Mike,
With all due respect to your longstanding work on internet issues, you said
there were no facts to support an argument that zero-rating one product,
when all others are subject to a consumer charge, suppresses competition.
I pointed out that Lohninger, AccessNow and EFF consider it obvious
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Anders Wennersten wrote:
> I can agree on the dilemma you present.
>
> But would not a better solution then the close down on Wikipedia Zero, be
> to close down the projects that is not run "compatible with the values
> underlying the idea of a free and open web"?
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> It should be noted that the Federal Communications Commission, in its
> recent Report and Order requiring network neutrality for American
> telcos and service providers, expressly refused to draw a categorical
> conclusion whether zero-rated s
The recent Newsweek story on the Wifione / IIPM admin corruption case[1]
has clear implications for Wikipedia Zero.
Wikipedia Zero creates hundreds of millions of passive Wikipedia users who:
- Cannot see the sources of a Wikipedia article (I believe SMS users cannot
even see which statements *ar
I find the term "Advancement Department" has a somewhat Orwellian ring.
The FAQ mentions that –
The new role is focused on creating value for the Wikimedia movement and on
supporting our ability to fulfil our mission. Value can be understood in
many different ways. We believe that it can be about
On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 12:10 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 9:11 PM, Megan Hernandez > wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Here's a quick follow up on a couple issues from this thread.
>>
>> The fundraising team will be posting feedback an
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:34 PM, John Mark Vandenberg
wrote:
> Andreas' idea should be written
> up as an IdeaLab project, or research grant proposal, etc.
>
Thanks. For those interested in getting involved, I've added it on IdeaLab:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Wikipedia_Fr
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Thyge wrote:
> I do not think that WMF's filing a suit against NSA should be a starting
> point for demanding the WMF to cure all the evils of the World, political
> or otherwise.
>
Well, not all the evils of the world, obviously. :) But there is certainly
prece
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 11:55 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 10:14 PM, Andreas Kolbe
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 5:53 PM, phoebe ayers
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> What other unfortunate laws are
>>> happening el
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 10:14 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 5:53 PM, phoebe ayers
> wrote:
>
>
>> What other unfortunate laws are
>> happening elsewhere in the world and how do we track and maybe act on
>> those?
>
>
Here is a concret
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 5:53 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
> What other unfortunate laws are
> happening elsewhere in the world and how do we track and maybe act on
> those?
I gave a very specific example in an earlier post this month:[1]
"A [Kazakh] law that took effect in January 2012 required ow
Steven Walling has written an interesting answer on Quora about one aspect
of the New York Times op-ed, i.e. the threat NSA surveillance supposedly
poses to Wikipedians living under oppressive regimes:
https://www.quora.com/Would-stopping-NSA-surveillance-really-make-Wikipedia-editors-living-under
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 5:03 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
> How does the Wikimedia Foundation intend to protect the rights of
> users around the world when it will have a nearly impossible time of
> protecting Americans, much less non-Americans? U.S. courts and the U.S.
> Congress have made it very clear
Dear Viswa,
Thank you for letting us know, and for writing such a beautiful text in
memory of your friend. Please send my condolences to his son.
Much love,
Andreas
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 3:07 PM, ViswaPrabha (വിശ്വപ്രഭ)
wrote:
> Dear Wikimedians all over the world,
>
> One of our stalwarts at
Just as a postscript to the Belfer Center affair, regular readers will
remember that Russavia wrote in March 2014[1] that –
*The Stanton Foundation has been a long-term donor to the Wikimedia
Foundation [...] Stanton has no website, and apart from several
high-profile grants to the Wikimedia Foun
Thanks, Romaine. Your thoughts on the gender gap echo some of my own, as
expressed here:
http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/08/26/why-women-have-no-time-for-wikipedia/
I've taken the liberty of crossposting the relevant parts of your post to
the Gendergap list:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/
On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 10:38 AM, Rjd0060 wrote:
> Unfortunately, backlogs
> can occasionally crop up and take a bit of time to deal with, especially in
> the more complicated e-mails (like BLPs), that can take up to an hour to
> process.
