News and notes: Wikipedia Library finding success in matching contributors with
sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-03-05/News_and_notes
Traffic report: Brinksmen on the brink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-03-05/Traffic_report
Dear community
I am very pleased to be able to announce that the board of Wikimedia UK has
formally adopted a five year strategy for the charity:
https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Overview_of_strategy
The strategy sets out not only our mission ('to help people and organisations
create and
Hi everyone,
I thought it may be worth pointing out that this conversation has be
re-opened by Jimmy on
reddit:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/201fa6/hello_from_jimmy_wales_of_wikipedia/http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/201fa6/hello_from_jimmy_wales_of_wikipedia/
On it he
Jimmy's already noted this is WRONG, but the erroneous Telegraph story
reads:
Wikipedia charity begins accepting Bitcoin donations after co-founder
Jimmy Wales set up a personal account to play around with digital
currency and was swamped with cash
sarcasm
Wow, we've made an entire 1.6k out of bitcoin? This totally seems like the
highest-value way to spend our time! Thanks, Bitcoin! I'm sure that the
value of these items won't wildly vary in short spaces of time based on
things like, oh, your propensity to have banking neophytes host your
Charles Gregory, 10/03/2014 14:26:
On it he states I'm planning to re-open the conversation with the
Wikimedia Foundation Board of Directors at our next meeting (and before, by
email) about whether Wikimedia should accept bitcoin. More info at the
thread itself.
What's the board of directors?
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 11:02 AM, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:
sarcasm
Wow, we've made an entire 1.6k out of bitcoin? This totally seems like the
highest-value way to spend our time! Thanks, Bitcoin! I'm sure that the
value of these items won't wildly vary in short spaces of time
Another point of view is that the knowledge doesn’t (shouldn’t) depend in
any way of the local government -- possibly it can be viewed differently
from a culture to another but that’s a cultural question not related to
censorship.
Moreover it would be a censorship practice close to the
On 03/10/2014 11:30, Seb35 wrote:
Another point of view is that the knowledge doesn’t (shouldn’t) depend
in any way of the local government -- possibly it can be viewed
differently from a culture to another but that’s a cultural question
not related to censorship.
Moreover it would be a
Closed isn't the best word, but do most people know what 'read only' means?
From: peter.southw...@telkomsa.net
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 12:32:56 +0200
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] the big red notice on the top of
http://strategy.wikimedia.org - done
Makes
Probably not. How about 'archived'?
Thanks,
Mike
On 10 Mar 2014, at 22:22, User Mono userm...@outlook.com wrote:
Closed isn't the best word, but do most people know what 'read only' means?
From: peter.southw...@telkomsa.net
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014
Why not? People know what the words 'read' and 'only' mean. Putting them
together should be pretty self explanatory: It can only be read.
On 10/03/14 22:32, Michael Peel wrote:
Probably not. How about 'archived'?
Thanks,
Mike
On 10 Mar 2014, at 22:22, User Mono userm...@outlook.com wrote:
Maybe. I worry that it is computer jargon - but perhaps what I suggested is
historian jargon...
Thanks,
Mike
On 10 Mar 2014, at 22:33, Isarra Yos zhoris...@gmail.com wrote:
Why not? People know what the words 'read' and 'only' mean. Putting them
together should be pretty self explanatory:
On 3/10/2014 3:36 PM, Michael Peel wrote:
Maybe. I worry that it is computer jargon - but perhaps what I suggested is
historian jargon...
It's not so much jargon that's the problem - it's that nearly all
websites are read-only, and to some visitors it will be rather puzzling
why we should go
On 10 Mar 2014, at 22:42, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote:
On 3/10/2014 3:36 PM, Michael Peel wrote:
Maybe. I worry that it is computer jargon - but perhaps what I suggested is
historian jargon...
It's not so much jargon that's the problem - it's that nearly all websites
are
@ Yana. You write But we hope to make them all freely licensed eventually
and have already done so for newer logos (e.g. the new Wikivoyage logo).
But commons does not reflect this
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Please advise?
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The
I'm confused about what you mean? The Wikivoyage logo for example is
certainly marked as free
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikivoyage-logo.svg can you clarify?
James Alexander
Legal and Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation
(415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at
My apologies. You are indeed correct.
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
18 matches
Mail list logo
