On 14 June 2012 16:36, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:07 PM, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote:
I am not asking for full disclosure, what I am asking is that established
user have the right to be notified when and why they are being
checkusered.
The evidence
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I do see where folks are coming from. To the best of my knowledge, for the
past few years on English Wikipedia anyone who has asked the Audit
Subcommittee if they have been checked has been told the correct response,
and I
I do see where folks are coming from. To the best of my knowledge, for the
past few years on English Wikipedia anyone who has asked the Audit
Subcommittee if they have been checked has been told the correct response,
and I think this is a good thing.
On the other hand, what's being proposed
If you go to http://donate.wikimedia.org.uk/ you can donate… insecurely.
If you go to https://donate.wikimedia.org.uk/ you can donate… but you get an
SSL certificate error.
This seems like a problem.
--
Tom Morris
http://tommorris.org/
___
I do apologise. I meant to send this to Wikimediauk-l rather than Wikimedia-l.
--
Tom Morris
http://tommorris.org/
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
I think the idea that making the log of checks public will be a service
to those subject to CheckUser is misguided. One of the best reasons for
keeping the logs private is not security through obscurity but the
prevention of unwarranted stigma and drama. Most checks (which aren't
just scanning
No that is not a fair characterization. Risker explained that these things are
handled by each project, not hide her true intentions toward your campaign, but
because it ii the way things are. And it is not at all particular to CU
issues. What really reeks of obfuscation is using words and
I think the idea that making the log of checks public will necessarily
be a service to those subject to CheckUser is misguided. One of the best
reasons for keeping the logs private is not security through obscurity
but the prevention of unwarranted stigma and drama. Most checks (which
aren't
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 8:06 PM, Dominic McDevitt-Parks
mcdev...@gmail.comwrote:
I think the idea that making the log of checks public will necessarily be
a service to those subject to CheckUser is misguided. One of the best
reasons for keeping the logs private is not security through
The request--at least the original request here-- was not that they be
made public. The request was that they be disclosed to the person
being checkusered,. There is thus no stigmatization or drama. That it
might upset the subject to tell him the truth is paternalism.
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at
Hi Nathan,
For a moment, let's suppose that there is a global policy that all CU checks
must be disclosed to the person being checked, with the information
disclosed in private email, and only consisting of the date of the check and
the user who performed the check. What benefit does this
Two points that might help bring people on different sides of the
issue closer together.
1. How about notifying people that they have been check-usered 2
months after the fact? By that time I hope all investigations are
complete, and is the risk of tipping off the nefarious should be over.
2.
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:52 AM, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com
wrote:
Two points that might help bring people on different sides of the
issue closer together.
1. How about notifying people that they have been check-usered 2
months after the fact? By that time I hope all
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 11:40 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 June 2012 16:19, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 June 2012 20:36, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
Least surprise is one way to try and get around this problem of not
relying on the
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Stephanie Daugherty
sdaughe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:52 AM, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com
wrote:
Two points that might help bring people on different sides of the
issue closer together.
1. How about notifying people that
Am I correct to summorise here than that CU works because people don't
know it doesn't?
Almost. It works because people don't know how, don't care how, or don't
think they are attracting enough attention to avoid being targeted.
___
Wikimedia-l
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 2:22 AM, En Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi Nathan,
For a moment, let's suppose that there is a global policy that all CU
checks must be disclosed to the person being checked, with the information
disclosed in private email, and only consisting of the date of
Am 14.06.2012 19:31, schrieb geni:
On 14 June 2012 18:01, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, but this is called editorial judgement
No its called censorship. Or at least it will be called censorship by
enough people to make any debate not worth the effort.
It is called censorship right
On 15 June 2012 13:15, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
I argued at some time that if there was a strong need for such a filter that
there would already services in place that would filter the content or
images. So far i have seen some very week approaches using the Google
On Friday, 15 June 2012 at 13:21, David Gerard wrote:
I don't recall seeing any, but did anyone actually explain why the
market had not provided a filtering solution for Wikipedia, if there's
actually a demand for one?
Market failures do sometimes exist.
Also, because as far as I can tell,
On 15 June 2012 04:55, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Supposedly, the data only survives 3 months. If data is being
retained much longer than this for investigations that go on for months
on the checkuser wiki, that's concerning.