Just for the avoidance of doubt – when you say these e-
While this may be a different OTRS queue, people have told me in the past
that OTRS can take weeks to reply, even in the case of acute BLP problems
such as the one described in this BBC Newsnight interview (time code 2:54):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg9O-e5KGdQ#t=174
I've heard this both fr
+1.
Here are some more questions that I would be interested in having answers
to:
-- What do women who are presently editing find most demotivating about
contributing to Wikipedia?
-- Have they ever thought of throwing in the towel, and what were the
reasons?
-- Based on past experience, what a
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 9:11 PM, Megan Hernandez
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Here's a quick follow up on a couple issues from this thread.
>
> The fundraising team will be posting feedback analysis on March 1.
>
Thanks, Megan. I look forward to your feedback analysis.
> To clear up some confusion a
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 1:32 AM, Megan Hernandez
wrote:
> We will share an update on this analysis when it
> is complete, which will be a part of future discussions around fundraising
> practices.
>
Can we have a date please by which you will share this update?
I am sorry to have to ask you th
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
wrote:
> As for the fundraiser's duration, I believe the 2014 fundraiser ran for 30
>> days (December 2 to December 31, 2014).
>>
>
> That's certainly incorrect. https://frdata.wikimedia.org/
> campaign-vs-amount.csv shows about 200 campaigns
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 4:09 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
> >Because according to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_2013 –
> >
> >"In 2012, we were able to shorten the fundraiser down to nine full days,
> >the shortest fundraiser we've had."
>
> I'm not sure about that Meta-Wiki page's claim sp
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 12:59 AM, Risker wrote:
> On 12 January 2015 at 15:59, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> > >
> > > > On 12 Jan 2015, at 11:25 pm, Liam Wyatt wrote:
> > > > Now that the 2014 Fundraising campaign has finished and which,
> > accordin
>
> > On 12 Jan 2015, at 11:25 pm, Liam Wyatt wrote:
> > Now that the 2014 Fundraising campaign has finished and which, according
> to
> > a WMF blogpost from a week ago, "surpassed our goal of $20 million"
>
According to the data provided at https://frdata.wikimedia.org/ the
Foundation seems to
On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Megan Hernandez
wrote:
> The blue banners at the top of the page do show up more than one time. If
> you close these banners, you won't see anymore banners.
>
That's not my experience here. I've clicked the blue banner away at least
three or four times this mon
An e-mail comment from Jimmy Wales, quoted just now in a Digital Spy
article[1]:
"I'm happy to inform you that our current fundraiser is the most successful
in our entire history."
The bottom line is that the present banners are evidently more effective at
monetising the brand than those used in
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Liam Wyatt wrote:
>
> *Fundraising "operating principles"*
> I would like to reiterate my call to see us develop some practical
> "operating principles" for fundraising that would give some real-world
> guidelines for website-banners and emails. Board of Trustees
Just seen online:
http://emptylighthouse.com/wikipedia-asks-users-help-keep-it-ad-free-fundraiser-344432888
---o0o---
If you've visited *Wikipedia.org* any time today you will have met up with
a *plea from the website. In order for the company to stay ad-free they
have appealed to their users fo
Thanks for this, Phoebe. It's a good summary.
(And if you could be so kind as to nudge Tilman about the 2012 editor
survey data - it's been over two years - and let the Gendergap list know
what the gender split was in that survey, it would be much appreciated.)
Andreas
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 6:1
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 11:49 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
> Personally speaking: I happen to like this year's banners, more than
> last year's. The boxes and disclaimers are clearer, the text is to the
> point. And yes, I think the messaging is accurate. This is the text
> I'm seeing in the U.S. at th
Lila, when you say, "pilot with one of our next user groups", when would
this pilot happen, and whom/how many people would this pilot "user group"
comprise?
