On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 5:11 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> ...
>>As far as I know the relevant issue is that anyone who has access to
>>private personal information of users needs to sign an agreement that
>>they will not share that information.
>
> This definition doesn't seem to include CheckUsers, over
On 6 March 2013 07:11, MZMcBride wrote:
> It's unclear whether Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees members and
> Wikimedia stewards are also required to sign NDAs. It seems all Wikimedia
> Foundation employees are required to sign one.
Staff contracts should effectively do this, though one mig
Samuel Klein wrote:
>I have not seen a copy of such NDAs myself. Where did you see that
>Bugzilla admins have to sign an NDA?
Philippe B. said so, I'm told. As it happens, most Bugzilla admins are
Wikimedia Foundation staff, so the issue doesn't seem to come up much.
>As far as I know the relev
I have not seen a copy of such NDAs myself. Where did you see that
Bugzilla admins have to sign an NDA?
As far as I know the relevant issue is that anyone who has access to
private personal information of users needs to sign an agreement that
they will not share that information.
Whatever peopl
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 1:15 PM, George Herbert wrote:
>
> >> It's also telling that the longest hoax was about ancient history: it
> >> matches the popular belief that history is by far the biggest weakness
> of
> >> Wikipedia.
> >
> > Our historical coverage is patchy, but I don't think it's our
Hello,
just a quick reminder that nominations for the upcoming 2013 WCA Chair
election can still be made until Wednesday, 7th of March, midnight UTC.
If you are a member of the WCA Council, please consider putting your
name on the nominations list.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Ch
Mono wrote:
>I think it's necessary for the Foundation to both provide a copy and
>explain the necessity of the NDA for transparency and legal/ethical
>reasons, especially if they are asking volunteers to sign them.
Hmm, not just asking, but apparently requiring certain volunteers to sign
them. It
I think it's necessary for the Foundation to both provide a copy and
explain the necessity of the NDA for transparency and legal/ethical
reasons, especially if they are asking volunteers to sign them.
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:40 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> MZMcBride wrote:
> >As I understand it, man
MZMcBride wrote:
>As I understand it, many Wikimedia Foundation employees are required to
>sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA). Is there a copy of the current
>version of this non-disclosure agreement anywhere? I briefly checked
>Meta-Wiki and wikimediafoundation.org, but didn't see anything off-
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Andrew Gray wrote:
> On 5 March 2013 16:42, Federico Leva (Nemo) >
> wrote:
>
>> It's also telling that the longest hoax was about ancient history: it
>> matches the popular belief that history is by far the biggest weakness of
>> Wikipedia.
>
> Our historical cove
On 5 March 2013 16:42, Federico Leva (Nemo) >
wrote:
> It's also telling that the longest hoax was about ancient history: it
> matches the popular belief that history is by far the biggest weakness of
> Wikipedia.
Our historical coverage is patchy, but I don't think it's our biggest
weakness - ar
Yes, that is wonderful. And a beautiful writeup. SJ
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov
wrote:
> I loved that project! Kudos!
>
> Dimi
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lis
On 5 March 2013 17:21, Nathan wrote:
> I can't see the deleted article, but I bet it was basically orphaned
What were its page view stats? (I'm mobile. So can't easily check)
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
___
Wikimedia-l m
This is very cool. It might be a good idea, if you haven't already, to
ping folks on the talk pages of the following English WikiProject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Environment
Hope that helps a bit, that's often what I do when digging up support or
help for a project -
In Wikimedia Mexico we are working with the World Wildlife Fund to
improvemexican
biodiversity contents. They asked me to seek contact with a chapter /
editor who
wants to work their contents on the upcoming "Earth Hour" in the English
Wikipedia.
If someone wants to work on this theme, I can conta
On 5 March 2013 16:42, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
>
> It's also telling that the longest hoax was about ancient history: it
> matches the popular belief that history is by far the biggest weakness of
> Wikipedia.
Err thats not a popular belief.
--
geni
I can't see the deleted article, but I bet it was basically orphaned.
Make up a fake name and don't link to it from anywhere or in it to
anywhere, and if it escapes NPP it'll stick around a long time. So I
guess there are two categories (at least) for things "ripe for hoaxes"
- technical or esoteri
Nathan, 05/03/2013 18:00:
Anything that is obscure is going to take a long time to discover. I
don't think history is special in that regard; problem is one of
having it come to the attention of someone sufficiently expert enough
to know for sure it's fake. If it seems technical and esoteric, mos
Anything that is obscure is going to take a long time to discover. I
don't think history is special in that regard; problem is one of
having it come to the attention of someone sufficiently expert enough
to know for sure it's fake. If it seems technical and esoteric, most
people will assume its tru
Yaroslav M. Blanter, 05/03/2013 17:07:
8 years is the record, apparently, on enwiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia
Thanks Andrew, did not know about this page, very interesting.
It's also telling that the longest hoax was about ancient history: it
matches the popu
On 05.03.2013 15:38, Andrew Gray wrote:
On 5 March 2013 14:34, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
I today discovered and nominated for deletion a large hoax article
written
in 2008 (Yuri Gadyukin on en.wp).
Is this the longest ever living hoax we had on any project, or were
there
others that surviv
On 5 March 2013 14:34, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> I today discovered and nominated for deletion a large hoax article written
> in 2008 (Yuri Gadyukin on en.wp).
>
> Is this the longest ever living hoax we had on any project, or were there
> others that survived longer?
8 years is the record, ap
I today discovered and nominated for deletion a large hoax article
written in 2008 (Yuri Gadyukin on en.wp).
Is this the longest ever living hoax we had on any project, or were
there others that survived longer?
Cheers
Yaroslav
___
Wikimedia-l mail
23 matches
Mail list logo