We have well-known trolls and repeat vandals who have been
Hi Nathan,
For a moment, let's suppose that there is a global policy that all CU
checks must be disclosed to the person being checked, with the
information
disclosed in private email, and only consisting of the date of the check
and the user who performed the check. What benefit does this
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 1:21 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 June 2012 13:15, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com
wrote:
I argued at some time that if there was a strong need for such a filter
that
there would already services in place that would filter the
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 9:51 PM, ENWP Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi Nathan,
For a moment, let's suppose that there is a global policy that all CU
checks must be disclosed to the person being checked, with the
information
disclosed in private email, and only consisting of the date
Looking into it. Thanks for the notice!
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 5:46 PM, James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com wrote:
... == Visitors and Guests ==
Visitors to the WMF office in May 2012
1. Jocelyn Berl (NexGenEdu)
Jocelyn was visiting on behalf of hackthefuture.org, not NextGenEdu.
I would
I do hear and understand the argument here, but it is somewhat
problematic to have to have the argument if we do this, we'll be
handing over information to sockpuppeteers we don't want them to have,
and we can't tell you what that information is, because otherwise
we'll be handing over
Dear Wikimedians,
The final round for the 2011 Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year
contest is now open!
The 36 images were chosen from the first round, thanks to voters like
you. In order to determine the very best picture of the remaining
candidates, you have exactly one vote left.
The
I also want to say something good. I think the fact that the
fundraising team is using multivariate analysis instead of simple A/B
testing now is beyond good, it's just spectacular. A/B testing was
excruciatingly slow, and this is a huge advance. I hope it means that
all the banner text
Am 15.06.2012 23:22, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 1:21 PM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't recall seeing any, but did anyone actually explain why the
market had not provided a filtering solution for Wikipedia, if there's
actually a demand for one?
(IIRC the
On Saturday, 16 June 2012 at 20:21, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
That means they already found a solution to their problem that includes
the whole web at once. As you might have noticed it isn't perfect. I
guess that it could be easily improved over time. But the image filter
had an different goal.
Am 16.06.2012 23:36, schrieb Tom Morris:
On Saturday, 16 June 2012 at 20:21, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
That means they already found a solution to their problem that includes
the whole web at once. As you might have noticed it isn't perfect. I
guess that it could be easily improved over time. But
On Saturday, 16 June 2012 at 23:51, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
Am 16.06.2012 23:36, schrieb Tom Morris:
On Saturday, 16 June 2012 at 20:21, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
That means they already found a solution to their problem that includes
the whole web at once. As you might have noticed it
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
On Friday, 15 June 2012 at 13:21, David Gerard wrote:
I don't recall seeing any, but did anyone actually explain why the
market had not provided a filtering solution for Wikipedia, if there's
actually a demand for one?
I have never seen a censorware that works
flawlessly (not even china can do this right). Either it allows to much
(incomplete blacklist) or it is unnecessary limited (incomplete whitelist
producing angry mob). Additionally it has to suite the view of the parents
and match the age of the
Am 17.06.2012 01:21, schrieb Anthony:
I have never seen a censorware that works
flawlessly (not even china can do this right). Either it allows to much
(incomplete blacklist) or it is unnecessary limited (incomplete whitelist
producing angry mob). Additionally it has to suite the view of the
* Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
Am 17.06.2012 01:21, schrieb Anthony:
I have never seen a censorware that works
flawlessly (not even china can do this right). Either it allows to much
(incomplete blacklist) or it is unnecessary limited (incomplete whitelist
producing angry mob). Additionally it has
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
Am 17.06.2012 01:21, schrieb Anthony:
I have never seen a censorware that works
flawlessly (not even china can do this right). Either it allows to much
(incomplete blacklist) or it is unnecessary limited
Anthony, 17/06/2012 05:05:
I still would have been confused. Still am, actually. Did this
paragraph have a serious point at all? I hope so, because Wikipedia's
porn problem is a serious issue.
The point was, I think, that no software is perfect (not even parents'
brain) and that parents
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 3:11 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
Anthony, 17/06/2012 05:05:
I still would have been confused. Still am, actually. Did this
paragraph have a serious point at all? I hope so, because Wikipedia's
porn problem is a serious issue.
The point was,
On 17 June 2012 13:21, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
No software is perfect. No solution is perfect. But don't let the
perfect be the enemy of the good.
You're assuming that a good exists for this function. This
assumption is entirely unsubstantiated.
- d.