Best,
Andreas
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 5:57 PM, Lila Tretikov wrote:
> I recommend those of you who would like to come up with some test wor
I have no doubt that the banners work. But in the opinion of a number of
commentators here, the banners currently feature a very alarming wording –
making it sound as though there is not enough money to keep Wikipedia
online for another year without introducing advertising – and yet we know
that th
Good points.
Many people feel sincere gratitude towards Wikipedia, and its volunteer
writers.
I would suggest that the fundraising messages could *also* mention that
another way people can express their gratitude to Wikipedia would be to
become contributors themselves.
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 1:0
But in this case, we certainly need to stop giving them the ammo.
>
> Regards,
> Charles
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 10:05 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Martijn Hoekstra <
> > martijnhoeks...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
On Wed, Dec 3, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Martijn Hoekstra
wrote:
> > I know I used to write an email internally every year, saying our banners
> > are getting out of control, but that's because every year they get bigger
> > and more obscuring of the content. This year, as usual, is not an
> exception.
>
wordings that tell
prospective donors openly and honestly about the programs the donated funds
will be used for, and the tangible benefits the public can expect to
receive from those programs.
Andreas
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 4:36 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Nov 27,
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Liam Wyatt wrote:
I am however negatively-struck by the finishing statement, a return to the
> old motto of "keep us online without advertising for one more year". I
> thought that we had collectively agreed that banners that directly threaten
> advertising next
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> Because of that, I am very happy to see somebody with courage and
> integrity in the top management. Such person has much larger potential
> to create the momentum and build community enthusiasm again.
>
Is someone saying "I have courage and
The community has heard a lot from the WMF about courage, honesty,
integrity and leadership – and rather too much of the latter of late: let's
remember that the Wikimedia Foundation's values[1] speak of *community-led*
projects.
---o0o---
Our community is our biggest asset
We are a community-bas
I'm not sure the term "loop" is appropriate. So far, I see little evidence
that feedback provided [1] is making any appreciable difference.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Flow
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> On 09/05/2014 11:12 AM, Yaroslav M. Blant
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 10:16 PM, Michael Jahn
wrote:
> Being the spokesperson, the statement is by and large correct, although not
> given in this context but as a reply to a content-related question from one
> day earlier. It was used in the linked news source articel, to which the
> teacher's a
Returning briefly to NSFW content on Wikimedia sites, there has been some
press coverage in Germany these past couple of days:
*
http://www.news4teachers.de/2014/06/jugendgefaehrdend-porno-links-in-wikipedia/
*
http://www.news4teachers.de/2014/06/die-porno-links-in-wikipedia-ein-politischer-skand
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Wil Sinclair wrote:
> I didn't know that he called you a "faggot." Could you please show me
> where?
>
That post was removed from view at the time (May 2012).
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3707#p3707
What Greg had said on WO was,
---o0o---
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Wil Sinclair wrote:
> I'd also like to hear about specific examples of
> content on Commons that a parent might not find appropriate for their
> children.
Wil and all,
Note that all the links I am posting below are NSFW.
1.
The other day I found that if a P
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 12:16 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> The main thing to keep in mind is that, even when the community
> members are being INFURIATING IDIOTS (and almost certainly considering
> you an infuriating idiot in turn) - that what we're doing here is
> actually making the world a bette
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Russavia wrote:
> Andreas
>
> > And he's not the only Wikimedia admin to participate on WO incognito.
> That
> > in itself is food for thought.
>
> And therein lies the problem.
>
> In 28byte's case he actively attacked myself and another editor on WO
> forums on
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 10:33 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>
>
> I'll express it. I think it does. It's a festering pit of spammers,
> trolls and nutters, and is a net negative in just about every way.
