I won't argue the fact that there is value in protecting the
iconography of the Wikimedia movement from abuse. What I argue with is
the approach of the legal department - to unilaterally, and without
notice, contradict the purpose of a set of logos by declaring
ownership over them, and then to at t
Wow, thanks for the pointer Tomasz.
* Someone creates a community logo, intending for it not to be owned
by the WMF, but without telling anyone the WMF declares ownership.
* Then they cheekily offer to allow you to use the logo, as long as
you get their permission
* They then suggest they want the
to 10 years in the event of a major disruption in income, but
avoid some of the challenges of a larger endowment and related
campaign.
~Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
7;s something better suited to
crowdsourcing and existing philanthropic organizations.
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Anders Wennersten
wrote:
> Nathan skrev 2013-03-15 15:24:
>
>> no tangible
>> benefit to separating a "Trust" from the actual ownership and
>> management o
why this would be a good idea.
~Nathan
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
wrote:
> Creating a new thread because the other is apparently running in circles
> now.
>
> phoebe ayers, 14/03/2013 21:38:
>> Yes. In an university context, which is what I&#
I too thought the gmail translate worked really well, until I saw Asaf
suggest they stop using bad words - which I guess gmail stripped out,
because I didn't see any!
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists
Bence,
Out of curiosity, can you describe what would happen if a separate
group of people sought approval for another "thematic organization"
revolving around WikiVoyage?
Thanks,
Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wik
In fact, not one single non-anonymous person has ever said anything
different than what Marc just posted (as far as I know). James Salsman
is alone in his crusade; the people he believes he is "fighting for"
evidently don't desire his help. My suspicion is that this all goes
back to his attempt to
Just out of curiousity, MZ, what is your interest in the text of the
NDA? Anyone required to abide by one has seen it and knows what the
terms are, and no one who hasn't seen it is bound by it. So other than
just being curious, is there are particular reason you want to know
more about it?
___
axes"
- technical or esoteric subject matter, or articles of any type that
are systematically obscured from the network of content.
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
wrote:
> Nathan, 05/03/2013 18:00:
>
>> Anything that is obscure is going to take a long time to
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
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Steven Walling wrote:
>
> Note the comments for the second option were to support the position that
> the policy needed revision. Essentially it means "not yet", not "I oppose
> global bans" . There were only 17 comments in favor of having no policy
> whatsoever. T
Hmm. There were 77 comments in support, and 68 comments in opposition,
but it was closed as supporting the global bans policy in its current
form. Interesting.
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 4:31 PM, ENWP Pine wrote:
> This RFC has previously been discussed on this list. The RFC is now closed.
>
> https:
That means the only votes belong to those on the Council; this could
be easily resolved by other chapters becoming members, as has been
said, but presumably some who have refused so far... do so because
they have to accept the "rights, duties and obligations" of a member.
These include allowing the
ly
assent to the outcome. This is not the case for those chapters which
have chosen not to join the WCA.
~Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
In fairness to the WMF tech team, and without totally absolving them
of delays, it looks like a lot of the delay has been related to
problems contacting and exchanging information with the OTRS inventor.
Not that the WMF couldn't have put more energy into staying in touch
with him, but it's worth n
Cyrano - I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature
of the Board. It is self-perpetuating in every respect; the elections
are advisory only, and the actual appointment of Board members is
executed by the existing Board. The organization has no members, and
no one who is not on th
MZ - The last time this came up was in the context of the Jobvite listings,
and at the time I believe you directed people to the privacy policy. I
don't have the exact quote handy, but I think you said something like the
privacy policy of the site or service collecting information has to be
consist
dy was proposed, but the
attitude and approach for the WCA has been wrong for a long time and the
WMF is right to not support the current incarnation.
~Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
5, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Nathan wrote:
> Presumably Round 1 disbursements have already been made, which means that
> the chapters in receipt of funds can choose to spend them how they see fit.
> But I don't recall seeing plans to donate money to the WCA in funding
> requests to the F
Presumably Round 1 disbursements have already been made, which means that
the chapters in receipt of funds can choose to spend them how they see fit.
