On 3/7/12 6:52 PM, Juliana da Costa José wrote:
so it would be not longer possible too, to have medical pictures f.e. from
surgeries, organs or corpses, because they could frighten people?
I don't think anyone's proposing that the information should be removed
from articles; just that there
On 2/20/12 10:39 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
As Mark has said, some subjects are highly vulnerable to recentism,
but one shouldn't expect that with a historical article about events
from 1886.
I agree it's more of a problem in some areas than others, but I think it
also often applies as a
On 2/19/12 4:12 PM, Sarah wrote:
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Mike Godwinmnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the article in The Chronicle of Higher Education is a
must-read. Here you have a researcher who actually took pains to learn
what the rules to editing Wikipedia are (including No
On 2/19/12 2:29 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
The key problem here is that WP:UNDUE was expressly written to address
the problem of genuine ongoing controversies, and fringe views. In
this case there is no ongoing controversy, but the use of the policy
has for long been used to remove new
Is the worry primarily around article-space, or around Wikipedia users?
There's already
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Courtesy_vanishing, though it
would have to be made somewhat more rigorous (and no longer a mere
courtesy) if it were an actual legal obligation.
As a non-lawyer, I
On 12/12/11 9:47 PM, Andrew Gray wrote:
On 12 December 2011 19:22, Möller, Carstenc.moel...@wmco.de wrote:
Who has asked for such a silly feature?
Every uploader sees the image he/she is uploading and has made the necessary
rotation beforehand.
I've certainly uploaded screwily-rotated files
On 12/4/11 4:01 PM, Andreas K. wrote:
many featured articles – at least on en:WP – are about
niche topics, while so-called vital articles (VA), i.e. core topics that
any encyclopedia would be expected to cover well, are underperforming, with
comparatively few making FA or GA. Looking at the VA
On 5/23/11 1:40 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 23 May 2011 00:03, FT2ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Out of interest, when a BLP is created and not speedy deleted, could we not
write a standard email to the subject stating that a biographical article
has been created on them on the online encyclopedia
On 08/29/2010 10:25 AM, Peter Damian wrote:
Do you mean the problem of experts being generally discouraged? I was
talking about the problem of there being serious errors in articles,
particularly in the humanities. I agree with David that when it comes to
facts and figures, Wikipedia is
On 05/11/2010 09:45 AM, Aryeh Gregor 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 any information from people
On 05/11/2010 11:58 AM, Noein wrote:
And there is a general consensus here about those libertarian views?
I'm impressed. Sorry to repetitively check the ethical temperature of
the community, but I come from social horizons where it's not only not
natural, but generates hatred. I never could
On 05/10/2010 03:11 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
On 10/05/10 15:25, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva wrote:
BTW, I also have a broader question. Who entrusted power to the Board
of Trustees?
Jimmy Wales determined the structure of the Wikimedia Foundation when
he created it. He and Bomis
On 05/10/2010 02:57 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:36 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
Jimbo's actions were
ridiculously damaging for *no gain whatsoever*.
I understand that you believe this. But it depends on what you mean by
damage and on what you
George Herbert wrote:
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 9:27 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
So state it as much as you want. The WMF is a publisher. Under
Section 230 of the CDA it most likely won't be treated as a publisher,
but that doesn't mean it isn't a publisher.
The section
Erik Moeller wrote:
Part of traditional professionalization is also to only make a
commitment when you feel you can uphold it. So where a casual,
informal organization is more likely to say Yeah, sure and then
never do anything (FlaggedRevisions and SUL being two examples of this
happening in
Austin Hair wrote:
In Buenos Aires I had multiple people ask (even practically beg) me to
do something about foundation-l. One person said fucking moderate
foundation-l, already!—to which I explained why I didn't think that
moderating individuals was a solution, but had to admit that I didn't
Sage Ross wrote:
Hence the desirability of creating a free alternative to Amazon's
reviews. Amazon's reviews, especially for manufactured goods, are an
extremely valuable public service (even if you don't shop at Amazon),
and the fact they are controlled and maintained by a for-profit
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Anthony's not exactly being fair, though, when he sort of suggests that the
shortfall in Technology spending went instead to the Executive Director. As
far as I can tell, it went into the bank, to be spent in the FOLLOWING YEARS
on the Executive Director's need to expand
Samuel Klein wrote:
Hello Mark,
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 3:38 AM, Deliriumdelir...@hackish.org wrote:
I'd personally place myself on the objecting to WMF expansion side, at
least in general sentiment. With larger organizations, you can indeed do
more, but also run more risks. In
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Google has an hour of slow service and it's headline news. Imagine the
donations we could get if our downtime (which, as David is fond of
saying, is our most profitable product) got into the headlines!
Do Wikinews headlines count? =]
Sage Ross wrote:
You're right about Wikinews as an all-purpose news source: the
commercial sites were there first and do it better.