> en:wp arbitrators coming here and talking about Wikipediocracy as if
> they're their constituency
Marc,
I am sure you are aware of the discussion here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sue_Gardner#Child_protection
Those concerns were raised not by banned trolls, but by members of the
English Wikipedia's arbitration committee, and other users with advanced
permissions. They were rais
On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:05 AM, Risker wrote:
> On 19 May 2014 18:59, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> > On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 3:08 AM, Russavia > >wrote:
> >
> > > Once new search is working, the first enhancement to the search should
> > > be a clus
On Sun, May 18, 2014 at 3:08 AM, Russavia wrote:
> Once new search is working, the first enhancement to the search should
> be a clustering feature.[3] Wouldn't such a feature pretty much solve
> the problem that we currently have with search, and which won't be
> solved by the "out-of-the-box" se
ay 16, 2014 at 8:11 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Russavia wrote:
>
>> Kevin,
>>
>> Feel free to have one of the people who don't have a nasty head injury
>> ask me the question. That would be fine, and I would actually prefer
>&
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Russavia wrote:
> Kevin,
>
> Feel free to have one of the people who don't have a nasty head injury
> ask me the question. That would be fine, and I would actually prefer
> it. Given your head injury, I'm actually a little surprised that your
> friends did think of
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> I agree with your more sophisticated concerns about what is going on.
> However, I think it's really important to put them in context. If Wikimedia
> Commons had existed in 1985, this would be a very compelling line of
> criticism. But in 201
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> The point of I'm trying to make in this discussion is, we
>
do a lot more good by focusing on what's working, and then expanding on
> that, than we do by getting all accusatory about the things that are *not*
> working.
Think of a surgeon
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:09 AM, Risker wrote:
> Pete, you know the "toothbrush" image you talk about on your blog still
> shows up on a Commons search for "electric toothbrush", right? It's in
> Category:Nude
> or partially nude people with electric
> toothbrushes<
> https://commons.wikimedia.or
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:20 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> Andreas, in response to your last message -- I'm perfectly fine with the
> examples you provided! I just happen to think they do a better job
> supporting my position ("Commons is healthy and productive")
I'd have been more impressed if Co
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> > Admins and crats on commons have also historically made a large number of
> > decisions that fly in the
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> > Admins and crats on commons have also historically made a large number of
> > decisions that fly in the face of WMF board resolutions, often
> repeatedly.
> >
>
> David Gerard's point is ringing very true here: you will not make this
> asse
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Stevie Benton <
stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I think Wikimedia UK has an example project, related to medical articles,
> that may be of interest. John Byrne is the Wikimedian in Residence at
> Cancer Research UK, one of the UK's larg
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:26 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: David Gerard
>
> > While acknowledging the likely truth of the flaws in scientific
> > knowledge production as it stands (single studies in medicine being
> > literally useless, as 80% are actua
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Anthony Cole wrote:
> Regarding expert review, Doc James has just announced that a version of
> Wikipedia's article "Dengue fever" has passed peer review and been accepted
> for publication by the journal Open Medicine. I think this is a special
> moment.
>
>
> htt
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 10:08 AM, edward wrote:
> "While academic attitudes to Wikipedia may be of some interest they are
> not a proxy for quality."
>
> I don't understand this. I'm not saying I disagree, I just don't
> understand. How would an attitude be a 'proxy' for quality?
I think what G
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:12 AM, geni wrote:
> On 8 May 2014 01:00, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> > As for study design, I'd suggest you begin with a *random* sample of
> > frequently-viewed Wikipedia articles in a given topic area (e.g. those
> > within the purview o
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 3:41 AM, Risker wrote:
> Yes, of course readability analysis is done by automation. I've yet to
> find a consistent readability assessment that doesn't use automation. It's
> not an area where subjectivity is particularly useful.
>
> And that was an average of 18 minutes
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 2:41 AM, Risker wrote:
>
>
> I think perhaps there is a lack of research into the extent of research
> already being done by independent, qualified third parties. Several
> examples are provided in the references of the study you posted, Andreas.
