Not really, if you give your eyes to blogosphere global and hence
multingual, including mine. I hope some would go through mine to the
fundraising page, and some of trackbacks to my entry were clearly
positive ("I've donated them, you can do too") too.
It is still anectodal, but I think it good to
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Anders Wegge Keller wrote:
> geni writes:
>
>> 2009/1/7 Anders Wegge Keller :
>> Now we can agree that fundraising banners that size are apparently
>> effective which is good but thankyou banners that size less so. If a
>> thank you is required one the size of the
Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2009/1/8 Marc Riddell:
>
>> * A person at the Foundation level who has true, sensitive inter-personal as
>> well a inter-group skills, and who would keep a close eye on the Project
>> looking for impasses when they arise. The person would need to be objective
>> and lobby-r
Hoi,
Usability research done by UNICEF on MediaWiki, by English language people
in Tanzania had 100% of their test subjects failing to create a new article.
This research is repeatable, and it is easy to improve on this because
UNICEF created extensions that will be part of the initial research. Th
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> I disagree, I don't think each edit is a work but rather each revision
> is a work, derived from the revision before. The question is then who
> is the Original Author of the latest revision, is it just the person
> that made the last edit or is it everyone before (ie. are au
On Saturday 10 January 2009 10:02:11 Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
> > I disagree, I don't think each edit is a work but rather each revision
> > is a work, derived from the revision before. The question is then who
> > is the Original Author of the latest revision, is it just the per
2009/1/9 Marc Riddell :
> Erik, there are some truly terrific, bright and creative people within the
> greater Wikipedia Community. We really need to have a culture that makes
> room for them all.
I note that I have asked you before if you've actually attempted to
work directly with the communit
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 4:03 AM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> [snip]
> When the usability of MediaWiki is improved, people will be encouraged to
> contribute to MediaWiki projects. It will be really hard to make the
> convoluted policies of the different Wikipedias clear. Many policies exist
> that on
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:46 AM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> The proposed attribution (crediting authors where it is reasonably
> possible and linking to the version history where that would be
> onerous) is completely consistent with
> 1) established practices on Wikipedia;
> 2) the ethics and spirit
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Lars Aronsson wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
>
> > My complaint was that the WMF was (and still is) copying and
> > distributing my copyrighted content in a manner other than that
> > expressly provided under any license I have granted them.
>
> Apart from the "expressly
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Anthony wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Lars Aronsson wrote:
>
>> Anthony wrote:
>>
>> > My complaint was that the WMF was (and still is) copying and
>> > distributing my copyrighted content in a manner other than that
>> > expressly provided under any
Hoi,
In a way you remind me of the pope, you want to dictate the rules but you do
not play the game. Your idea of what the WMF and its projects should be are
not shared by all, for from it. The reason why the GFDL needs to be replaced
is because we want to be better able to share. At that the GFDL
>>
on 1/10/09 3:56 AM, Ray Saintonge at sainto...@telus.net wrote:
> Perhaps in the earliest days Jimbo performed that role, but even viewing
> all of his actions in the best possible light still leaves the
> insurmountable scalability problem. It is hard to imagine any other
> Solomon scalably
Hi
This is my first post to this list - I'm a thirtysomething newbie from
England. After using Wikipedia for years without getting involved, I
thought I should look more closely into how it all works - and
possibly even join the project! However, as a strong believer in the
importance of transpare
2009/1/10 Anthony :
> As I said, if that's true, there's no reason to switch. Compatibility can
> be achieved by allowing CC-BY-SA to be relicensed under the GFDL.
>
> That said, I think "if it's too hard to credit people, then you don't have
> to do it" is a ridiculous interpretation of the GFDL.
2009/1/10 James Rigg :
> I don't understand why discussing everything openly is 'beyond
> nonsense' and would lead to less transparency. I mean, can someone
> give me a hypothetical example of some aspect of the running of the
> Foundation which would be better not discussed openly?
Legal threats.
> 2009/1/9 Marc Riddell :
>
>> Erik, there are some truly terrific, bright and creative people within the
>> greater Wikipedia Community. We really need to have a culture that makes
>> room for them all.
