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
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
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
> >
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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 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 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 Thu, May 17, 2012 at 1:47 AM, Ian Woollard wrote:
> There's no great drop in the number of editors:
>
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ENglish_Wikipedia_active_users_%28September_2011%29.png
>
See
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm
Editors making 100+ edits a mont
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 2:21 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 1:47 AM, Ian Woollard wrote:
>
>> There's no great drop in the number of editors:
>>
>>
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ENglish_Wikipedia_active_users_%28Septembe
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 1:21 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 15 June 2012 13:15, Tobias Oelgarte
> 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 so
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
> exaggerate
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Tobias Oelgarte <
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Am 18.06.2012 16:31, schrieb Thomas Morton:
>
>> We don't have much data on what our readers want; but a not insignificant
>>
> portion of them, at least, are concerned with controversial images
>> (nudity,
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Todd Allen 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, ...
There is another a
>
> 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 sus
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Anthony 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 Flickr without the uploader's consent
which, in the case of sexually explicit photos taken i
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
> Well, first of all, why?
>
> 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
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Todd Allen wrote:
> This thread isn't about copyvios, and I don't want to get too far
> afield, but I think it does kind of show the thought process here
> sometimes. From my read of the discussions with that editor, as well
> as the incident discussion you linked
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Todd Allen wrote:
> That was a highly theoretical scenario (and one you brought up for
> that reason, as I recall.) But in practice, we do have photos of
> victims at articles such as [[Rape of Nanking]] and [[Holocaust]].
> Some of those photos are extremely dis
As far as I can make out, the problem was that they could no longer keep up
with moderating these pages, and that the content turned creepier and
creepier.
---o0o---
@ Marq FJA
Eddie tends to be a little abrupt in his explanations.
The gist of it is that rape (much like sex and other similar to
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Todd Allen wrote:
> Perhaps the next time someone brings up the "WMF should accept ads!"
> bit, we can point back to this thread to explain why when we respond
> "That would be the end of neutrality," we are not exaggerating.
>
I've always been against ads, but
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Todd Allen wrote:
> > Besides, the ones putting pressure on TV Tropes, and who made them take
> the
> > pages down, are Google.
> >
> > That is the same Google who are a major financial contributor to
> Wikimedia.
>
> True. But if Google told WMF "Change Foo and B
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:38 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Well, there is a slashdot report. Let's see how much Google get pilloried
> for their actions with regard to TV Tropes. My prediction: not much.
>
Oops, that slashdot report is from November 2010, and refers to the last
time
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Nathan wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Todd Allen wrote:
>
> > I've never understood why that was considered non-neutral. WMF, as an
> > entity, can have viewpoints, especially as relates to the organization
> > itself. The WMF, for example, is not neut
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 10:24 PM, geni wrote:
> On 26 June 2012 21:38, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> > Are you not being a bit naive here? Seriously, if Google wanted
> something,
> > and were willing to pay Wikimedia another half million dollars for it,
> > they'
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 5:39 AM, Theo10011 wrote:
> So, a chain of events during a 4 month period can not be incidental. What
> you neglect to mention that there was an annual fundraiser during the end
> of the year, this was not the first grant Google made to Wikimedia, in
> fact, it might not e
Further to Jimbo's championing O'Dwyer, here is the court document from
O'Dwyer's January extradition trial:
http://www.europeanrights.eu/public/sentenze/WMC13gen2012.pdf
Some quotes:
---o0o---
O’Dwyer did not charge users of TVShack.net to download or stream content.
Instead he earned money fr
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 4:10 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 27 June 2012 16:02, David Richfield wrote:
>
> > This must be the most misleading mailing list title I've seen in a
> > long time. Almost all of these tropes are untouched:
> >
> http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SexualHarassmen
>
> Jimmy is not Wikipedia. What about that is hard to understand?
>
I would have agreed with you half a year ago. But Jimbo decided there would
be a SOPA blackout, and a SOPA blackout was had. And every press article
that mentions his campaign for O'Dwyer has the obligatory "Wikipedia
founder" la
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Tom Morris wrote:
> On Wednesday, 27 June 2012 at 18:05, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> > I would have agreed with you half a year ago. But Jimbo decided there
> would
> > be a SOPA blackout, and a SOPA blackout was had. And every press article
>
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> Andreas Kolbe, 27/06/2012 19:05:
>
> Yes, you can argue it's his right to act as an individual, it's not his
>> fault that the press describe him as the Wikipedia founder, etc.
>>
>
> Really? Th
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:19 PM, geni wrote:
> On 27 June 2012 18:51, Andreas Kolbe wrote:> And
> hell, there really are two points of view about copyright,
>
> I understand you've not really studied the subject but there are far
> more than that.
Let's just star
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Thomas Morton wrote:
> On the topic of Jimmy; Wikipedia is his calling card, it opens doors. I
> think he hasn't done enough in many situations to distance his own views
> from us; which is unfortunate. But not necessarily deliberate :)
>
> As I said before; Wikip
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Jay Walsh wrote:
> >
> >
> > > It would be interesting to see the community develop its own high
> profile
> > > media contacts so this view can be communicated to the world!