> For example, this one in
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Nathan wrote:
> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:24 PM, Wil Sinclair wrote:
>
> > I'm a total newb here, and I know the grant system between WMF and the
> > different chapters has been debated in the past. But I have a simple
> > question: if WMF is funding these efforts
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 1:06 AM, Thyge wrote:
> Maybe you should suggest that to the universities and not just to this
> mailing list.
> Nothing prevents to set up " an independent panel of academic experts" and
> to start doing that job today.
> regards,
> Thyge
>
Well, I'd like the Foundation
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Thyge wrote:
> mr Andreas Kolbe,
> I would like to tell you, that your mailings here strike me as being
> negative and unhelpful.
>
:)
> If you have any suggestions for improvement, please put them forward, since
> this is an intere
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 12:22 AM, phoebe ayers wrote:
> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> > Anne, there are really well-established systems of scholarly peer review.
> > There is no need to reinvent the wheel, or add distractions such as
> > infob
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:40 PM, Risker wrote:
> Ah, but the costliest conditions aren't actually comparable to the relevant
> Wikipedia articles. For example, the "costly condition" of cancer is
> compared to the article on lung cancer, despite the fact that we have an
> article on cancer. The
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Michael Maggs wrote:
> Measuring the quality of Wikipedia articles in general is an issue that
> Wikimedia UK is interested in looking at, though by means of automation
> rather than the gold-standard but much less scalable method of scholarly
> peer review.
>
I
Junk science? I suppose the Article Feedback Tool was more scientific,
then, because that's the best the Foundation has come up with so far.
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:27 PM, Risker wrote:
> On 7 May 2014 18:14, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> > Anne, there are really well-estab
, diabetes mellitus, back pain, hyperlipidemia and concussion.
Carry on.
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:19 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 7 May 2014 23:14, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> > For what it's worth, there was a recent external study of Wikipedia's
> > medical con
Anne, there are really well-established systems of scholarly peer review.
There is no need to reinvent the wheel, or add distractions such as
infoboxes and other bells and whistles.
I find it extraordinary that, after 13 years, a project designed to make
the sum of human knowledge available to hum
Article on the matter in The Daily Dot, April 14:
http://www.dailydot.com/business/wikipedia-paid-editing-scandal-stanton/
Apparently, Tim Sandole complains of not having been managed properly by
anybody, saying, "The person I dealt with at Wikimedia didn't seem to know
anything about Wikipedia."
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:
> I do think there's an inherent risk with situating paid editors
> within specific institutions, because there may be a tendency that
> comes with that to attach undue weight to that institution's work.
Certainly. And it's something the Wiki
As far as I am concerned, what was wrong with this situation wasn't that
the Wikimedia Foundation paid a trained academic to edit Wikipedia. I
venture that most donors and members of the general public wouldn't have a
problem with that at all.
What was wrong?
1. The obvious appearance of impropri
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Andre Engels wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Andreas Kolbe
> wrote:
>
> > Which reminds me – I often think it odd that Wikimedia will fund a
> > Wikipedian-in-Residence for some regional tourist attraction (think the
> > Wel
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Ting Chen wrote:
> Hello Peter,
>
> I see the following two possibilities:
>
> Either the paid editing brings a higher quality and thus by that quality
> imposes itself as an authority and thus discourage further "unqualified"
> editing
>
> Or the paid editing doe
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Andrew Lih wrote:
> Ting and Christophe,
>
> Glad to hear we are moving forward on finding more sophisticated ways of
> thinking about "paid" editing. At least for the English Wikipedians I've
> talked to, many are pleasantly surprised that the European editions a
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) wrote:
> (Note these are my own personal views and in no way reflect any views of
> the WMF or anyone else)
>
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 7:34 AM, Christophe Henner <
> christophe.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Now, the question about "paid advo
Quite. Museums' self-interest in employing a Wikipedian-in-Residence is
often quite evident from the way the position is described ("raise our
profile" etc.)
And what about, say, the Henry Ford Museum? Or the Volkswagen museum? Is
that not knowledge? Is it "evil", because it's part of a business?
