Citzenship and where the photo was taken is important *IF* the work is
unpublished. In this case the applicable copyright depends on these things.
On the other hand, wherever it was taken and no matter who took it, if the
image has been published in a jurisdiction then it is subject to copyright
Yep. Same here.
Tom Morton
On 14 May 2011, at 15:59, Casey Brown li...@caseybrown.org wrote:
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 8:38 AM, Orionist orion@gmail.com wrote:
What is the default position by the way?
I checked my preferences on enwiki and the box was checked, so I would
assume the
This causes a little confusion today :) when it was mistook for an email
message from a bot (which had edited the users talk page and cause the
notification).
(see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Question_about_Suggest_a_Bot
)
Did anyone announce
Ah... this is one of those perennial issues that is unlikely to be solved
this time around.
I think casting this a gender issue is incorrect; certainly amongst my group
of friends those who would not appreciate the image are fairly evenly split
between male/female. I think most rational adults
. Given Niabot's user page loudly railing against Commons being
censored, I'd say the issue is less art and more lets see who we can
shock and/or piss off.
-Dan
On May 16, 2011, at 4:30 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
Ah... this is one of those perennial issues that is unlikely to be solved
this time
en.wiki just slowed to a crawl and is now errored out. It has been going
from normal to treacle slow all day.
Tom
On 18 May 2011 19:20, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:
The English Wikipedia has been experiencing painfully slow load times over
the last few days, and lots of error messages
the tech team if they were related,
they
didn't think so. Maybe, its a co-incidence, but did anyone notice if the
slowness increased when email notifications were turned on?
Theo
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Thomas Morton
morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
en.wiki just slowed
Yeh, that was when it was turned on. So maybe :)
On 18 May 2011 19:27, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 12:24, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
I had problems with load times and time-outs, ever since the email
notification was turned on. I asked the tech team if
A way to tie clicking hide to an *account* rather than just by storing it
as a local cookie would also be a good move.
Tom / ErrantX
On 19 May 2011 10:36, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
church.of.emacs.ml, 19/05/2011 10:52:
There are several ways of minimizing negative
I think using images for the POTY competition is also justifiable, :) given
the context. But, yes, images need to be considered carefully.
As I recently mentioned on Meta - we could really do with some reasearch
into the effectiveness of different sized images as compared to text for
click
They won't. Most reputable news sources are not interested in kiss and
tell and there are other ones that are in place for really rather good
reasons to the point where breaking them would probably get you sued
for libel under even US law
Heh, what news do you read!
Then, of course, the
On 20 May 2011 21:21, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
They won't. Most reputable news sources are not interested in kiss and
tell and there are other ones that are in place for really rather good
reasons to the point where breaking them would probably get you sued
for libel
Huh? Why?
Tom Morton
On 20 May 2011, at 23:00, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 May 2011 22:47, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
Please mail User:Oversight with any such instance you are aware of.
That's not actually legal.
--
geni
Ah. No thats not accurate. Fortunately even the British courts can't
stamp On private communication.
The injunction is on publishing the info. Telling your mates down the
pub is fine.
Tom Morton
On 20 May 2011, at 23:08, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 May 2011 18:02, Fred Bauder
Also; hard to see anyone suing you for communicating the info for the
purposes of supressing it :-)
Tom Morton
On 20 May 2011, at 23:08, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 May 2011 18:02, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
On 20 May 2011 22:47, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
It's not publishing the info. It's fine.
The point is to stifle mass media.
Tom Morton
On 20 May 2011, at 23:28, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 May 2011 23:13, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
Ah. No thats not accurate. Fortunately even the British courts can't
stamp
to be concerned about. But not on a personal level.
(IANAL; my interest in law is academic, but I have the good fortune to work
alongside a pile of lawyers, civil and criminal)
Tom
On 20 May 2011 23:34, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 May 2011 23:33, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com
Our BLP policy is pretty solid, and the editors that enforce it are pretty
good at keeping out the crap :) We can always improve it, of course. And
there are never enough BLP editors. (There are probably about 5 or 6 that
specialise heavily in such content).
Most of the outstanding issues are
Has anyone notified SD about this discussion? Pretty much essential given
the allegations made by Dror K (which are clearly unfounded, but may be
damaging).
Tom
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
Supreme Deliciousness, whose actions are being discussed...
I noted that he hadn't been told so dropped him a note as common courtesy.
Tom
On 22 May 2011 11:58, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
2011/5/22 Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com:
Has anyone notified SD
Yeh :-) sorry about that
Tom
On 22 May 2011, at 12:26, Amir E. Aharoni
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
2011/5/22 Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com:
Supreme Deliciousness, whose actions are being discussed...