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 9:14 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 June 2012 13:21, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
No software is perfect. No solution is perfect. But don't let the
perfect be the enemy of the good.
You're assuming that a good exists for this function. This
On 15 June 2012 13:21, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't recall seeing any, but did anyone actually explain why the
market had not provided a filtering solution for Wikipedia, if there's
actually a demand for one?
I think we had this conversation almost a year ago ;-)
On 17 June 2012 14:50, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
In short: the almost complete absence of anyone doing *anything*
clever in terms of reusing and repurposing our content strongly
suggests that there are practical barriers to doing so in general,
rather than the flaws with
On 17 June 2012 14:53, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 June 2012 14:50, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
In short: the almost complete absence of anyone doing *anything*
clever in terms of reusing and repurposing our content strongly
suggests that there are practical
On 17 June 2012 15:43, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
As there are no major and well-used forks at all, we can't reasonably
draw inferences of the desirability of a specific project from its
non-existence - we simply don't have the information to make that
conclusion. This
On 17 June 2012 14:14, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 June 2012 13:21, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
No software is perfect. No solution is perfect. But don't let the
perfect be the enemy of the good.
You're assuming that a good exists for this function. This
assumption
Am 17.06.2012 17:16, schrieb Anthony:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 10:48 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote:
So I think my question - if this is so obviously the
right thing, then where are the existing attempts? - still stands as
relevant.
The fact that it is the right thing isn't obvious,
Tilman,
Thanks for the report.
I would like to suggest that for the foreseeable future (not just for June),
these monthly reports should include a fuller set of updates on the editor
engagement and retention efforts. My understanding is that this is a high
priority effort for WMF, it seems
Andrew Gray, 17/06/2012 15:50:
In short: the almost complete absence of anyone doing *anything*
clever in terms of reusing and repurposing our content strongly
suggests that there are practical barriers to doing so in general,
rather than the flaws with any specific model of what it is they want
It may well be that the trends are distorted due to major bug in wikistats.
That bug has been isolated, but we need 7-10 days to regenerate all reports.
See also
http://infodisiac.com/blog/2012/06/wikistats-editor-counts-are-broken/
Sorry for the confusion and inconvenience.
Erik Zachte
Am 17.06.2012 21:41, schrieb Federico Leva (Nemo):
Andrew Gray, 17/06/2012 15:50:
In short: the almost complete absence of anyone doing *anything*
clever in terms of reusing and repurposing our content strongly
suggests that there are practical barriers to doing so in general,
rather than the
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
It didn't even need to be complete fork. A whitelist copy would most likely
already be sufficient for your needs. It would automatically update any
article on a white list after a quick review (like sighted
Erik,
Thanks for replying. Let me make sure that I understand. The graph at
http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/graphs/new_editors isn’t affected by the bug, and
we still believe that we have a declining number of new editors per month.
However, the graphs for the number of active editors may be
Am 18.06.2012 00:40, schrieb Anthony:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 1:04 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
It didn't even need to be complete fork. A whitelist copy would most likely
already be sufficient for your needs. It would automatically update any
article on a white
On Monday, 18 June 2012 at 02:44, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
Every stupid bot could do this. There is no running out of the box
solution at the moment, but the effort to set up something like this
would be minimal compared to anything else.
I would say that Citizendium failed because they did
On 18 June 2012 08:00, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
{{sofixit}}
If all the people in favour of filters had spent their time building them
rather than arguing about them, we would have had a wide array of different
solutions, without any politics or drama.
The problem there is the
Am 18.06.2012 09:21, schrieb David Gerard:
On 18 June 2012 08:00, Tom Morrist...@tommorris.org wrote:
{{sofixit}}
If all the people in favour of filters had spent their time building them
rather than arguing about them, we would have had a wide array of different
solutions, without any
On 18 June 2012 12:39, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 June 2012 12:29, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com
wrote:
I guess Tom misunderstood my comment. I wrote down a simple plan how an
external solution could work and how to minimize the effort to maintain
it.
On 18 June 2012 12:41, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 18 June 2012 12:39, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
The Board acted according to the Harris report, which just said to do
it on the site itself:
On 18 June 2012 12:42, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 June 2012 12:41, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 18 June 2012 12:39, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
The Board acted according to the Harris report, which just said to do
it on the site itself:
Am 18.06.2012 13:52, schrieb Thomas Morton:
On 18 June 2012 08:00, Tom Morrist...@tommorris.org wrote:
On Monday, 18 June 2012 at 02:44, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
Every stupid bot could do this. There is no running out of the box
solution at the moment, but the effort to set up something like
It is not convincing since it interferes with the work of our editors
that aren't interested in such a feature.