>
on 1/10/09 6:59 AM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I note that I have asked
2009/1/10 Anthony :
> Title 17, Section 407.
Not actionable unless we receive an actual demand. Which I'm pretty
sure we haven't.
--
geni
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/l
2009/1/10 Marc Riddell :
> on 1/10/09 6:59 AM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I note that I have asked you before if you've actually attempted to
>> work directly with the community on-wiki, and you demurred:
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2009-January/097693.html
>>
Thanks geni.
So, to put it crudely, the talk of full transparency and lack of
hierarchy is now viewed as just naive idealism that existed at the
start of the project, and which has now been abandoned?
Best
James
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:41 PM, geni wrote:
> 2009/1/10 James Rigg :
>> I don't
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 10:06 AM, James Rigg
wrote:
> Thanks geni.
>
> So, to put it crudely, the talk of full transparency and lack of
> hierarchy is now viewed as just naive idealism that existed at the
> start of the project, and which has now been abandoned?
>
> Best
>
> James
>
Not so much t
That sounds a bit like a politician not wanting to admit that they've
abandoned a policy or goal! ;)
It does seem to be the case that it has been decided that the earlier
ideals of *full* transparency and no hierarchy were naive and have
been abandoned.
James
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Ch
James Rigg wrote:
> It does seem to be the case that it has been decided that the earlier
> ideals of *full* transparency and no hierarchy were naive and have
> been abandoned.
Hello James,
Transparency is not about making everything public, but making as much
as feasible public. I don't think
Jesse Plamondon-Willard wrote:
>
> I think there's room for improvement, but generally the Foundation
> fulfills its ideals relatively well. Ironically, it's the community
> itself that does more poorly in fulfilling the no-hierarchy rule;
> people seem to naturally fall into hierarchies even if yo
2009/1/10 James Rigg :
> So, to put it crudely, the talk of full transparency and lack of
> hierarchy is now viewed as just naive idealism that existed at the
> start of the project, and which has now been abandoned?
Suggested reading:
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/hist_texts/structurelessne
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
wrote:
> And, yes to spell it out. I am referring specifically to the
> Arbitration Committee, which really should in all fairness
> be renamed to something that bears even a passing
> familiarity to its actual function...
Yes, I had en-Wiki
I think transparency *is* about making everything public, and that the
Foundation is merely a semi-transparent organisation, and should at
least be open about not being a completely open. I don't know enough
about the Foundation and non-profit law to say whether the Foundation
could or should be tr
Thanks - I've bookmarked it for when I've got time to study it properly!
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 4:12 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/1/10 James Rigg :
>
>> So, to put it crudely, the talk of full transparency and lack of
>> hierarchy is now viewed as just naive idealism that existed at the
>> sta
2009/1/10 James Rigg :
> Thanks geni.
>
> So, to put it crudely, the talk of full transparency and lack of
> hierarchy is now viewed as just naive idealism that existed at the
> start of the project, and which has now been abandoned?
>
I think it was all about Wikimedia wiki projects, which still
This 'principle':
"The mailing list will remain open, well-advertised, and will be
regarded as the place for meta-discussions about the nature of
Wikipedia."
does seem to be referring to not just content, but also the running of
Wikipedia. But the 'private' mailing lists which now exist seem to b
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 9:47 AM, geni wrote:
> 2009/1/10 Anthony :
> > Title 17, Section 407.
>
> Not actionable unless we receive an actual demand. Which I'm pretty
> sure we haven't.
It's not required unless the work is published anyway.
___
foundat
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:44 AM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
>
> In a way you remind me of the pope, you want to dictate the rules but you
> do
> not play the game. Your idea of what the WMF and its projects should be are
> not shared by all, for from it.
But I own the copyright on the content I contr
2009/1/10 Anthony :
> I care to prevent the relicensing *of my content* to CC-BY-SA. Remove my
> content, and you won't hear from me on the license issue again (unless you
> choose to read my blog or the blog of the non-profit Internet Review
> Corporation).
If you licensed it under "or later,"
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/1/10 Anthony :
>
> > I care to prevent the relicensing *of my content* to CC-BY-SA. Remove my
> > content, and you won't hear from me on the license issue again (unless
> you
> > choose to read my blog or the blog of the non-profit Inte
Hello, I want to wish you all a Happy New Year !