I noted that he hadn't been told so dropped him a note as common
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Supreme_Deliciousnessdiff=nextoldid=430329545
Dror K
בתאריך 22/05/11 14:00, ציטוט Thomas Morton:
Supreme Deliciousness, whose actions are being discussed...
I noted that he hadn't been told so dropped him a note as common
courtesy
to do that is incorrect, because WP is a private website.
If the consensus of the community is to ban you from the project, even under
spurious grounds, there is nothing to stop them from doing so.
Tom
On 22 May 2011 16:19, Pronoein prono...@gmail.com wrote:
Le 22/05/2011 10:54, Thomas Morton
I'm note sure I understand... Wikipedia is privately owned by the
foundation. There is no real definition of public website, but I suppose a
government website would be publicly owned (although that raises an
interesting question as to your rights to access/contribute to such a
website).
The
As it is the community does regulate it in that way.
No. People are banned or restricted all the time. The point of WP:FREESPEECH
is to point out that those bannings can't be contested under the premise
that the banned party has a right to edit.
Yes, the community does regulate it this way.
An interesting aside on this would be...
What is the quality of the foreign-language Wiki's that currently exist. For
example; the articles in my specific technical topic area have a few foreign
language equivalents. Most are two or three lines.
It would be interesting to see this question
my personal interpretation is that BLP failings were more likely to
be seen and more likely to cause some kind of real or perceived
harm, leading to a greater response rate.
I suppose that if your a notable figure... you probably take a look to see
if a Wikipedia article exists... and even
encyclopaedia.
Just theorizing on a related topic :)
Tom
On 22 May 2011 22:18, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/22/2011 06:41 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
An interesting aside on this would be...
What is the quality of the foreign-language Wiki's that currently exist.
For
example
I'm not so sure. As much as living persons have a history of
raising/catching important errors in their articles, they also take
exception to negative material.
I had one rather protracted issue with a BLP where the individual feels he
has been attacked by other parties and the media for a number
So, just a quick thought for future reference - during maintenance is it
possible in future to update the error message to explain that maintenance
is ongoing?
Seeing as how widely WMF projects are used by a non-technical project the
current MySQL connection error I am seeing on Commons is just
I think it's reasonable (and indeed standard) to deploy some sort of
downtime maintenance error message.
If that requires improving the error handling code to catch a wider variety
of errors and push people to the error message page then I understand the
time issues :).
If the short term
Austin,
That's interesting, what was the wording for the maintenance message? I only
ever saw the default our servers are experiencing a technical problem
error page.
Tom
On 25 May 2011 10:53, Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 9:32 AM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Thomas Morton
morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
That's interesting, what was the wording for the maintenance message? I
only
ever saw the default our servers are experiencing a technical problem
error page.
I could be misremembering
Huh? The downtime was expected during 13:00 and 14:00 UTC, or at least there
was an email warning of such things the day before... hardly unplanned or
unknown.
Tom
On 25 May 2011 11:12, Domas Mituzas midom.li...@gmail.com wrote:
As you can see it refers to some unknown error. In this case
The maintenance was planned, downtime was noted as possible. An error
message that reflects that seems, frankly, a good idea.
The response to what I thought to be a helpful suggestion in improving
communication with readership has been... incredibly disappointing. I wish I
hadn't bothered. :( I
If we knew what would fail to put an appropriate error message there, we'd
probably fix the problem beforehand. :-)
That's... completely missing the point. Yes the specific errors faced were
unexpected or unforseen, BUT they were a* direct result* of the maintenance
between 13:00 and 14:00. I am
to mention the planned
maintenance and the timeframes.
Sorry for the confusion!
Tom
On 25 May 2011 08:15, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 24/05/11 23:32, Thomas Morton wrote:
So, just a quick thought for future reference - during maintenance is it
possible in future to update
Maybe we can replace the IRC link in the Squid error message with a
link to the WatchMouse page
@Tim; that seems a good idea.
@Domas, I'm afraid you don't seem to have understood the premise of my
suggestion.. which is fine. But one fallacy is worth responding to:
You have some annoying users,
Tim,
Great, thanks for that. Seeing as it was me that raise this ;) I guess it's
only right I take up the gauntlet, so will try and find time later to
propose something.
Tom
On 25 May 2011 13:48, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 25/05/11 21:19, MZMcBride wrote:
Tim Starling
Just conceptualising...
I haven't played with Squid for a while (so am rusty) but the simplest
solution would probably be to catch all PHP errors somewhere in the
Mediawiki code and return a 500 status error code.
