Hello,
Conflict of Interest (CoI) is a much bigger issue than paid editing.
I have seen several serious CoI within Wikipedia where the editors are
not strictly paid because they edit WP, nevertheless they do not
respect the basic NPOV rules: allowing other opinions to be heard,
balancing sources
On 29 July 2012 07:11, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
Let's use the page we used to use to discuss plans and budgets:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget
I thought this was implicit, but apparently not: can someone from the
WMF please answer the questions that are on
2012/7/28 Anthony wikim...@inbox.org:
On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Platonides platoni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/07/12 09:46, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
An excellent list :) I'd like to add: you sneak in the stadium without
paying the ticket. IOC can do nothing.
Seriously, if IOC decides to
Yann Forget, 01/08/2012 13:13:
I have suggested some basic rules about this on the French WP, but not
only they were blankly rejected, but I was barred from mentioning the
whole subject. The first step against CoI is making the editors
conscious that, because of their profession, background,
MZMcBride, 01/08/2012 03:10:
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/BOTOVERUSE#History has most of the
history, though I could swear a project or two has been restarted due to
bots over-running the site. Does anyone have a citation for that?
A citation for what? Anyway, the section seems correct
On 8/1/12 1:51 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
Yann Forget, 01/08/2012 13:13:
I have suggested some basic rules about this on the French WP, but not
only they were blankly rejected, but I was barred from mentioning the
whole subject. The first step against CoI is making the editors
conscious
[this was also posted to translators-l last week, but we want to spread the
word even further]
Hi all,
The translation committee on Meta has been dormant for some time
(individual members have been active, but the committee as such has not
been active), but it is time to revive it to ensure that
I checked the page a couple of days ago and didn't see any questions: maybe
I was looking at the wrong page?
I'll ask Tilman via this mail to help coordinate getting answers from the
appropriate people.
Separately/additionally: I thought the Signpost coverage was pretty good.
It wasn't
On 1 August 2012 17:36, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I checked the page a couple of days ago and didn't see any questions: maybe
I was looking at the wrong page?
The questions are on the page SJ suggested using:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget
News and notes: Wikimedians and London 2012; WMF budget - staffing,
engineering, editor retention effort, and the global South; Telegraph's
cheap shot at WP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-07-30/News_and_notes
Recent research: Conflict dynamics, collaboration and
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rs wrote:
On 28/07/12 19:44, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
2.2 By applying for, purchasing, holding or using a Ticket, a Ticket
Holder agrees that he or she shall comply with these Terms and Conditions.
On 1 August 2012 09:47, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 August 2012 17:36, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I checked the page a couple of days ago and didn't see any questions: maybe
I was looking at the wrong page?
The questions are on the page SJ suggested using:
Hi all,
The July edition of the Fellowship News is now available:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fellowship_News
Topics covered include all current fellowship projects:
*Fellowship Program updates
*Dispute Resolution
*Gender Gap
*Help Page Redesign
*Small-Wiki Editor Engagement
*Teahouse
Hi, folks.
I've also tried to address the (truly confusing) use of the word grants
across the plan. See here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_budget#Wikimedia_Grants_budget
Cheers,
Asaf
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Sue Gardner sgard...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 1 August
There has been discussion about this in the past.
To second Philippe's comment: A uniform process makes sense. In practice,
most of the advocacy or policy positions of the WMF have for years taken
the form of amicus briefs. And positions the WMF takes on behalf of
promoting, preserving, or
15 matches
Mail list logo
