and
databases
such as those ProQuest sells. Not sure how that would fit
into our
budget.
I
--- On Tue, 8/3/11, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
From: George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com
We should have no illusion that the WMF or open content
movement will
zero out the production of copyrighted and
not-freely-licensed content
- most authors of books, most movie
--- On Wed, 9/3/11, Stephanie Daugherty sdaughe...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Stephanie Daugherty sdaughe...@gmail.com
I object to this strongly. The FA, and DYK processes are
absolutely
useless as a measure of an editor's worth to the project.
There's
plenty of wikignomes and other mostly
-- On Wed, 9/3/11, SlimVirgin slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:
The nearest university to me will give access to databases
for $150 a
year, but they make non-students and staff travel to the
university
itself to do it; no logging in from home, and that turns
into a
serious hassle over time
1 - 100 of 186 matches
Mail list logo