Then get Squid to map that to the static error page.
On the other hand throwing a
Is the Squid configuration the foundation employs available publicly
somewhere (I'm scanning the SVN and not seeing it..)? Because I don't mind
having a look and filing a specific bugzilla correction with various bits of
code changes.
It's about time I refreshed my Squid knowledge :)
Tom
On 25
of these things against us! We're just
trying to contribute where we can. :)
Tom
On 25 May 2011 15:26, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 26/05/11 00:05, Thomas Morton wrote:
Is the Squid configuration the foundation employs available publicly
somewhere (I'm scanning the SVN
Let's just drop it :) I'm not sure where things went so south but I take
full responsibility. I've pinged Tim off-list about contributing my own time
to work on the error page matter - which I think is only fair enough given
that I raised it. And sorry for any offence caused to the ops team by my
I'm pretty sure there was a site notice; I recall seeing one anyway :)
Tom
On 26 May 2011 09:09, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
Milos Rancic, 26/05/2011 09:57:
Site notice for a week before the maintenance would be useful, too. We
communicate with our users via web site,
Unfortunately this is the side effect of running a big website; people
register the typos and put up spam sites under them.
There are ways to seize or recover the domains, but it can be a pain.
Tom
On 1 June 2011 14:01, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Endorse Foundation action on this obvious
The privacy policy does not preclude releasing private emails, and even
writes in specific exceptions. When raised on en.wiki in relation to
releasing CheckUser information (in that case linking an IP to an account) I
thought the response there said it best; that not linking IP's to accounts
was
This is somewhat off-topic but..
Whilst that is a somewhat glib view of the smaller projects :P it's not
entirely inaccurate.
By virtue of being smaller and starved of editors it is a lot easier to gain
permissions at those projects. In fact, if one of us (established editors)
was banned from
Given the situation can we not be clear on the details of this?
I have various views on the matter, but all of them really depend on what
exactly this person did.
As with all such matters I see no reason why discussion of the details
cannot be conducted visibly, and if provided with the adequate
:
On 4 June 2011 01:10, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
Given the situation can we not be clear on the details of this?
I have various views on the matter, but all of them really depend on what
exactly this person did.
As with all such matters I see no reason why
] On Behalf Of Thomas Morton
Sent: 04 June 2011 01:41
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
Not at all! That would be bad, and misses the point - I don't care at
all
who he is in meat space.
But consider me unable to pick apart the million
, either by one or more stewards or by the Office acting as such.
Newyorkbrad
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 June 2011 22:03, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Hmm, assuming that el-Reg article is the full extent of the issue
Perhaps. Although with that said nearly 1000 people have voted today -
compared to between 100-200 on the previous days (excepting the 29th, first
day, which had about 600-800). So it's a case of; is the risk worth the
reward?
Tom
On 10 June 2011 22:19, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:
On
Latest update from the election officials:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABoard_elections%2F2011action=historysubmitdiff=2667116oldid=2666426
*
*
Tom
*
*
On 17 June 2011 12:53, Austin Hair adh...@gmail.com wrote:
It's now the afternoon of the 17th (UTC), and this list—of
As a follow up to the discussion about Bitcoins (during the board elections)
accepting them as donations... I thought this article by the EFF
explaining why they no longer accept BC sets out some interesting
arguments: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/06/eff-and-bitcoin
Tom
here.
Just in case BTC's were every logistically on the table... this should all
be taken under consideration :)
Tom
On 21 June 2011 14:37, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/21/2011 09:11 AM, Thomas Morton wrote:
As a follow up to the discussion about Bitcoins (during the board
A fair comparision, though as with Wikipedia editions I think this
varies by language.
Even on en.wiki it is not always like that. The major contributors to
featured articles ate generally allowed more leeway on content ownership.
That's written into th guideline.
Tom
On 4 Jul 2011, at 23:57, Juergen Fenn juergen.f...@gmx.de wrote:
Am 02.07.11 14:17 schrieb Alec Conroy:
if you talk to the press, or to media experts, they all know
Wikipedia but not Wikimedia. The most simple and reasonable way is
to use the famous brand, not to invest in Wikimedia.
Wikinews is too dynamic and has it's own set of problems to merge easily.
It could be done though if given it's own namespace, and Wikipedia would
definitely benefit.
+1
In the topic area I work there are a lot of contributors writing content
that is vastly more suited to Wikinews. A News:
This a serious and urgent problem; and the foundation need to look into it
quickly.
