Yes, that would be very welcome by all contributors reviewing images.
On Tue, 18 Jun 2019, 22:29 James Heilman, wrote:
> So Yann should we as a community just build something as a proof of
> concept? If we are talking less than 250 USD per month, I am sure we can
> scrounge up
Ahh so. Thank you for thinking about this and sharing the results of your
On Tue., Jun. 18, 2019, 10:36 a.m. Ted Chien, wrote:
> Hi all,
> Regarding to the recent Hong Kong Extradition Bill, Wikimedia Taiwan has
> issued the following statement, please have a read.
Nice work. It will take time, but keep it up.
On Thu., Jun. 6, 2019, 10:05 p.m. Thomas Shafee,
> Some more notes, responses and thoughts on the topics raised above!
> *Impact and reach*
> I fully agree that impact factor is of primary importance to many
> researchers. However, many
So Yann should we as a community just build something as a proof of
concept? If we are talking less than 250 USD per month, I am sure we can
scrounge up the money for a trial 6 month trial.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 2:59 AM Yann Forget wrote:
> Yes, James' pricing doesn't match the
Regarding to the recent Hong Kong Extradition Bill, Wikimedia Taiwan has
issued the following statement, please have a read.
Wikimedia Taiwan requests the attention of Wikimedia Foundation and global
communities of Wikimedia movement to the Hong Kong Extradition Bill related
What I'm saying is this: setting meeting the reliable sources policy of
wikipedia as a condition for success, or not meeting that policy as
evidence of failure is ridiculous.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019, 14:29 Mister Thrapostibongles <
> Martin, Dennis
I've never seen a self-citing encyclopedia.
Given its open editing structure it would be so easy to game the system by
creating a series of cross-references. In short forbidding citing Wikipedia
on Wikipedia avoids such short-circuits.
No text is 100% accurate, Wikipedia relies upon the bet that
The tenor of your arguments appears to be that Wikipedia is in fact
reliable, because it uses reliable sources, but that it pretends not to be
because it's too hard to prevent people writing article based on other
articles. This is not in accord with the facts. As I pointed out,
*"My main takeaway from this discussion would be that it's good if there is
a neutral review option for actions by the T team (or the WMF in
general), such as an ombudsperson."*
I think this is a very good idea, last Saturday we talked about an internal
audit for this,
(Doc James is too modest to give himself credit, so it falls to me to point
out that the tool was his own idea; I witnessed the birth of it at
Wikimania 2014, when I connected him to Eran, who implemented the first
version of the tool before the end of the conference.)
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019
Yes, James' pricing doesn't match the actual cost.
We do not need to check all images uploaded to Commons, only the suspicious
ones (small images without EXIF data).
If we check 2,000 images a day (more than enough IMO), that would cost $7 a
day, so $210 a month.
Le mar. 18
Mail list logo