Christophe's comment about Wikipedia's company articles not being very
complete reminded me of a fun infographic:
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5474/11871822903_714f36a83e_h.jpg
There is a strange, systemic hostility towards business at work in the
English Wikipedia. Combined with a love for pop
yge wrote:
> I'm not in principle against transparent paid editing, but it could
> actually be considered to violate the ToU's wording: "misrepresenting your
> affiliation with any individual or entity"
>
> Regards,
> Sir48
>
>
> 2014/1/6 Andreas Kol
at is not a permissible use of socks. The
> community expects to place more scrutiny on paid editors, not less.
> On Jan 6, 2014 6:23 AM, "Andreas Kolbe" wrote:
>
> > That doesn't follow to me from that wording, Nathan. The English
> Wikipedia
> > for example allo
d read it. Just like John Smith, they did not use the
name of some other user. They created multiple accounts. There was no other
user whose username they used, or whom they tried to impersonate.
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Nathan wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote
Nathan,
I am unable to find a mention of sockpuppetry in the Terms of Use, whether
in Section 4 or elsewhere.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use
I don't think there could be such a mention, really, given that project
policies recognise a number of legitimate uses of socks.
A.
On
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 10:13 PM, George Herbert
wrote:
> It was not rhetorical, but you missed the point.
>
> Net neutrality is an issue because service providers (can / may / often do)
> become a local monopoly of sorts. Monopilies are not necessarily bad (how
> many water and natural gas line
rred way to their
or our benefit? What benefit do we get?
---o0o---
I was answering your question.
Andreas
[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-August/127746.html
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 6:31 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> > I guess t
I guess the benefit to the Wikipedia Zero providers is that making
Wikipedia available for free to their subscribers is a competitive
advantage for them. That seems obvious enough, and it is acknowledged in
the Wikimedia Foundation FAQ,
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships:
---o
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 7:28 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 31 July 2013 19:27, Erik Moeller wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 5:36 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>
> >> Erik, James - how did de:wp convinced you when en:wp hasn't?
>
> > I don't really agree with your framing - it's not about who's
> >
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:36 AM, Rui Correia wrote:
> Thanks Andreas
>
> Iit didn't cross my mind that you would actually go and check - at the time
> the search terms were in Portuguese, so you will probably find different
> results - If I find the original pic I will send it to you.
>
Please
ld be ade known on the site, just like
> any other porn site.
>
> And thankd for your offer to help, much appreciated.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rui
>
> On 23 July 2013 19:12, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> > Rui,
> >
> > There are four answers I could give
Marc,
The page I linked to says in part:
"It goes without saying that using the process described we are also unable
to verify the identity of the person(s) behind the user account."
("Es versteht sich von selbst, dass wir mit dem beschriebenen Verfahren
auch nicht die Identität der hinter dem B
Todd,
Yes, it's done via OTRS. Details are here:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Benutzerverifizierung (User
verification)
Google translation:
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FWikipedia%3ABenutzerveri
Rui,
There are four answers I could give you. See whether you like any of them:
*Answer the First*
This problem has existed ever since Wikipedia became visible enough for
agenda-driven editors to bother with it, and people have made complaints
like yours ever since. Nothing has changed, and noth
Doh! For "Wikipedia community governance review" at the end of the first
paragraph read "Wikimedia UK governance review".
A.
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> An idea that arose from a discussion on whether to lift restrictions on
> Gibraltar
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:04 AM, Sarah wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
>
> > BTW that entire "rag tag group of amateurs doing something amazing",
> > doesn't hold very true indefinitely We were doing something amazing when
> > we started, but we're really not amateurs a
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> Andreas Kolbe, 10/01/2013 19:21:
>
> > Open these two pages:
> >
> > http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/**ChartsWikipediaFR.htm<http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaFR.htm>
> > http://stats.wiki
401 - 500 of 593 matches
Mail list logo
