Ask yourself why you do not get it as you describe them as "noisy". There
is a photo of a presentation at the London Wikimania going round that
describes it well. It is a long time coming and the chickens have come home
Indeed they are not learning the appropriate lessons but they
On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 5:03 PM Ad Huikeshoven wrote:
> The Wikimedia Foundation took a bold step in banning Fram for a year. They
> have the authority to do so. They are not obliged to give reasons.
Here's a fundamental source of disagreement. It gets at something I'm not
How is banning an user for 1 year for secrete reasons a "bold step"?
What's the educative value of it? How does it advance any of those
strategic objectives you mention there?
Ad Huikeshoven escreveu no dia domingo, 16/06/2019
> We are in a turbulent episode on this mailing
We are in a turbulent episode on this mailing list and en.wp. I don't claim
to speak for the community. I wish everybody can speak for themselves.
Some people don't like the Wikimedia Foundation stepping in and banning an
user for a specific project for a year. Most people don't react, while some
Honestly I cannot imagine a functional Wikipedia citing itself.
Such Wikipedia would be so easy to trick.
Il giorno dom 16 giu 2019 alle ore 16:54 Martijn Hoekstra <
martijnhoeks...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> I disagree that Wikipedia not considering Wikipedia as an admissible source
There is a picture of Jimmy Wales giving a talk at a Wikimania explicitly
talking about the situation that is here being considered. A person can be
a wonderful editor and a toxic personality. What is happening is not new,
it is coming to a head. When you, the English Wikipedia "community"
I think it's a good question.
The first thing, I think, is to regain the community's trust, which has
been very badly damaged at this point. I only see one way for them to do
that, and that is to back off, sooner rather than later. Ensure the
community that this will not happen again, at least
I disagree that Wikipedia not considering Wikipedia as an admissible source
is indicative of Wikipedia being a failure.
On Sun, Jun 16, 2019, 14:18 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> Dear all,
> The discussion triggered by recent WMF T actions has tended to focus on
It is not so much Wikipedia that is failing, it is the Wikipedia "business
as usual" attitude that is failing. The challenge we face is now that we
know and expect that things are to change, how do we introduce change and
steer it in a way where people feel less threatened by the usual
The discussion triggered by recent WMF T actions has tended to focus on
the merits or otherwise of that specific action (even though as I have
pointed out elsewhere this is very much a case of those who know don;t talk
and those who talk don't know). So I though it might be helpful to
Mail list logo