Also, I'd like to know what's the progress of renaming the subdomain "mo" to
"mo-cyrl" mo.wikipedia.org -> mo-cyrl.wikipedia.org, as was stated in
november last year, an important issue for us.
Thanks for your activity.
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 2:0
2009/1/10 geni :
> 2009/1/10 Anthony :
>
>>
>> The WMF is not just making and distributing verbatim copies of my works.
>> Not effectively, not even remotely close to it. The only time they're even
>> arguably distributing verbatim copies of my works would be for articles
>> where I am the last au
>> Why do developers have such priviledged access to the source code, and the
>> community such little input?
>
> In my experience, this is the way that most open source projects
> operate. You can download and play with the source code to your
> heart's content, but typically only a handful of "co
2009/1/10 Anthony :
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> 2009/1/10 Anthony :
>> > I care to prevent the relicensing *of my content* to CC-BY-SA. Remove my
>> > content, and you won't hear from me on the license issue again (unless
>> you
>> > choose to read my blog or the bl
James Rigg wrote:
> This 'principle':
>
> "The mailing list will remain open, well-advertised, and will be
> regarded as the place for meta-discussions about the nature of
> Wikipedia."
>
> does seem to be referring to not just content, but also the running of
> Wikipedia. But the 'private' maili
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:17 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/1/10 Anthony :
> > On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> >> 2009/1/10 Anthony :
>
> >> > I care to prevent the relicensing *of my content* to CC-BY-SA. Remove
> my
> >> > content, and you won't hear from me on the lice
I'm not questioning here whether or not there are good reasons for
sometimes being non-transparent and hierarchical, I'm just saying that
it's interesting that, contrary to its founding ideals, and probably
also to how many people think, or like to think, Wikipedia is run, it
is not run in a fully
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:53 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2009/1/8 Klaus Graf :
> > You have to read the license carefully. The principle of attribution
> > is codified in the preamble. "Secondarily, this License preserves for
> > the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while no
2009/1/10 Anthony :
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:17 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> 2009/1/10 Anthony :
>> > On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>> >> 2009/1/10 Anthony :
>> >> > I care to prevent the relicensing *of my content* to CC-BY-SA. Remove
>> my
>> >> > content, and you won'
2009/1/10 James Rigg :
> I'm not questioning here whether or not there are good reasons for
> sometimes being non-transparent and hierarchical, I'm just saying that
> it's interesting that, contrary to its founding ideals, and probably
> also to how many people think, or like to think, Wikipedia i
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:41 AM, James Rigg
wrote:
> I'm not questioning here whether or not there are good reasons for
> sometimes being non-transparent and hierarchical, I'm just saying that
> it's interesting that, contrary to its founding ideals, and probably
> also to how many people think,
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:58 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/1/10 Anthony :
> > On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:17 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> >> 2009/1/10 Anthony :
> >> > On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 1:47 PM, David Gerard
> wrote:
> >> >> 2009/1/10 Anthony :
>
> >> >> > I care to prevent the relicensing *o
James Rigg wrote:
> Thanks geni.
>
> So, to put it crudely, the talk of full transparency and lack of
> hierarchy is now viewed as just naive idealism that existed at the
> start of the project, and which has now been abandoned?
No, not at all.
___
fo
James Rigg wrote:
> I don't understand why discussing everything openly is 'beyond
> nonsense' and would lead to less transparency. I mean, can someone
> give me a hypothetical example of some aspect of the running of the
> Foundation which would be better not discussed openly?
Contract negotiatio
2009/1/10 James Rigg :
> Hi
>
> This is my first post to this list - I'm a thirtysomething newbie from
> England. After using Wikipedia for years without getting involved, I
> thought I should look more closely into how it all works - and
> possibly even join the project! However, as a strong belie
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:00 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/1/10 James Rigg :
>
>> I'm not questioning here whether or not there are good reasons for
>> sometimes being non-transparent and hierarchical, I'm just saying that
>> it's interesting that, contrary to its founding ideals, and probably
>>
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Sfmammamia wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:41 AM, James Rigg
> wrote:
>> I'm not questioning here whether or not there are good reasons for
>> sometimes being non-transparent and hierarchical, I'm just saying that
>> it's interesting that, contrary to its foun
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> James Rigg wrote:
>> Thanks geni.