But as a hub of citizen journalism, Wikinews does still have a chance
to be the first important site. At this point, the world of citizen
journalism is
Brian 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
unscientific thinking and it's going cause to you waste money. You're
Pharos wrote:
My experience has been that, although certainly there is room for
expansion in scientific articles on specialty topics, Wikipedia
already has much better coverage of science than any print
encyclopedias, and most basic scientific subjects are treated fairly
completely.
In
David Gerard wrote:
2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com:
Sure, the persons themselves can not be harmed, but our
deep understanding of the forces of history, and what force
personality, heredity, cultural context and up-bringing play
within it, is immeasurably
Brian wrote:
Ahh ok. Anyone who wants to do processing on the full history (and there are
a lot of these people who exist!) by definition *has* to be willing to throw
some money at it. It simply doesn't fit on commercial drives.
I've personally never found much of a compelling reason to
Brian wrote:
Why not make the uncompressed dump available as an Amazon Public
Dataset? http://aws.amazon.com/publicdatasets/
You can already find DBPedia and FreeBase there. Its true that the
uncompressed dump won't fit on a commercial drive (the largest is a
4-platter 500GB = 2TB drive).
Thomas Larsen wrote:
Hi all,
On 2/4/09, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Basically you've just said we're going to be just like wikipdia except
we
won't let incivlity, personal attacks and other bad stuff like that
happen.
How will you stop it? Blocking? Then you're just like
Anthony wrote:
My point of view is that the proposed license update is a violation of the
moral rights of the contributors. If Mike is going to deny that moral
rights exist in the first place, then I feel the need to explain that they
do.
The problem is that moral rights in your
Anthony wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Mike Godwin mgod...@wikimedia.org wrote:
That said, the GFDL requires authors to be listed in the section
entitled
History, and it clearly states that a section Entitled XYZ means
a named
subunit of the Document...
So is current
Erik Moeller wrote:
I know that Wikia/WMF related stuff is pretty exciting, but really, we
have work to do. We're not going to not make a decision that is right
just because it creates fodder for trolling. (And I hope that if this
turns into a troll-fest, the list moderators will take
Anders Wegge Keller wrote:
Delirium delir...@hackish.org writes:
There's a reason organizations that depend on public goodwill try to
avoid even the appearance of impropriety in this sort of respect,
and auditors usually suggest avoiding those sorts of entanglements.
Could you please
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
But in terms of pictures, photographs is a very very minor
segment indeed. Discussing the matter solely in terms
of photographs is very diversionary.
I certainly didn't intend to be diversionary; rather, I'm a bit confused
as to what the vast majority of
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
* For pictures, sound files, etc., there is often just a single
author.
This is of course very far from the truth. If you did
create the media file from your very own brain-pan,
yes, this would be accurate, but to say that that this
Brian wrote:
I am quite sure that the answer to Wikipedia's usability issues was not
properly taken into concern when ParserFunctions were written. This is based
on a very simple principle that I am following in this discussion:
Improvements in usability in MediaWiki will not happen through
geni wrote:
2009/1/9 Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com:
As a major organization with legal council, the WMF is in a much
better position to understand what the license requires than most
reusers.
The law however doesn't care how easy licenses are for reusers to
understand. The WMF cannot
Brock Weller wrote:
I don't care if its up or down, i was just wondering if we're still
connected to wikia in anyway (ie it reflect badly on us). If we're not, as
it seems by your response, then I really don't care too much :)
There's a bit on that here:
Casey Brown wrote:
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 8:57 PM, effe iets anders
effeietsand...@gmail.com wrote:
Hm, btw, where was again that list with all incoming donations?
Lodewijk
There are many statistics pages, see the Contributions/Fundraiser
section on
Kurt Maxwell Weber wrote:
I have submitted a new project proposal, at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Victims_of_Soviet_Repressions_Memorial
Isn't this the sort of thing we've been in the business of slowly
getting out of, with the move offsite of the September 11 memorial wiki?
The
David Gerard wrote:
(A tangential note: I consider NPOV to be our most important
innovation - much more radical than merely letting anyone edit your
encyclopedia. The concept of neutrality has existed in various
guises, but not like Wikipedia does it, with the consequences it has
as a source
David Gerard wrote:
It
would be novel indeed to have a Holocaust denier who wasn't a crank as
an editor, but I don't expect it to happen any time soon.
You'd be surprised, then. If you're talking about Holocaust-denial
*activists*, trying to edit articles to encompass that point of view,
Ziko van Dijk wrote:
About usability: I believe that one significant barrier for new Wikimedians
is the jargon in the Wikimedia projects, mostly in discussions, but also in
help pages:
* Expressions from computer science: IP, bug, URL
* Expressions from the Open Source movement: fork, stable
Michael Finney wrote:
Thank you for your comments. As a person who manages a small wiki project
and two language forks from it, I found some of the comments very
disturbing... almost frightening that such exist. Your comments re-affirm my
confidence in the Wikimedia Foundation and its purpose.
Fajro wrote:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 2:08 PM, geni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. You can argue for the tolerance of minority languages but actively
promoting them conflicts with Wikimedia's stated objectives.
How?
Do you edit wikipedia to give Free Access To All Human Knowledge
only to the
43 matches
Mail list logo