Seems unlikely. Although please feel to expand on this with specifics.
If we tag images inside the project itself then we impose our judgment
onto it, while ignoring or
Am 18.06.2012 15:06, schrieb Thomas Morton:
It is not convincing since it interferes with the work of our editors
that aren't interested in such a feature.
Seems unlikely. Although please feel to expand on this with specifics.
Any tagging by non neutral definitions would interfere with
On 18 June 2012 15:16, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.comwrote:
Am 18.06.2012 15:06, schrieb Thomas Morton:
It is not convincing since it interferes with the work of our editors
that aren't interested in such a feature.
Seems unlikely. Although please feel to expand on this
If all the people in favour of filters had spent their time building them
rather than arguing about them, we would have had a wide array of different
solutions, without any politics or drama.
That said, if people want to filter Wikipedia, a client-side solution
rather than a filtered mirror
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
Forwarding this from the CC-licenses list. The WMF should explore
what impact, if any, one-way CC-BY-SA to GPL compatibility would have
on WMF projects. Is anyone at the WMF talking to CC/FSF about this?
I've been paying
Nathan, 13/06/2012 20:37:
In my view, no. I think we need to balance the risk argument for
anonymity (dissidents, whistleblowers, people editing topics they wouldn't
want to be publicly associated with, etc.) with the benefits of partial
anonymity. Among these benefits I'd cite the many news
Just a reminder about the office hours coming up on Thursday this week. The
topic for this session has been expanded to include all Foundation-run
Wikipedia Education Program initiatives, which take place in the U.S., Canada,
Brazil, Egypt, and India.
Like all IRC office hours, the format will
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
Am 18.06.2012 14:49, schrieb Anthony:
Have you ever tried to do this? It's not as easy as you are making it
sound, at least it wasn't as of a few years ago, because Mediawiki is
tightly coupled to the
Am 19.06.2012 01:39, schrieb Anthony:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
Am 18.06.2012 14:49, schrieb Anthony:
Have you ever tried to do this? It's not as easy as you are making it
sound, at least it wasn't as of a few years ago, because
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
Am 18.06.2012 14:49, schrieb Anthony:
And considering the heavy use of templates which are
Wikipedia-specific, presumably you're going to allow for *some*
hand-editing.
That would be something else than i
A belated reply...
Some new recent developments:
A labs environment was set up:
http://en.wikisource.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/Main_Page
In the San Francisco hackathon work was done on this:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Hackathon_January_2012/ProofRead
I plan to work on it more in
I'm actually really shocked that the speedy deletion wiki doesn't have
a copy of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Juclandia - there's
an excellent version of the article on
http://microwiki.org.uk/index.php?title=Juclandia , though, so all is
not lost. [it seems to be a monstrously
This is great! Forwarding to wikimedia-l.
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 6:17 AM, Ariel T. Glenn ar...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Folks who are interested in downloading tarballs of media for their
particular project can now do so from:
http://ftpmirror.your.org/pub/wikimedia/imagedumps/tarballs/
In
Well, lets see the speedy deletion wiki was just launched,
15 December 2010 it was deleted. I will have to make a plan for
getting older articles, they would be possible to get, but it is
outside of our time window right now.
mike
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:48 AM, David Richfield
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
Am 18.06.2012 15:06, schrieb Thomas Morton:
I don't think that we need this argument since the filter can't replace
parents anyway. But it is a constant part of the discussions with various
exaggerated
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
Am 18.06.2012 15:06, schrieb Thomas Morton:
I don't think that we need this argument since the filter can't replace
parents
Hi.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM9p4o050EY
Someone sent this to me earlier this week. It's a ten-minute cartoon video
that discusses purpose and motivation. The video lightly touches on
technical projects such as Wikipedia, Apache, and Linux and focuses on the
research into why people spend
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
My middle one can very
briefly go online alone to a few sites I've already agreed to, and I
check up on her a lot.
Is Wikipedia one of those few sites?
But the whole point is, that's -my- job, not anyone else's, just
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 7:05 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Hi.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM9p4o050EY
Someone sent this to me earlier this week. It's a ten-minute cartoon video
that discusses purpose and motivation. The video lightly touches on
technical projects such as
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
My middle one can very
briefly go online alone to a few sites I've already agreed to, and I
check up on her a lot.