But I don't recall seeing plans to donate money to the WCA in funding
requests to the FDC, and I suspect that since the WMF has chosen not to
recogni
ncluding
hiring. Is it fair to assume that the WMF will take a dim view of
FDC-allocated funds being transferred to the WCA? I'm sure no chapters
anticipating an FDC allocation would like to put that at risk.
Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mail
Wikipedia's policies are meant to protect and further the goals of the
project, and to offer what little safeguard they can against undue harm to
good faith participants. People who try to undermine the project, or act in
a way antithetical to its goals, or themselves attempt to cause harm to
good
The objects of a press embargo are to, as I understand it, coordinate the
release of information and make sure that staff are available to answer
questions or react to developments after release. I'm sure the WMF has some
flexibility within their normal business hours, but... as with any global
ent
"Does the Foundation have the will to protect volunteer editors from
the deleterious
effects of income inequality?" This is, I think, is the signal of where
James is going with this. This is the recurrence of the argument from a few
months ago of paying editors, something that I think virtually any
nds to the original
point - which is that the English Wikipedia's pool of able and interested
contributors is shrinking quite independently of any environmental
problems.
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 10:45 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 4 January 2013 15:29, Nathan wrote:
>
> > Most top
Tim and Erik's views aren't at all incompatible or mutually exclusive;
they're just looking at opposite ends of the same problem, which stated
fully is that experienced editors leave and the pace of new editors turning
into experienced editors is too low to maintain a steady community size.
Erik's
Here's a question, Steve: what social problems have been solved by anarchy?
If we toss out "oligarchy", decide "voting is evil", and only allow most
decisions to proceed on some ill-defined notion of consensus, that's what
is left.
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 12:01 AM, Steven Walling wrote:
> On Thu,
The obvious point, which has been made many times on this list over the
years, is that activity on mailing lists or meta is not a good proxy for
measuring the activity of a member of the board. The best measure would be
engagement with the duties of the board (which don't include posting on the
lis
herwise,
it would be wrong to raise money purely based on the amount you thought you
could raise and without regard to what you plan to responsibly spend.
Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.w
venue goals for the
12-13 fiscal year. That is an aggressive increase, even if less aggressive
proportionally than we've seen in prior years.
Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.
y to keep in mind that Wikimedia employees are people with
feelings and pride in their work, and in the future take more care with
comments that impugn their work, professionalism and character.
Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
The upshot is, vocal Wikimedians on mailing lists hate banners, and are
quite willing to sternly lecture about their dire consequences! It's left
to the Foundation, then, to choose between large numbers of donations from
happy donors and unamused mailing list participants. Tough call.
My own opini
ughout the year? I don't
really know if that would be easier on you, raise more money or be
better for readers, but it's something to consider.
Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
It seems like it would've made more sense to exclude WCA costs
entirely, since it doesn't actually exist nor does it have any
meaningful operations or presence. That's even aside from the quixotic
circumstance of an organization like WCA receiving funding from the
WMF.
even if that money is spent on its behalf instead of by it.
~Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
haracteristic of the Foundation. In fact, the
support of the community is absolutely crucial to its survival. I
merely want to suggest that the tone of entitlement evident in some
recent posts to wikimedia-l is misplaced.
Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mail
art
of the program budget) was ever on the table. Or at least if it was, I
certainly didn't hear about it.
~Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reporting the suspicion to the publisher should be enough, I wouldn't
think of that as unethical. You aren't doing immediate harm to the
author; presumably any reasonable publisher would ask the author about
the situation before taking drastic action, giving the author the
opportunity at that time
Other than the fellowships, which I'll come back to in a moment, I
think Sue's new course for the WMF makes a lot of sense. The WMF has
been the subject of a lot of valid criticism in the last few years
around its goals, spending and achievements. Despite soaring budgets
and an FTE trend to delight
So there will be both a committee, with expenses covered, and a paid
consultant all to identify candidates for a single position?
Interesting. But you don't yet know where the WCA will be
incorporated, which laws it will abide, the magnitude of its budget,
or a host of other considerations?
On Wed
Wow. I honestly didn't think the conflict of interest issue was this
serious. What does giving up the next fundraiser due to the WM-UK
budget? Does this change reflect a lack of trust between the WMF and
the current WM-UK leadership?
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 4:20 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 28 Se
ng it sniped by someone with other interests?
~Nathan
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Lodewijk
> wrote:
>> thanks for the offer :) That was indeed the situation I was referring to.
