On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Romaine Wiki romaine_w...@yahoo.com wrote:
I still don't see a reflection in your mail that you take the feedback from
local communities seriously.
Romaine, we're not ignoring feedback. I'm asking James to weigh in
with some details relative to the issues
Oliver Keyes wrote:
active editors == editors with [5/10/depending on standard] edits a
month. It's pretty impossible, at our end, for us to identify one person
between multiple IPs or one person between multiple IPs.
Why can't you use behavioral and expertise characteristics to measure
the
When I started editing in 2006 it was already the norm; ever since people
are encouraging each other to place their questions about a given article
rather on the village pump or a project page, than on the actual article's
talk page, reasoning that there is larger trafficwhat generates even
Erik Möller wrote:
...
we need to collectively figure out what a discoverable,
intuitive user experience should look like We're not
going to solve these challenges if we lock away VisualEditor...
Erik, I don't understand. Could you please explain how making the
visual editor opt-in only
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:06 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
This particular ongoing saga (refusing to provide an opt-out mechanism for
VisualEditor) seems to largely echo past issues with treating Wikimedia
editors as customers instead of colleagues.
That's not the intent, and I'm
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:35 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:
Oliver Keyes wrote:
active editors == editors with [5/10/depending on standard] edits a
month. It's pretty impossible, at our end, for us to identify one person
between multiple IPs or one person between multiple IPs.
Say again?
Peter
- Original Message -
From: Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org
To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 6:22 AM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: change in article edits after visual editor
roll-out (was Re: Feedback for the
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 1:01 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:06 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
This particular ongoing saga (refusing to provide an opt-out mechanism
for
VisualEditor) seems to largely echo past issues with treating Wikimedia
You say you are not ignoring feedback. Then how did it happen that all the
feedback we have been given on nl-wiki in the past month is still nothing done
with, including some major bugs? Nothing is done with it, you can say you do
not ignore feedback, but we would like to see the proof for
In the most early stages WMF has told us via various way that the visual editor
would have an opt-out. It appears that at the last moment before the the launch
on the English Wikipedia this was removed.
A lot of people are annoyed for years that developers of various software
inside and
I've have my setting on receive copy of own emails, but did not receive
this email that I sent out. Can someone please confirm?
Regards,
On 22 July 2013 18:02, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote:
Dear All
It is certainly not news that a lot of deliberately biased editing goes on
on the
On 23 July 2013 12:07, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote:
I've have my setting on receive copy of own emails, but did not receive
this email that I sent out. Can someone please confirm?
It went out. What you're seeing is that GMail refuses to show you
messages you sent to a list, even
Thanks, David. Much appreciated.
For what it is worth, I am part of two Yahoo! Groups mailing lists for
translators, which I receive via GM - from the one I get back my own email,
from the other not. Go figure.
Regards,
Rui
On 23 July 2013 13:10, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23
I just checked the archives. The original message was not received by the
mailing list, for whatever reason, probably misaddressed. This message of
inquiry is the first message in the tread. I think you should resend the
original message if your mail program permits that. Sounds interesting...
I just checked the archives. The original message was not received by the
mailing list, for whatever reason, probably misaddressed. This message of
inquiry is the first message in the tread. I think you should resend the
original message if your mail program permits that. Sounds interesting...
Resent so I have an original copy to reply to.
Dear All
It is certainly not news that a lot of deliberately biased editing goes on
on the Wikipedia. It is equally known that there are mechanims to address
these issues.
But that is where the problem lies - those intent on skewing information
I use Flickr as an example, but is it not the firwst time that I have
come
across this type of behaviour.
And so, tiny cliques and coteries flourish like fiefdoms in the blind
spots
of the mechanisms created to ensure that we all strive for the same
principes. What is worse, there are big
A case in point, the other day I was looking for images of mosquitos
sucking blood and and came across blatant pornography on Flickr. I added
a
few lines about pornography on Flickr and because it was reverted
Rui Correia.
The Flickr images you linked to, if it was you, were the sort one
It is this that is tarnishing the name of the Wikipedia and
driving away good editors.
Rui Correia.
When the going gets tough the tough get going. They don't throw their
hands up, vainly protest, then give up.