>>
>> So, to put it crudely, the talk of full transparency and lack of
>> hierarchy is now viewed as just naive idealism that existed at the
>> start of the project, and which has now been abandoned?
>
> No, no
>> on 1/10/09 6:59 AM, David Gerard at dger...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> I note that I have asked you before if you've actually attempted to
>>> work directly with the community on-wiki, and you demurred:
>>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2009-January/097693.html
>>> You claim to be
I don't see the conflict James Riggs is describing. You point to statements
of principles by Jimmy Wales, and then describe how - in your opinion - the
conduct of the English Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation don't live up
to those principles. Well, that doesn't shock me and it shouldn't shock
I believe the point that Jimbo is making (i will certainly be corrected if
wrong :-) is that there is no externally imposed hierarchy. The wiki really
did start as a tabula rasa, and all discussions of its hierarchy can be
found in its pages.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 1:23 PM, James Rigg wrote:
> O
Although, on his user page he says that the mailing list is the place to
discuss the nature of Wikipedia. That seems a bit strange to me though - I
am quite sure that the volume of discussion about the nature of Wikipedia in
talk pages and meta pages vastly outweighs the discussions on the mailing
2009/1/10 Anthony :
>> The proposed attribution (crediting authors where it is reasonably
>> possible and linking to the version history where that would be
>> onerous) is completely consistent with
>> 1) established practices on Wikipedia;
>> 2) the ethics and spirit of the GNU Free Documentation
I do not "describe how - in your opinion - the conduct of the English
Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation don't live up to those
principles".
I'm actually simply pointing-out that the *stated* semi-transparency,
and hierarchical structure, of Wikipedia/Wikimedia is contrary to the
*stated* prin
Hi all,
I would like to propose the dismantling of the language committee and
creating a new one (not including Gerard, of course).
Why?
Because it is chronically malfunctioning.
Manifested in:
# Gerard is forcing all his opinion, anything else is going nowhere.
# Other members don't really care
James Rigg writes:
> I'm not questioning here whether or not there are good reasons for
> sometimes being non-transparent and hierarchical, I'm just saying that
> it's interesting that, contrary to its founding ideals, and probably
> also to how many people think, or like to think, Wikipedia is r
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
>
> James Rigg writes:
>
>> I'm not questioning here whether or not there are good reasons for
>> sometimes being non-transparent and hierarchical, I'm just saying that
>> it's interesting that, contrary to its founding ideals, and probably
>> al
I think there's two parallel conversations going on here, which is making it
hard for anybody to come to an understanding.
James, it seems like you're saying that Wikimedia (apparently) espouses
absolute transparency and equality, and in fact only practices those virtues
to the boundaries of commo
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 4:24 PM, James Rigg wrote:
>
>
> As a member of the Wikimedia staff, using sarcasm - in both the post
> title and contents - against another contributor to the list isn't
> very professional.
>
>
He is replying to the digest version of the list, not making a clever
comment
ok! I was wrong about that part of the sarcasm
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 9:30 PM, Nathan wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 4:24 PM, James Rigg
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> As a member of the Wikimedia staff, using sarcasm - in both the post
>> title and contents - against another contributor to the list isn
But the problem is that Wikipedia is *today* proudly portrayed to the
general public as being transparent and non-hierarchical, when it is
semi-transparent and hierarchical.
Obviously, this thread is not going anywhere, so I guess we'll just
have to agree to disagree!
James
On Sat, Jan 10, 200
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 3:39 PM, James Rigg
wrote:
> But the problem is that Wikipedia is *today* proudly portrayed to the
> general public as being transparent and non-hierarchical, when it is
> semi-transparent and hierarchical.