>> It would probably be good to mention
In the end it sounds like Roger decided not to bother trying to rebut
the accusations of Tom Dalton and Andreas Kolbe; he's resigned from
the WM-UK board. Pretty sad outcome, because he is (or was) an
obviously dedicated and inspired Wikimedian. It seemed like the
concerns could have been cleared u
The concerns over Bamkin's involvement in WM-UK and GibraltarpediA
seem a little overwrought, but the situation isn't helped by his
minimalist approach to public communication - prompted perhaps in part
by the accusatory, judgmental tone of his UK questioners. Still, it's
too bad he's not more fort
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 8:36 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 9 September 2012 12:25, FT2 wrote:
>
>> Whatever the IB site publicly displays and requires, we can observe what IB
>> considers adequate, plus the attribution requirements of CC-by-SA and any
>> non-conflicting wikitravel reuse terms and a
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 4:11 PM, emijrp wrote:
> When we use 1911 Britannica texts, we only attribute to the encyclopedia,
> not its authors, so we can put "This text comes from Wikitravel".
>
> Anyway, if we are going to use Wikitravel texts, writing a script to scrape
> just the usernames from hi
Reading through the IB filing, they aren't even bothering to structure
a good case. It's all blather and no substance (claiming, for
instance, that the defendants have been unjustly enriched by
establishing a website with a name confusingly similar to WikiTravel;
when of course no such site exists,
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On Sep 6, 2012 7:27 PM, "Nathan" wrote:
>> Other than in the process of enforcing telecommunications law, is
>> there any way to challenge the presumed immunity of a particular
>> entity under Section 230?
The Wikitravel site seems to be declining in a hurry, even from what
was evidently a sad state just several months ago. The main remaining
administrator, an employee who goes by IBobi (IB as in Internet
Brands), has limited his actions almost exclusively to arguing with
other community members and
in its FAQ, is there any bleedover risk for the
Foundation itself?
Nathan
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Geoff Brigham wrote:
> Note: You may also read this announcement in DE - ES - FR - IT - JA - RU
>
> Many Wikimedians take on key support roles that help ensure that the
> commun
their images in other ways (say, uploading them to Commons or providing
them to medical image repositories).
Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
information which is
individually identifying. If it has been de-identified, which is presumably
not that difficult for x-ray images, then distribution is permitted for
other purposes without the patients' authorization.
~Nathan
___
Wikimedia-
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 12:11 PM, WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But there could be some grey areas, for example if no EU
> source is covering something then an EU editor sourcing a fact from a
> reliable source in the US might be in difficulty. Especially if that "fact"
No one will argue these days that the WMF is short of money, so this is a
good opportunity for it to deploy some of that funding for a real impact.
The main page on the English Wikipedia is an ideal starting point for a
conscious effort at design evolution throughout Wikimedia. The Foundation
shoul
Never having been to design school like Amir, I can't comment on what grade
it might get. But I do like it a lot; I think it's a serious improvement
over what we use now, and incorporates design principles that we should
adopt even if we don't take the design itself. The visual elements, the
better
Andreas makes a really important point below. Now that I read it from his
perspective, it seems like what we're dealing with here is a surreptitious
attempt by the General Counsel to hijack the Wikimedia Foundation and its
projects to serve their covert corporate masters. Obviously the Bilderberg
G
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 29 July 2012 22:48, Steven Walling wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Thomas Dalton >wrote:
> >
> >> While I may not be involved in the Portuguese Wikipedia, I do have a
> >> masters degree in mathematics, so I can reliably info
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 29 July 2012 22:33, Steven Walling wrote:
> > I can see how you would think this if you're not involved with these
> > communities, but a clear majority of the active editors on Portuguese
> > Wikipedia are in fact Brazilian. The descript
The project is empty. It's recent changes feed shows no edits (not sure how
that is even possible). All the links on the front page are redlinks. The
point of the project is stated as influencing the decisions of politicians.
I suspect few will dispute the conclusion that Ratiopol is not ripe for
Or maybe you should both agree to take this into at least another thread,
or preferably off-list altogether.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> > I didn't see much point in rereading those provisions, because I
> > didn't unde
Is there a "service provider" exemption for entities like Wikimedia in
Russia? Is it possible that making the Russian Wikipedia inaccessible for a
period in order to protest a Russian law might be considered political
activism in Russia? I don't believe the WMF itself has any assets in
Russia, but
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> It looks like we won again.