Possible conflict of interest is a legitimate concern; however, it is not
a
We need to keep in mind that the people who are vocal on mailing
lists, or who participate in on-wiki polls with 50 or 100
participants, represent only a tiny fraction of all Wikimedia users -
even only a small fraction of those who are active and registered. Yet
the constituency of the WMF must
Hi Erik,
On 23 July 2013 17:01, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
But as I've noted in [1], I do not think a compromise on the
preference question is necessarily out of reach. I've asked James and
team to deliberate on some of the possibilities here, and offered the
same suggestion I
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Craig Franklin
cfrank...@halonetwork.net wrote:
As is usually the case, I'm not saying this to have a go at the developers
or anyone else involved (who are obviously doing their best), but I think
that some of the communication on this topic has been a bit
I think the Foundation is trying to make steps toward increased
communication with its constituent communities with its blitz of hiring
Community Liaisons. And that's a good idea, and liaisons can do a lot of
good. But I don't think that program is running at 100% effectiveness yet,
and back-end
How do you propose to get people to actally read the notices?
Peter
- Original Message -
From: Nathan nawr...@gmail.com
To: cfrank...@halonetwork.net; Wikimedia Mailing List
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 3:32 PM
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Communication plans
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 6:16 AM, Craig Franklin
cfrank...@halonetwork.net wrote:
I just want to basically endorse some of the other comments being made
here, which I think are quite insightful. If the goal of this project was
to get the Visual Editor deployed on time and on budget, then the
2013/7/23 Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org:
Should that even be a concern? I mean, if lots of newbies and technophobes
start using the Visual Editor and a bunch of us dorks who love writing markup
don't, would that matter?
I saw the following more than once on editing workshops and similar
Rui,
There are four answers I could give you. See whether you like any of them:
*Answer the First*
This problem has existed ever since Wikipedia became visible enough for
agenda-driven editors to bother with it, and people have made complaints
like yours ever since. Nothing has changed, and
*Answer the Second*
*
*
This sort of thing is handled much better in the German Wikipedia. In the
German Wikipedia, companies can edit with verified company accounts: so
that if Coca-Cola Germany edits the Coca-Cola article, it will actually say
Coca Cola Germany in the edit history.
On 07/23/2013 02:03 PM, Todd Allen wrote:
I
don't think such a proposal would be hopeless on en.
How did dewiki circumvent the difficulties regarding attribution and
role accounts? Last I checked, our terms of use prohibit password
sharing, and IIRC Mike Godwin (legal counsel at the time)
On a different track and back to Tilman's concern, we managed to get the
following sentence published in the Washington Post:
Among the 3.2 million articles Yasseri’s group studied last year, fewer
than 100 appeared to be on a definite trajectory toward perpetual
disagreement. That’s an excellent
Thanks Andreas. I appreciate that you took the time to write such detailed
scenarios.
What you say about WP-DE is certainly very interesting.
As for your comment about Flickr does a fairly good job of showing nudity
and porn only to the people who – quite legitimately – want to view it, and
Marc,
The page I linked to says in part:
It goes without saying that using the process described we are also unable
to verify the identity of the person(s) behind the user account.
(Es versteht sich von selbst, dass wir mit dem beschriebenen Verfahren
auch nicht die Identität der hinter dem
Rui,
The only NSFW results I am able to get in Google for such a search are
cases where the Flickr uploader failed to categorise the image correctly.
Flickr take a very dim view of such people. You can report them, and if
they don't comply with site rules, it quickly results in account
Thanks Andreas
Iit didn't cross my mind that you would actually go and check - at the time
the search terms were in Portuguese, so you will probably find different
results - If I find the original pic I will send it to you.
But more importantly, the porn on Flickr is a secondary issue - the
Found the pic - will mail you off-list - definite NSFW!
Rui
On 24 July 2013 03:21, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Rui,
The only NSFW results I am able to get in Google for such a search are
cases where the Flickr uploader failed to categorise the image correctly.
Flickr take a
On 23 July 2013 00:01, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
As I've noted in my response to wikitech-l just now, there's also the
issue of what opt-out should mean as VE becomes increasingly more
pervasive in the user experience.
But as I've noted in [1], I do not think a compromise on the
Thanks Andreas
Iit didn't cross my mind that you would actually go and check - at the
time
the search terms were in Portuguese, so you will probably find different
results - If I find the original pic I will send it to you.
But more importantly, the porn on Flickr is a secondary issue -
James Forrester wrote:
Because I understand the level of concern that this matter is causing, I
am changing my mind on this. For the duration of VisualEditor's beta
period, there will be an opt-out user preference. This will be deployed
tomorrow morning, San Francisco time.
Thank you very much
Thanks, James, for the flexibility that you are showing here. I think the
Visual Editor is already great and it will become even better after
polishing it.I am committed to test it as much as I can and to send some
proposals.
That haters can disable it completely will leave more room for
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:36 AM, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Andreas
Iit didn't cross my mind that you would actually go and check - at the time
the search terms were in Portuguese, so you will probably find different
results - If I find the original pic I will send it to
40 matches
Mail list logo