In no circumstances should Wikipedia users be receiving copies of other
people's identity documents - it is a privacy nightmare!
Tom
On 10 July 2011 11:03, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 July 2011
Just to be clear: the alternative situation was, and would probably be,
that
people who currently can choose to use this clause, would simply be blocked
forever without a way of getting unblocked.
That's the approach most projects take... and anyway copies of identity
documents don't prove
Seem to work though.
Does it? Where is the evidence for this? I'm not being hasty in forming a
firm judgement here - other than to say it doesn't, on the face of it, seem
like a good idea for a project to be doing this.
And if the details of the handling of private data is well outlined and
On the other hand, PLoS (plos.org - the public library of science) is
a great journal publisher that reviews and publishes scientific work
under a free license. [They impose even fewer restrictions on reuse
than Wikimedia, using CC-BY, which is a more appropriate license in my
opinion for
Go back to the more transparent rationale that copyright infringement rests
solely upon the person who uploaded the copyrighted item, not on people who
merely link to it. That would allow us to link to YouTube videos for
example (not host them, just link to them).
Why read an article on
Again you are referring to the hosting or presentation of non-free content
and I am not.
I am not referring to the DISPLAY of videos within Wikipedia.
Only the LINKING of videos from Wikipedia.
No, I realise that is what you are referring to - and I don't honestly see
any huge value to
I'll go further-- provided we can do so cheaply, I want new projects
that are like the ridiculous early failures of flight.
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7OJvv4LG9M]. I want to hear about a
new WMF project and it's policy, think That's crazy-- that's never
gonna get off the ground, and
If you don't see the significant value in including video content, then I
would suggest that you don't see the significant value in including
photographic content either. I would suggest that's an outdated value
system.
You're simply extending my argument too far there, which is just bad
The point is, the copyright police have taken a fear (of something which
has never occurred in actual law), and made it a point of battle.
This is, I think, the wrong forum for our disagreement. I mostly rose to
your nasty casting of copyright police, which was a mistake. Sorry to
everyone
Where is that policy and discussion?
In terms of en.wiki...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ELNEVERhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ELNEVER#Restrictions_on_linking
That is the main restriction against external linking which makes an
extremely strong (even for WP policy)
Good :) I'm glad I am reading your ideas right.
As for the name-- this looks like a job for experts.
Perhaps - though with that said when I am programming it is often my
only-slightly-technically minded work colleages who come up with ideas for
the most effective solution.
We could
There was a push to launch a stackexchange site relating to Wikipedia
a few months back. It's currently in the commitment phase - needing
people to commit to seeding it.
SE is a proven QA platform; so worth considering.
Tom Morton
On 21 Jul 2011, at 21:00, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
Is it really that much load on Wikimedia sysops to install a (very simple)
script like OSQA? For the value added it would pay itself quickly off. But
this goes down to resource allocations and innovation potential at the
Foundation, which I can not understand most of the time...
It's simpler
but I won't belabour the point :)
Actually I will make one more comment (sorry) :) because I do actually have
sound reasoning behind my suggestion beyond just it's better, and it is
only right I lay them out.
(I've maintained/operated/implemented a number of QA sites for small
communities
This results from point #3. We do not want to depend on 3rd party in terms
of content security and reliability
Not to be glib of course... but you mean like we depend on the commercial
hosts/datacenters and top tier connectivity.
I do think this point needs stressing though... going your
This is a really interesting and thoughtfully complete project.
As an editor I am cautious of how well these could be used as citations
without falling afoul of original research.
The first problem I see is that presentation becomes difficult:
Interviews with members of the Sk8r
tribe in 2011
Also, the escope of this project is much more important for the
projects on these languages, and for speakers of these languages, rather
than the English Wikipedia or its readers.
I partially disagree. Certainly it is very important from the perspective of
providing material about the native
How about Brazilian caldo de sururu, which is missing on en.wiki (and
also
on pt.wiki)? It's surely a lack for pt.wiki, but maybe not for en.wiki,
Perhaps this is the fundamental difference in our views; because I consider
that a lack on *any language Wikipedia* whether pt, en, de, fr
All sources can be cited without falling afoul of original research
Original research only covers claims without sources at all, or claims made
from yourself as the source.
Any source, including citing to a video interviews, is never original
research.
Ideally of course, yes. However it is
David how is an exact quote a summary or interpretation?
An exact quote, backed up by the actual audio track is... exact.
You are not summarizing it, and you are not interpreting it either.
You are presenting it.
The point David is making is that you are selecting material to quote and
add.