>
> Obviously, this thread is not going anywhere, so I guess we'll
Mohamed Magdy wrote:
> * I think it would be doable to make a tab that Egyptianizes (or any other
> dialect) the Arabic article, that is, if we have some sort of conversion
> memory, that is if the dialect is stable (or standard), the dialect differs
> from a place to another, from a muhafazah to a
James,
Not to get all mechanistic on you, but the fact that you posted to the
Foundation list is part of the confusion as well. The focus here is
on the Foundation. If you have concerns specifically about the
English Wikipedia's transparency, that's really fodder for a different
discussion list.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 1:39 PM, James Rigg wrote:
> But the problem is that Wikipedia is *today* proudly portrayed to the
> general public as being transparent and non-hierarchical, when it is
> semi-transparent and hierarchical.
>
Right. Wikipedia (and Wikimedia) is today being portrayed as tr
(This message is not an official message from the subcommittee, just
myself as a member.)
Hello Mohamed Magdy,
As a member of the language subcommittee, I am sorry you are
disappointed with our performance, but it is not true that its members
do not care.
The Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia was appro
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:43 AM, James Rigg
wrote:
> I think transparency *is* about making everything public, and that the
> Foundation is merely a semi-transparent organisation, and should at
> least be open about not being a completely open. I don't know enough
> about the Foundation and non-pr
I was against the idea of creating a Masry Wikipedia (there is a looong
thread where I brought it up here), *However* I am against deleting any
Wikipedia that has been created and picked up an active community,
regardless of how controversial it is. It is simply unfair to the people who
have invest
2009/1/10 Muhammad Alsebaey :
> - Gerard has been the *only* person from LangCom that I have seen reply
> to any of the issues, his replies are selective, he refuses to answer
> whatever he doesnt think is relevant to his argument and is in general very
> aggressive, If the guys at LangCom
Muhammad Alsebaey wrote:
> - Gerard has been the *only* person from LangCom that I have seen reply
> to any of the issues, his replies are selective, he refuses to answer
> whatever he doesnt think is relevant to his argument and is in general very
> aggressive, If the guys at LangCom chos
I don´t think this is very fair. You can call Gerard a lot, but not really
agressive... He can be very enthusiast, committed, and very sure he is
right, and trying to persuade others, but agressive?
Anyway, I don't think a mailinglist (especially not this one) is a good
place to discuss *people* r
Hi Jesse,
Thank you for the links, the last time I asked to look at those I was told
the whole mailing list was private and not open to the public, I think
opening this up is a huge step forward towards transparency.
I appreciate also your clarification about Gerard, I would have appreciated
him
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Muhammad Alsebaey wrote:
> Thank you for the links, the last time I asked to look at those I was told
> the whole mailing list was private and not open to the public, I think
> opening this up is a huge step forward towards transparency.
>
Whoever told you that wa
I personally do not care about the nature of Gerard's character, he may be a
very nice person if I meet him in person ( next Wikimania maybe). I am just
refering to the way he conducted himself during the discussions on
languages. And yes, I strongly believe this was aggressive. I won't get into
su
Mohamed Magdy wrote:
> (I heard that people were happy at Wikimania (Florence?)
> because of that proposal but I fail to understand why the Egyptian people
> there didn't express their opinion about it (it was in Egypt :!).
I was sitting next to an Egyptian VIP in the front row when the
announcem
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 5:26 AM, Anthony wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Anthony wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Lars Aronsson wrote:
>>
>>> Anthony wrote:
>>>
>>> > My complaint was that the WMF was (and still is) copying and
>>> > distributing my copyrighted content in a
So Based on the the Archives Jesse and Casey graciously provided the link
to, the only discussion about Masry I found was:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_subcommittee/Archives/2008-07#Wikipedia_Egyptian_Arabic
When I raised the issue of Masry on this mailing list, raising what I
thought
James Rigg wrote:
> So, to put it crudely, the talk of full transparency and lack of
> hierarchy is now viewed as just naive idealism that existed at the
> start of the project, and which has now been abandoned?
>
>
This presumes that such abandonment was a conscious act. Apparent
abandonment
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Muhammad Alsebaey wrote:
> So Based on the the Archives Jesse and Casey graciously provided the link
> to, the only discussion about Masry I found was:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_subcommittee/Archives/2008-07#Wikipedia_Egyptian_Arabic
Yes, there w
Hoi,
This is a personal attack, an attack that is the result of discontent of the
way in which the policy of the language committee has been implemented.
