Ehm, that looks great, but I have no idea what a project is and how to
I join? The talk page on the Edit_Review_Improvements has just some
suggestions? How is communication being done here? Sorry if this is
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Brill Lyle
On Jun 28, 2016 00:42, "MZMcBride" wrote:
> Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
> >this is an update on the work of the Board Governance Committee over the
> >last months that some of you have requested.
> Thank you for this update!
Warmly seconded. Following up on
On top of the formal announcement, I’d like to share a few personal
Katherine Maher has been interim ED of the Wikimedia Foundation since
March. In the past few months, we’ve had the pleasure to witness her
ability to provide healthy leadership to Wikimedia Foundation
Saw this on the latest issue of Tech News (
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tech/News/2016/26). Thought it might be
interest as it's directly related to this thread.
see also: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/edit-review-improvements/
I'm an infrequent editor. Naively, I don't understand:
1. Why the author's attempt at a discussion/clarification was ignored
2. Given point #1, why this was deleted *so* quickly, when it was merely
"insignificant", and not actively harmful (e.g. copyright violation)
3. Given point #1, why the
Without weighing in on the specific's of Mitar's case, I think this is a
good suggestion. I created my first Wikipedia article in 2009, after I'd
been registered on the site for a few months but only had a few edits to
my name. My article was on a living musician/composer, and was,
Hi, how about a wikipedia about objects?
Instead of generic articles of , for example, "Ballpoint pen" or "Bic
cristal" it would be "Ballpoint pen Bic cristal 2014"
Doing these for millions of objects would allow people to have an open,
free, universal and central place to refer specific
Brill Lyle писал 2016-06-27 04:24:
That said, it's down to the quality of the first draft. In this
the draft, in my opinion, did a disservice to the subject. Although
were good citations, the content of the page was not strong enough or
developed enough to reflect what