>
> "Communication Minister Nikolai Nikiforov was also negative about the
> current version of the bill, but was more relaxed about the possible
> outcomes. “I don’t support Wiki’s contention that it would be close
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton <
rodrigo.argen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Do you read my email?
> *
> me:we can make a logo under a free license, with the trademark rights
> guaranteed.*
> *
> you:that the logos are not released under a free license because they are
> trademar
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Steven Walling wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Nathan wrote:
>
> > I thought about that but beyond the language issue, the RfC has also been
> > open for awhile and had significant participation. Since the trend is to
> > reje
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Steven Walling wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Nathan wrote:
>
> >
> > Right now, the RfC is trending towards dispensing with the current global
> > ban policy. A large portion of that sentiment is from people opposed to
> &
It's worth noting here that there is something of a disagreement about the
import of the Terms of Use; Steve Walling and Ryan Kaldari have argued that
the ToU require that the Wikimedia community devise a policy permitting and
describing a process for instituting global bans. In fact, the ToU makes
Think of a logo or a trademark as an identity; the arguments for releasing
free informational content are totally separate from allowing others to
make free use of your (or WMFs) identity. You might as well ask why not
release your name for any possible commercial use. I suspect you wouldn't
agree
logs.
Lists of such people were kept on wiki, mentioned on LTA, tracked by
checkusers and SPI with the attendant evidence, etc. While other cases
were handled more privately by ArbCom, it was common at the time to ignore
the supposed privacy interests that
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Deryck Chan wrote:
> On 3 July 2012 19:08, Nathan wrote:
>
> > I love it when people send e-mails to the public list, and purposefully
> > refrain from actually discussing the actual events at issue. You have to
> > read 3/4ths of the e-
I love it when people send e-mails to the public list, and purposefully
refrain from actually discussing the actual events at issue. You have to
read 3/4ths of the e-mail to get an idea that it's about someone being
blocked, but you still don't know why, when, or by whom.
Following the yellow bric
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 6:25 PM, J Alexandr Ledbury-Romanov <
alexandrdmitriroma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I disagree. There is no need to hijack this thread and turn it into another
> discussion about speedydeletion.wikia.com, when that thread already
> exists.
> If, on the other hand, people wish t
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Further to Jimbo's championing O'Dwyer, here is the court document from
> O'Dwyer's January extradition trial:
>
[snip]
>
> It looks like these – rather than NPOV – are the values that Wikipedia has
> been co-opted to support.
> _
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> * Nathan wrote:
> >It's simple. The WMF didn't do anything. The English Wikipedia did. That
> >project effectively changed the content of the entire encyclopedia for
> >political reasons. That is the condi
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Todd Allen wrote:
> I've never understood why that was considered non-neutral. WMF, as an
> entity, can have viewpoints, especially as relates to the organization
> itself. The WMF, for example, is not neutral on the question of
> whether or not people should make
we can point back to this thread to explain why when we respond
> "That would be the end of neutrality," we are not exaggerating.
>
Someone else will just cleverly point out the differences between Wikipedia
and TVTropes, which are many. Using a wiki platform do
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 2:22 AM, En Pine wrote:
> Hi Nathan,
>
> For a moment, let's suppose that there is a global policy that all CU
> checks must be disclosed to the person being checked, with the information
> disclosed in private email, and only consisting of the date of
on like Wikimedia to alert users when their
private information (information that is, as Risker has mentioned,
potentially personally identifying) has been disclosed to another
volunteer.
Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
made in the past, and it seems like a pretty cut
and dried case of people having a right to know how their own information
is being used. If Wikimedia were based in Europe, it would most likely be
required by law.
Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
ferent strategies to see which get checked and which don't, that seems
like a lot of work that a vanishingly small number of abusers would
attempt... and also basically the same information as they would receive
when those sock accounts are ultimately blocked or not blocked per CU.
~Nathan
__
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:07 PM, John wrote:
> I am not asking for full disclosure, what I am asking is that established
> user have the right to be notified when and why they are being checkusered.