So let me show where Mohammed is wrong. First of all, the language committee
is multiple people. Recently two high powered people were added to
Hoi,
As I have been saying before, the language committee works on the basis that
if only one person objects, something does not move forward. Many subjects
are raised on our mailing list where people are notified that something is
going to be done and when nobody objects within a certain time fram
Which creates the situation we are in, according to you, all members of the
language committee were explicitly asked to consider the issues that I and
others raised, but since only one out of the 10+ people responded, therefore
they must have all considered all the issues and have no comment, and
Hoi,
You are wrong. If one person had objected at the time, the proposal would
not have been made eligible.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/1/11 Muhammad Alsebaey
> Which creates the situation we are in, according to you, all members of
> the
> language committee were explicitly asked to consider the
Do you have a set time limit for people to respond in? a week? a month? and
what about the 4 inactive persons, how do you consider them inactive? what
if you had 7 inactive members out of 10 at a time and didnt know it, would
it still be a 'unanimous' decision?
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Ger
Hoi,
Typically the time period is a couple of days up to a week. Pathoschild has
asked our least active members if they were still interested in being a
member. He indicated that he was going to make proposals. I am still waiting
for those.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/1/11 Muhammad Alsebaey
> Do y
Jimmy Wales hett schreven:
> Mohamed Magdy wrote:
>
>> (I heard that people were happy at Wikimania (Florence?)
>> because of that proposal but I fail to understand why the Egyptian people
>> there didn't express their opinion about it (it was in Egypt :!).
>>
>
> I was sitting next to an E
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 12:08 AM, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Mohamed Magdy wrote:
>> (I heard that people were happy at Wikimania (Florence?)
>> because of that proposal but I fail to understand why the Egyptian people
>> there didn't express their opinion about it (it was in Egypt :!).
>
> I was sittin
2009/1/11 Marcus Buck :
> In the Arabic world there's a prevalent POV, that Arabs form one nation
> united by the use of the Arabic language. But in reality Standard Arabic
> is something like Latin. With the difference, that Latin fell out of use
> to make place for the Romance languages. So Egyp
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Brian wrote:
> Why are so few community-developed mediawiki extensions used by the
> Foundation?
Because there's approximately one person (Tim Starling) who reviews
such extensions in practice, and he has limited time. There's
approximately one other person (Brion
2009/1/11 Milos Rancic :
> Jimmy, just to remind you that people in one academic institution in
> Belgrade laughed when you mentioned Bosnian language in 2005. But,
> things are somewhat changed now.
Not really. There is still little evidence that it is a language
distinct from the rest of the Cen
I still believe my questions have been answered adequately. However,
> > Why do developers have such priviledged access to the source code
>
> So that they can actually improve it. I don't know what alternative
> you're suggesting.
>
This question cannot be viewed outside of the context of the
Simetrical, a general comment on your reply: I do not believe it is fair to
reply to parts of sentences. It lead to several replies that were clearly
out of context. I want to clarify one of my sentences that you broke into
parts:
> Why must the community 'vote' on extensions such as Semantic Med
elisabeth bauer hett schreven:
> 2009/1/11 Marcus Buck :
>
>
>> In the Arabic world there's a prevalent POV, that Arabs form one nation
>> united by the use of the Arabic language. But in reality Standard Arabic
>> is something like Latin. With the difference, that Latin fell out of use
>> to ma
I do have another question: Who approved deploying parser functions on
Wikipedia?
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Brian wrote:
> Simetrical, a general comment on your reply: I do not believe it is fair
> to reply to parts of sentences. It lead to several replies that were clearly
> out of conte
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 9:04 PM, Brian wrote:
> False: Extension Matrix.
See the rest of that paragraph. Anyone who can write code and wants
commit access can get it. The only ones without commit access who
want it are those who can't or won't write code. Most of the
extension developers are a
Thank for your answers.
ParserFunctions are my specific example of how the current development
process is very, very broken, and out of touch with the community.
According to Jimbo's user page (his bolded): "*Any changes to the software
must be gradual and reversible.* We need to make sure that an
1 - 100 of 118 matches
Mail list logo
