There are many million users registered in central auth. Most have not
edited anywhere, and never even visited ar.wikipedia.org. welcoming these
is actually harmful in a demonstrable way: readers will be notified of this
useless welcome by email, or the notification tool. If this were
multiplied
I think it very clear that these allegations were the last gasp of an
ancient regime, mired as it was in nepotism and other unsavoury practices.
The criminal allegations can be left to the police. The description of the
steps taken by the WMF in this case seems to be of a very sensible
We have a number of source specific templates, such as {{EB1911}} for
acknowledging re-used source material. There is as yet no automatic
mechanism for changing these as and when the actual copying is replaced
entirely.
On 28 Aug 2017 01:18, "Gnangarra" wrote:
> but the
While I would (and have) strongly opposed both threats and actual
contacting of employerst of volunteers, I think the situation here is
somewhat different.
Firstly WMF employees are not subject to community sanction insofar as
their paid roles go. Secondly it is perfectlying normal to have an
I have looked at the Wikipedia traffic for the places associated with some
of these images, and it is clear that they drive in the order of thousands
of hits per day.
I haven't been able to find a definitive list, from which more
comprehensive stats could be generated.
I think that using Commons
wledge", whatever that might be, nor did I say that I had. I am
> expressing surprise that there is not yet a common understanding that the
> movement can rally round.
>
> "Rogol"
>
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Richard Farmbrough <
> rich...@farmb
The problem of knowledge is much older than Wikipedia. It is part of the
reason that so many intelligent people belive things that are "simply not
so".
On 11 Aug 2017 11:52, "Rogol Domedonfors" wrote:
> Is it not rather late to be discussing what "knowledge" might be,
Article needate a little work.
On 12 Jun 2017 12:23, "Quim Gil" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 11:26 PM, shola ishola
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Dear wikipedians,
> >
> > We are delighted to announce that we have reached agreement with the
> above
gt; to
> > > > everything. We oppose censorship and we oppose suppression of freedom
> > of
> > > > information. I think it is also perfectly fine to state that we as a
> > > > movement oppose terrorism.
> > > >
> > > > Made a f
w more adjustments to this statement on meta
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Response_to_2017_ban_in_Turkey
>
> James
>
> On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Richard Farmbrough <
> rich...@farmbrough.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > It is absolutely important to be clear that W
It is absolutely important to be clear that Wikipedia is impartial, or at
least substantially so. This impartiality may be a threat to some, but it
could be counter-productive to make statements which are not carefully
thought through. Those who support repressive regimes can easily be pushed
I think there are two clear policies here:
1. The forkability of the projects
2. The "niceness" of suppliers.
The first is a movement and project principle. The second is - loosely
- connected to a broader movement. It is philosophically and morally
dubious to coerce people to conform to
I believe that Wikimania scholarships are one of the best uses of WMF
funds. I would like to see more scholarships. If funds are a problem,
then by all means have more scholarships for relatively local people -
but frankly I don't think funds _are_ a problem.
On 21/03/2016 14:00, Rodrigo
It's all very well to assume that certain demographics are wealthy. But
it is simply a stereotype. Wikipedians I know personally from the
"privileged" demographics vary from those who are well off through to
those who are saddled with substantial debt and zero income.
But really the question
Thanks for the (single) use case: Trouble is it just pushes the
question further down the road.
inadequate for some compelling reason
On 13/08/2015 09:25, Pine W wrote:
A*few* legitimate use cases could be:
*Superprotection by stewards of legally or technically sensitive pages, to
prevent
Not a good example. This could be a special page.
On 11/08/2015 21:56, Risker wrote:
There are situations where not even the administrators of a particular
community should be allowed to edit a page. A good example would be the
pages that describe the copyright and licensing of Wikimedia
Using it for legal disputes is poor form. We had legal disputes before,
and managed them with office actions. If you don't trust the admins
not to purposefully post libel or copyvios, then super-protecting a
page or two won't help.
Moreover it implies that the Foundation can or will take
No community would want to change documents issued by the WMF, if it
did, the stewards would be crazy to do so.
