Hoi,
As far as I am aware, the CC-by-sa comes in many flavours. One for each
country and all of them are different in their own way. Specific country
specific implementations may exactly allow for things people are not aware
off. Yes the INTENTION is for them to be the same.
As to why things go
That article in the New York Times seems to describe the view of a curious
outsider's view on hard-core Wikipedians personally, and it does seem a bit
stereotyped, but since I wasn't at the conference I can only guess.
Some of us are discussing the idea that WMF Programs Evaluation could
Yep, I'm not happy with that particular quote. But you know what? It was
a set-up. Any reporter worth her salt attending a conference like this
knows how to spot the person in the room that will give them the story they
want to tell, and this is what happened here. She came in looking for the
Thank you Issara. I was not at the conference, but journalism is a world
I've inhabited, and this was exactly my impression -- an opportunistic
reporter cutting many corners to come up with something that would
titillate and entertain. Yes, the choice to use real names, given the way
she described
As far as I am aware, the CC-by-sa comes in many flavours. One for
each country
and all of them are different in their own way. Specific country specific
implementations may exactly allow for things people are not aware off.
True up to version 3.0; but it seems they stopped it for version 4.0 and
Hey all,
I wasn't going to comment on this on this thread, but I figured I should
since no one who has commented was there and it is turning into pure
speculation. This is what happened, in short: During a break in the
sessions, I was talking to one of the users and we sat down near Frank,
I guess we can at least contact the journalst: jpressler (@) nymag.com
(found her E-mail on her public twitter account) asking to fix obvoius
factual mistakes (22 000 accounts etc) + provide POV of Issara and
others.
2014-06-07 9:41 GMT+02:00 Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com:
Thank you Issara.
I am furious about this coverage. Incredibly insulting to the entire movement.
Our volunteers break their backs putting on a conference and the best NYM can
think to write is haha dorks? Imagine if they did that for any other tech
conference. Not even the barest attempt to cover the actual
Tomasz, et al
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess we can at least contact the journalst: jpressler (@) nymag.com
(found her E-mail on her public twitter account) asking to fix obvoius
factual mistakes (22 000 accounts etc) + provide POV of Issara
On 07/06/2014 09:10, Kevin Rutherford wrote:
there are many things that both Alex and I said that were
manipulated, reworded, or were turned into outright lies in order to
prove her point
You give some examples of things she distorted. Which things were true?
She wrote:
Some hardcore
On 07/06/2014 14:42, MZMcBride wrote:
The part of the piece I found most striking was that the author
readily, and almost boastfully, admits to speaking to a minority of the
minority of the minority, but she seems to have no issue using this
very limited sample size to evaluate Wikipedia on
On 07/06/2014 15:08, MZMcBride wrote:
I'm not sure what your specific _focus_ [my emphasis] is here with
these questions. Perhaps you could clarify?
I think you mean 'intention' rather than 'focus'. I already spelled out
the _focus_, which was on whether Kevin _said_ those things attributed
On 07/06/2014 15:18, Fæ wrote:
So good luck to pizza stained t-shirts, wear them
with pride.
See my previous post. I thought the point was not that they had pizza
stained t-shirts, but rather that the Wikipedian who was interviewed
(Kevin) was explicitly dividing his kin into those who wear
And what's the purpose of your question(s)? How does it help you to know
what he said or not? Do you want to get an impression of his character?
Then better start over with fresh questions than the tendentious ones the
journalist asked him (but please off-list). Or do you want to hit on him
(or
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 4:31 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
I'm combining responses to edward and Fae and then heading to the pool. B-)
Fae wrote:
* What proportion of attendees were Wikimedia Chapter or Foundation
contractors or employees and attending the conference could be
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Martin Rulsch martin.rul...@wikimedia.de
wrote:
And what's the purpose of your question(s)? How does it help you to know
what he said or not? Do you want to get an impression of his character?
Then better start over with fresh questions than the tendentious
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/06/2014, aude aude.w...@gmail.com wrote:
(for the record, i attended the conference as a volunteer and 100% paid
for
myself ... no scholarship, nothing, and think that's the case for most
attendees)
Could one of the
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
* What proportion of attendees were Wikimedia Chapter or Foundation
contractors or employees and attending the conference could be
considered part of their employment? *
- At least one email here claimed that volunteers broke their
Fae: if you didn't know, US chapters don't have any permanent paid
employees whatsoever, and only one temp contractor between either chapter -
and he was only hired a few days ago, and to help manage one specific
project. So no chapter employees from the US attended as employees, since
none exist.
On 07/06/2014, Pharos pharosofalexand...@gmail.com wrote:
...
This was an entirely volunteer-run conference.
Thanks Pharos. My question was about proportions of attendees being
women or employees, rather than who organized it. I should have
avoided the subsequent comment, as that appears to have
On 7 June 2014 13:27, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/06/2014, Pharos pharosofalexand...@gmail.com wrote:
...
This was an entirely volunteer-run conference.
Thanks Pharos. My question was about proportions of attendees being
women or employees, rather than who organized it. I should have
aude wrote:
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 4:31 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
This feels like a strange question to ask. Aren't you asking
specifically who the conference organizers were and how many of them
were volunteers? I think
https://wikiconferenceusa.org/wiki/Organizing_Team answers
On 07/06/2014 22:27, Fæ wrote:
If leading members of our movement are going to adamantly refuse to
even count the numbers of women participating at events and so fail to
openly and transparently report the statistics, then I guess the only
defence we have when criticised by journalists is to
On 6/7/2014 2:27 PM, Fæ wrote:
To all feminists reading this, do you want to be counted or not?
Sometimes marginalized minorities find it beneficial to be counted,
sometimes they don't. When they're being subjected to mockery,
hectoring, and aggressive interrogation, it's very often the
In regards to Fae's query about gender participation at the NYC conference.
I counted 37 females of 89 individuals in an official group photo of
participants up on Commons, or 41.6%. I offer no opinion if any of those I
counted at women were transexual. It was a simple count.
From a very cursory
25 matches
Mail list logo