Is Wikipedia one of those few sites?
Dear all,
a full English translation of Wikimedia Deutschland's 2011 annual report[1]
is available at Wikimedia Commons. Giving you a 40-page equivalent to the
German original report[2] (instead of a summary) is a first for Wikimedia
Deutschland.
[1]
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
My middle one can very
briefly go online alone to a few sites I've already agreed
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, actually, along with several other educational ones, some with
children's games, her school website, etc. The chances that she would
randomly stumble across a sexual image on Wikipedia are -vanishingly-
slim, ...
Wow! This is such an interesting and cool project and I wish you all the best
with it! It would be truly wonderful if Wikipedia finally could get a better
coverage about Africa!
John Andersson
Wikimedia Sweden
From: adrienne.a...@wikimedia.fr
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 22:47:14 +0200
To:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 1:57 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, actually, along with several other educational ones, some with
children's games, her school website, etc. The chances that she would
randomly
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
{{sofixit}}, just like any area with NPOV/undue weight issues.
The next day someone will fix it back. - Douglas Hofstadter
Good for him. Care to summarize his argument? I don't particularly
care to watch his video, or for
The following translation are now available for the May 2012
Wikimedia Highlights, which combine some of the most relevant
information from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia
engineering report for May with a selection of other important events
from the Wikimedia movement. Help is
A new project by Google to protect endangered languages around the world:
http://www.endangeredlanguages.com
English blog post:
http://googleblog.blogspot.com.es/2012/06/endangered-languages-project-supporting.html
Spanish translation:
Reply-To:
References: CAHRTtW_LoeHFcPb6vUmw7BwOqJECuvSR1-gqNWcC7kmZ=nf...@mail.gmail.com
In-Reply-To:
CAHRTtW_LoeHFcPb6vUmw7BwOqJECuvSR1-gqNWcC7kmZ=nf...@mail.gmail.com
Andreas Kolbe
As Seth Finkelstein pointed out the other day, there is opposition to
pornography both from the right, on a
license under the cc-by-3.0, see http://www.endangeredlanguages.com/tos/
Chinese wikipedia: http://zh.wikipedia.org/
My blog: http://shizhao.org
twitter: https://twitter.com/shizhao
[[zh:User:Shizhao]]
2012/6/21 Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com
Brilliant. The WM language committee and/or
Forwarding on behalf of Bence.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:41 PM
Subject: [Movementroles] Input on new models
Hi all,
Currently, the Chapters/Affiliations Committee is considering the
procedural elements needed for
Samuel Klein, 21/06/2012 16:07:
Brilliant. The WM language committee and/or lenguasoriginarias might
want to apply to join the Alliance for Linguistic Diversity.
http://www.endangeredlanguages.com/about/#about_alliance
Are they actually doing something or is this only a showcase-site/forum?
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:28 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
Heh. Sorry, I have to laugh any time I hear a...person heavily versed
in Wikipedia-speak...use the word consensus.
That's the way the project works. You
Child porn is illegal, that's been upheld by the Supreme Court
repeatedly, end of discussion. If 2257 were similarly upheld to apply
even in circumstances of educational/artistic work, I suppose we'd
similarly have to follow it like it or not, but it is untested in such
areas, and I suspect
wow, really fantastic! Sounds like pioneer-work!
hubertl
Am 20.06.2012 22:43, schrieb Adrienne Alix:
[Apologize for cross posting... ]
Hello,
Wikimedia France is very happy to announce a great new project :
A partnership has been formalized on last Friday between Wikimédia
France,
2012/6/21 Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com:
Incidentally, a Commons copyright specialist is currently being banned for
copyright specialist?
Is this supposed to be a joke? A 4th degree sargasm? An alien way of
defining a specialist? Or anything else?
Yann
(cut nonsense rethoric about the PK
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
Many images on Wikipedia have been taken without the subject's genuine
consent. So surely that isn't the issue.
Many are transferred to Commons from
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
Secondly, I'm not talking just about sexually explicit photos.
Wikipedia has photos of people being or about to be [[behead]]ed,
[[torture]]d, [[kidnap]]ped, [[assassination]]ed, etc. I checked, and
there's no photograph of
401 - 500 of 37056 matches
Mail list logo