This is reaching.
Why?
On 11/08/2015 22:34, Risker wrote:
However, stewards under their current
process could very well find themselves in a situation where a community
wants to do
All on-wiki discussion agrees that the http service has been
unceremoniously dumped. Various reasons are given: HSTS won't allow you to
access it (not quite true) and that it would allow SSL Stripping attacks
(almost totally false).
On 20 June 2015 at 13:43, Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
I toyed with this idea some years ago when I was working for a short-run
large-document printing company. We regularly produced 160,000 page
documents (20 copies). With a suitable font Wikipedia's then 1 million
articles would have been a cinch.
On 17 June 2015 at 20:42, David Gerard
We shall miss you.
On 19 June 2015 at 09:30, Andrea Zanni zanni.andre...@gmail.com wrote:
Goodbye Fabrice, and thank you for all your enthusiasm.
It was very appreciated :-)
Good luck!
Aubrey
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 8:34 AM, Michael Jahn michael.j...@wikimedia.de
wrote:
May your next
Content about businesses is potentially useful to people who need jobs.
Television shows *are* cultural topics.
I am uneasy about well intentioned attempts to define worthy and
unworthy content.
On 14 April 2015 at 02:28, Leigh Thelmadatter osama...@hotmail.com wrote:
I agree that any
Moreover this may well be a breach of policy, TOS and even law.
On 31 March 2015 at 01:15, Oliver Keyes ironho...@gmail.com wrote:
So, let me get this right:
1. You announced that, as David puts it, noting anonymous IPs is the
same as all-the-NSA-stuff-ever;
2. People disputed it, but
Who was most thanked?
On 5 February 2015 at 15:47, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
After reading an interesting related discussion on GenderGap, I have
queried the top 10 users of the thanks feature last month, on both the
English Wikipedia and Commons. Snapshot image attached and report
It is true that our Arbitrators have not always behaved as we would wish,
and the cases that Trillium brings are are especially egregious, those
familiar with the the Arbcom leaks or indeed who have followed the actions
of the Committee, or dealt with individual Arbitrators on the English
Because the Arbitration Committee does have experience dealing with
harassment. Not many projects have such a body dedicated to dealing with
conflict. You are of course right that a general consultation should be
made, and I'm sure if there are other bodies you can point to the WMF would
love to
I have a tool to migrate templates. If anyone has a particular wiki that
needs templates migrating on an as needed basis, please let me know and I
will be happy to help.
On 10 October 2014 02:57, Romaine Wiki romaine.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Lua makes editing templates for most users impossible.
What is irritating about the ACTRIAL scenario, was that it was a well
defined (6 month) test.
It might have worked, it might not have worked. But we would have known.
We would have had solid comparators.
Most of what we do (WMF and community) has no control to establish whether
it works.
To be
Legal position:
I have seen it claimed by legal and repeated here by Erik that the
reasonableness criteria means that we do not have to worry about the
CCBYSA-3.0 clause that says all copyright holders need equal attribution.
This is simply not so:
The credit required by this Section 4(c) may be
I have coincidentally raised the question of fair-use images for living
people at the Gender Gap Taskforce talk page. Perhaps this is something we
shoudl take to the policy talk page?
On 26 August 2014 14:24, Tim Davenport shoehu...@gmail.com wrote:
David Goodman has this exactly right — new
But if the entity refuses to answer, one has limited recourse, especially
if that entity is American, or trans-Atlantic.
On 24 August 2014 16:50, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
If you don't know of a policy which gives you the right to ask
something, why ask that something?
Note that while it *is* a trademark issue, it isn't *just* a trademark
issue.
On 21 August 2014 18:44, Gregory Varnum gregory.var...@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you Richard for bringing this to everyone's attention.
So folks know, WMF Legal and the Affiliations Committee are investigating
and
Lets straighten a few things out
1. Of course I don't think that bug counting is an accurate metric - and we
are all aware that Bugzilla contains other items. Nonetheless to pretend
that everything is rosy with MV is facile.