Here's essays from Tom Morris (another philosopher):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tom_Morris/The_Reliability_Delusion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tom_Morris/The_Definition_Delusion
While some editors do tend to argue binary options over sources, in general
this is not the case
For what it is worth
I think this approach exists on en.wiki on the premise that by using foreign
sources with no independent translation available:
a) It makes it easier to push a POV or miss-interpretation via that source
(because other editors are generally not able to understand it)
b)
I myself work for [[The_Ministry_of_Silly_Walks]]
David, you win ONE INTERNETS
:)
Tom
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
No way, it's just resting!
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Let me rephrase in a slightly less trollish manner.
Admins should never be given powers over content.
Perhaps fittingly, the abuse filter has been active on English Wikipedia for
some time. And even better, it is not a sysop group right. Instead it has
its own group.
If you are volunteering
On 24 August 2011 18:12, Wjhonson wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Give me permission.
I am volunteering to head up the abuse filter team.
Thomas don't mistake my point for some other point.
I am not suggesting that admins AS EDITORS should veer away from content
creation, but rather that admins
n 6 September 2011 12:49, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 12:32, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
wrote:
While I agree this isn't a good situation to be in, I'm not sure what
the alternative is. The reviewers need to be able to understand the
sources and
On 6 September 2011 13:54, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Thomas Morton
morton.tho...@googlemail.comwrote:
But as Tom say, online media has quickly found that the traditional
editorial process doesn't work so well on the internet. On the other
On 6 September 2011 13:56, Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 14:33, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Personally, I think the filter will be mostly harmless, and that it's
not worth the effort to rail against it. It will be useful for PR --
it will
First, I actually don't oppose to the filter per se. There is
significant difference between what Jimmy did in May 2010 and this
filter. From the point of freedom of information, that's not an issue.
I was even thinking to support image filter inclusion; just to finish
with that; but
The *first* instance to be asked about such thing are editors, not
readers. I mean, the first question is Do *we* want it?. Readers
opinion could be one of the arguments in discussion; likely one of the
most important ones; but decision should be on editors. And Board
should act in
I oppose any form of reader/editor dichotomy in the strongest possible way.
And yet speak in support of the current system - which makes no effort to
listen readers... it enforces a dichotomy of its own!
A wiki operates on the premise that all readers are editors, and all
editors are
Wikipedia *still* does not enforce their not a news site policy, and
it is an utter waste of time bringing such up; numerous selfish
Wikipedians reject efforts to direct news-writing efforts to Wikinews. I
neither know, nor care, if this is because they're incapable of writing
to the high
See item #3 in this Signpost re. death of Osama bin Laden. We nailed it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-05-09/News_and_notes
Wikipedia seems to get a lot of hits when it keeps up with the news. I
think it reflects well on the project and has a bit of a wow!
Does anyone want to argue for a policy that says Wikipedia does not
record events until they are x days/months old?
Yes, this would solve a large number of problems (not least resolving the
historical significance issue).
If the lifecycle of an article that involves current news is:
Stable
The idea of offering imagine filters on WMF project is much more
controversial than it is on other internet websites. So, I I think
that it is fair to suggest that we examine why we are having
conflicts over this topic when other website don't. One possible
reason is that our base of
Agreed. And one of the most important aspects to acknowledge is the
infeasibility of labeling/grouping images based on what we believe
people will want to filter.
I confess to not being on top of the exact mechanics of this proposal...
but why can we not be using normal categories?
Ok so
Thus, to use categories for an image filtering system would indeed
require constructing a category for the specific purpose of exclusion.
Big ALA actually, that *is* censorship alarm goes off.
This is true, and I agree. but...
* The category system is constructed of minute subcategories,
On 7 September 2011 15:58, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 September 2011 15:55, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Obviously given the complexity of the category tree system any such
engineering wouldn't be infallible - but you could match it to most use
cases
I'm not looking forward to the possibility that every picture is going
to be surrounded by filter-cruft. I don't really want pictures of
planets, plants, fonts, colours and anything else that's universally
inoffensive being accompanied with buttons. I hope there's a more
elegant solution but
It is very hard to cater for someone when you are not engaged with
them in conversation. Any attempts to do so are doomed to make an ASS
of U and ME (ASSUME).
It is hard, sure; most users/consumers don't engage - which is why a whole
industry has grown around finding out what they want and
On 7 Sep 2011, at 23:04, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Thomas Morton wrote:
This is largely an engineering problem; and it can probably be overcome with
some architecture work. As we are going to be implementing a major new
feature *anyway* it's not something to reject outright, I think
1 - 100 of 181 matches
Mail list logo
