On 29 August 2010 02:14, Victor Vasiliev vasi...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you now that according to The Independent we have approved
Wikipedia committee members? The Independent managed to call an IP
user so. [1] May anyone contact and correct them?
Hello,
I am sending this letter to this mailing list after several failed attempts
to address administrators in the Arbitration Committee and the Unblock
mailing list. Apparently this is a Kafkaesque story which no one wishes to
handle.
I have recently started to edit on the English Wikipedia. I
On 29 Aug 2010, at 09:51, David Gerard wrote:
On 29 August 2010 02:14, Victor Vasiliev vasi...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you now that according to The Independent we have approved
Wikipedia committee members? The Independent managed to call an IP
user so. [1] May anyone contact and correct them?
On 29 August 2010 12:09, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote:
I'm really puzzled how they managed to get the description of the Wikimedia
community so wrong, considering that talked to them on the phone about this
on Friday afternoon and thought that I'd explained this to them. A bit of
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 4:56 AM, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
but as they evidently haven't sussed that Wikipedia is in truth the
encyclopaedia largely written by anonymous IP editors,
Perhaps that is true in some areas, but the articles I edit on
wikipedia (on
On 29 August 2010 13:57, Carl (CBM) cbm.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 4:56 AM, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
but as they evidently haven't sussed that Wikipedia is in truth the
encyclopaedia largely written by anonymous IP editors,
Perhaps that is
On 29 Aug 2010, at 13:04, David Gerard wrote:
On 29 August 2010 12:09, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote:
I'm really puzzled how they managed to get the description of the Wikimedia
community so wrong, considering that talked to them on the phone about this
on Friday afternoon and
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 1:04 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 August 2010 12:09, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote:
I'm really puzzled how they managed to get the description of the Wikimedia
community so wrong, considering that talked to them on the phone about this
on
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 9:51 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Aaron Swartz found that most of the text is written by IPs, with the regulars
then formatting the heck out of it.
Like I was saying, that does not match my experience with mathematics
articles. I very rarely see significant
On 29 August 2010 17:16, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Does no-one want to discuss whether the ending of the Mousetrap play
This is not an invitation to revive the whole spoiler debate, but this
situation is slightly different in that those involved in putting the
play on and
On 29 August 2010 17:27, Carl (CBM) cbm.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 9:51 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Aaron Swartz found that most of the text is written by IPs, with the
regulars then formatting the heck out of it.
Like I was saying, that does not match
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 5:43 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 August 2010 17:16, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Does no-one want to discuss whether the ending of the Mousetrap play
This is not an invitation to revive the whole spoiler debate, but this
situation
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 6:29 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
I ask again: if the case came to you that one side was saying we must
do this to the article because someone with a financial interest asked
us to and the other was saying we are an encyclopedia and this is an
NPOV issue,
On 29 August 2010 18:44, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 6:29 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
I ask again: if the case came to you that one side was saying we must
do this to the article because someone with a financial interest asked
us to and
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 6:50 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 August 2010 18:44, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 6:29 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
I ask again: if the case came to you that one side was saying we must
do this to
David Gerard wrote:
On 29 August 2010 17:27, Carl (CBM) cbm.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 9:51 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Aaron Swartz found that most of the text is written by IPs, with the
regulars then formatting the heck out of it.
Ian Woollard wrote:
On 27/08/2010, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia needs competitors.
Realistically, the space that Wikipedia occupies seems to be a more or
less a natural monopoly.
What makes any monopoly natural?
And Wikipedia doesn't even make money per se,
On 30 August 2010 01:14, William Beutler williambeut...@gmail.com wrote:
I do think alternative wiki projects that seek to fill gaps created by
Wikipedia's choice not to include some types of information stand the best
chance of success -- going head-to-head with this entrenched incumbent is
On 30 August 2010 00:58, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
Ian Woollard wrote:
On 27/08/2010, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia needs competitors.
Realistically, the space that Wikipedia occupies seems to be a more or
less a natural monopoly.
What makes any monopoly
On 30 August 2010 02:02, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Print-only? Online-only, surely?
You have deciphered my cunning brainfart!
Even online, I suspect you would have
edition numbers to identify major updates, with more frequent updates
occurring between those save
On 30/08/2010, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
What have I missed?
Somebody that forked the wiki and removed the no advertising policy
might make lots of money. ;-) As in, advertising is allowed *within*
articles (for example an article on a business) as well as at the top.
The trick is
21 matches
Mail list logo