2. Specifically it appears that MV breaks CC-BY-SA-3.0. Details on
idea..Fix the bugs or atleast half of them and maybe then
try enforcing them (as WMF ignores community decisions)..
On 8/17/14, Chad Horohoe choro...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Aug 17, 2014 6:49 AM, Richard Farmbrough rich...@farmbrough.co.uk
wrote:
There are 105 bugs open for Media Viewer
There are 105 bugs open for Media Viewer. To my mind that is not a product
that is ready to be delivered to 500,000,000 users, delivering 52.5
billion bugs! (And that's just the ones we know about!)
But even if it was, the fact that a project community has asked for it to
be opt-in should be
The community too is asking for kindness and consideration. Riding
roughshod over community consensus does not equate to kindness, or even
wisdom, unless it it that of Niccolò Machiavelli!
The Mission Statement of the Foundation says
*The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and
I have to say that there is an unnecessary lack of transparency which seems
to get worse. In or around May 2012 I emailed the audit committee on EN:WP
to ask about checkuser run on my account and got a polite and informative
reply. In or around May 2014 an identically worded query got a polite
I am involved with a charity that sets up regional charities. We have a
nominally clean procedure which can set up a charity in a few days.
However a constantly changing legislative and regulatory environment can
send the whole system back to square one.
When we are dealing with a new
I maintained 24/7 support with a team of 6. WMF has 150 staff and does
not have weekend support. The tail is wagging the dog.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
Apparently important. I am aware, as probably everyone is, that this is
the first most obvious step to make article editing more accessible, and
address certain inclusiveness goals. I am also aware that there is no
data to support the theory that a visual editor means more inclusive
editing,
enwiki-20130708-pages-articles.xml.bz2
http://dumps.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20130708/enwiki-20130708-pages-articles.xml.bz2
9.3 GB - a double sided single layer DVD (9.4gb). The images would be
more challenging.
On 06/08/2013 17:52, Kevin Wayne Williams wrote:
More like a complete set of
Rui (and list) there is a myth about articles that are sacrosanct -
which is not to say that there aren't such articles, though the examples
you gave don't stand up to much scrutiny. It would be useful to conduct
some research on the whole corpus to evaluate this hypothesis and give
some
Trademark protection has benefits for both parties, but primarily the
consumer.
There is little point protecting our neutrality, for example, if our
identity can be hijacked to make vested recommendations.
On 05/06/2013 15:58, Mathieu Stumpf wrote:
Le 2013-06-04 19:25, George Herbert a
Yes there is some data on templating in a research paper somewhere, and
some more on a/b template runs. But the solution is not trivial. I have
stuck up for a few editors who appear to be children, suggesting that we
treat them a little more gently, only to be told that they are in fact
Yes, of course - why didn't we think of that? Actually the lack of
rules and lack of punishments means (meant) it was bloody hard to game
the system. Now we have a calcified set of rules and an oligarchy,
passive-aggressives have a field day. Rules-lawyers abound, polite
requests to the
Of course any effort to make article source more readable meets with
opposition - in the case of references in particular. And not only from
those who cite CITEVAR legitimately, but from at least one admin who
will block for putting references in numerical order. These are the
sorts of
Free speech in the US is, I believe, generally considered to exclude
both fighting words and shouting fire in a crowded theatre.
On 20/09/2012 04:56, Fred Bauder wrote:
I think any laws should be couched in terms of damaging foreign
relations or inciting to riot. I'm not sure they would be
Attempts to de-switch templates are resisted at every turn by folk who
have CS 101. :-P
On 21/09/2012 05:14, Steven Walling wrote:
Template authors on any and every wiki, this one's for you. ;)
-- Forwarded message --
From: Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org
Date: Thu, Sep
Apart from using a vandalized version of [[Pyramid]] and a graphically
horrendous capital I, there are some nice elements in a generally good
layout.
The key improvement needed (and WAP has made this evident to more
people) is to stop wasting real estate on more and more nested top bars
and
49 matches
Mail list logo