> The evidence checkusers get do not need to be disclosed, Its as simple as:
>
> X performed a ch
n
concerned upon request. It's not that far out to suggest that people should
be notified when their personally identifying information is accessed on
Wikimedia, if we invest that information with the significance that many
wish to. To be honest, I'm surprised Risk
high threshhold: how often are checks -
> order of magnitude - made on users who are eligible to vote in arbcom
> elections?
>
> SJ
>
At least every day, there are 5 or 6 who qualify by edit count waiting for
CU on SPI right now.
~Nathan
___
Wi
Earliest I have it on a Wikimedia list is from WikiEn-L on 2/11/08 from Ian
Woollard (written as principle of least surprise), in the context of a
Muhammad images thread started by Jimbo -- but my logs only go back to the
summer of 07.
On-wiki, I see it being used in naming convention arguments fo
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Risker wrote:
>
> Nathan, I'm still trying to come up with *any* site that permits
> unregistered users to post but also publishes their full IP address. Can
> you think of any at all? Let's not limit it to the big guys, let's real
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Risker wrote:
>
> The original Wikipedia platform (lo those long years ago) published only
> partial IP addresses. Today, "significantly less transparency" seems to
> mean "create an acccount" to many people. However, that is antithetical to
> the "anyone can edi
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Risker wrote:
>
> I think perhaps I was not clear in what I meant by "nefarious" purposes.
> The IP addresses in our contribution logs have been used by others to
> locate editors, to make allegations against individuals and organizations
> because their IP addres
sparency,
but we also want to protect our users from undue harm. I think we can
maintain that balance by having a very stable and predictable approach to
privacy, and by being abundantly clear with our disclosures and user
education with respect to privacy. The above approach wipes out any
transpa
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Risker wrote:
> On 13 June 2012 14:09, Nathan wrote:
>
> I believe that FT2 is saying that we should seriously consider masking the
> *publicly viewable* IPv6 addresses. The only reason that we publish the IP
> addresses of any logged-
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 1:36 PM, FT2 wrote:
> IPv6 is designed to operate on a "one IP = one device/connection" (non-NAT)
> basis, far more than IPv4. Privacy policy coversd "personally identifiable
> information". An IP becomes personally identifying when it broadly allows
> a person to be ide
What happens to your system if an article is deleted from Wikipedia, a new
article is posted again under the same name, and then that one is also
deleted?
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Mike Dupont wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 6:38 PM, Kirill Lokshin >wrote:
>
> > This is where I think th
F, as well as the host Wikimedians, take no political positions implicit
or otherwise.
~Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
and related information - has merit on its own,
and it might, your novel method of presenting pros and cons is simply
unworkable. This problem and the philosophical fuzziness of your argument
may be why your essay was rejected by the Signpost.
~Nathan
_
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> birgitte...@yahoo.com, 03/05/2012 14:17:
>
> Encouraging people outside the US to live as though they live inside it,
>> is neither wise nor ethical.
>>
>
> On the other hand, this is what happens (o could have happened) in other
> par
participate during their own work day, which for US-based staff of
course means business hours in the Americas range.
~Nathan
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
te funds. We know it will be a committee of people, with meetings
both in person and virtual, that makes funding decisions for Wikimedia; as
such, its administrative needs really aren't that opaque. It should be
roughly similar to what the b
craft language to do that well.
~Nathan
On Tue, May 1, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Richard Symonds <
richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
> I don't think it does say that, or if it does, I can't see where. You're
> certainly liable if you break a law in your own country, but
Let's separate the two big issues here - the first is whether we want to
encourage large numbers of new editors, and the second issue encompasses
all the cool feature ideas we could add to accomplish the first.
On attracting new editors and improving editor retention - editor retention
explains it
Tom, you're assuming that adding "social features" to Wikimedia projects
must mean integrating with commercial social networks. I don't think that's
a given at all. If we accept that social interaction, and more
opportunities for positive social interaction, are beneficial for
collaborative project
You can forever claim to have baptised the list with its very first spam
message :-P
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Tilman Bayer wrote:
> My sincere apologies. While of course everyone on this list is
> cordially invited to chat with me at any time - also on IRC -, it was
> not my intention to
401 - 500 of 501 matches
Mail list logo