> > >
> > >
> >
> > If Jimmy can write this in The Guardian (a paper which really seems
Home Office to ignore Wikipedia founder's petition against O'Dwyer
extradition
http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/2188558/home-office-ignore-anti-odwyer-extradition-petition
---o0o---
The Home Office has confirmed home secretary Theresa May will not block
TVShack founder Richard O'Dwyer's US extradi
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> On 03/07/2012 11:09 AM, Delirium wrote:
>
>> 1) the sources really are *very* good in that case, not merely "ok"
>> sources like newspaper articles;
>>
>
> My own (admitedly radical) point of view is that popular media - and that
> includ
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 12:15 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 4 July 2012 00:04, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> > I agree with Marc. The other day, someone said here on the list, "It's
> > almost as if what the press say and what the facts are in reality are two
> > diff
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> On 03/07/2012 7:04 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
>> What would a Wikipedia look like that did not make use of press sources?
>> It
>> would look a hell of a lot more like an encyclopedia. Thousands of silly
>&g
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 12:49 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 4 July 2012 00:48, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
>
> > There's nothing that prevents a subject from having an article in both
> > namespaces. One can be seen as the complement of the other; mainspace
> would
> > become more encyclopedic and t
Wikipedia-l is not the most active of lists, to put it mildly. Those
interested in discussing the potential advantages and drawbacks of a
Wikipedia without press sources and coming up with some ideas for a
feasible compromise are advised that there is a related thread on
Wikipediocracy, at http://w
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 09:22:12 +0100, Thomas Morton wrote:
>
>> On 9 July 2012 20:41, Milos Rancic wrote:
>>
>> In less than half an hour Russian Wikipedia will go on one-day strike
>>> against SOPA/PIPA-like law in Russia [1] (in Russ
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:35 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
> On 11/07/12 00:32, David Gerard wrote:
> > On 10 July 2012 15:29, Tim Starling wrote:
> >
> >> SOPA didn't threaten the existence of Wikipedia,
> >
> >
> > Geoff Brigham opined otherwise, IIRC.
>
> Yes, on the basis that "Wikipedia arguably
I do think the Wikimedia sites look dated, and very "male", too.
One example I always think of when this issue comes up is Wikifashion:
http://wikifashion.com/wiki/Main_Page
I would love for Wikipedia to have optional skins like that, made by
graphic designers, just like you can have all sorts o
The board resolution announcement presently shows that it passed 9-1, with
Jimbo's the only voice dissenting:
http://www.webcitation.org/69AyEvzIS
On his talk page, however, Jimbo claims that this misrepresents him, and
that he voted to scrap the image filter like everyone else:
http://en.wikipe
The way to solve the design issue is to enable third parties to create
alternative skins that users can install in preference over the default
ones offered by the Foundation. Surely that's the sort of thing open
software is about.
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 1:53 AM, Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:
> On 1
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 7:34 PM, geni wrote:
> On 15 July 2012 14:44, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> > The way to solve the design issue is to enable third parties to create
> > alternative skins that users can install in preference over the default
> > ones offered by the Foundati
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Magnus Manske
wrote:
> Well, you asked for volunteers... ;-)
>
> I started a tool that would let you change the CSS easily. Edit your
> common.js user page and add (pardon the "Leif Ericsson" pun...) :
>
> importScript('MediaWiki:Live EriCSSon.js');
>
> Once that i
>
> > Thanks Magnus, that looks really great. This is exactly the sort of
> > alternative page design I was thinking of, and that we should enable
> people
> > to select, especially if they have a large screen -- where the lines of
> > text can end up excessively long, pictures become all bunched u
It shouldn't take five years though, should it? And there are dozens
(hundreds?) of jobs in queues, waiting to be done, which can't be done
because nobody is free to do them.
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Tom Morris wrote:
> On Monday, 16 July 2012 at 19:46, Andreas Kolbe
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 2:24 AM, Mark wrote:
> On 7/16/12 7:43 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
>> We need to be a lot friendlier to the non-programming public.
>>
>> I agree that's true, but I'd also be curious how we can do that without
> falling into the t
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Deryck Chan wrote:
> On 17 July 2012 00:46, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> >
> > > I honestly don't understand why it is taking so many years to develop a
> > > WYSIWYG editor, for example, or a new Commons search function.
> Honestly,
ore things getting done, but
would only result in them sitting around playing cards, I'll shut up about
this.
Andreas
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 8:56 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 25 July 2012 20:48, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> > So there were how many years of faffing about before they h
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 7:42 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> On 07/25/12 12:48 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
>>
>> So there were how many years of faffing about before they hired *one guy*
>> for this project? This is an organisation with a $20m annual budget, now
>>
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Charles Matthews <
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> The point really is who actually cares about ArbCom decisions
>
I am really surprised to see a former member of ArbCom say this. Everybody
on this list cares about ArbCom decisions, most of the time, and
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:11 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> What type of action was the SOPA blackout in January?
>
You mean, given the $500,000 Google donation Wikimedia received in November
2011, one month after the Italian Wikipedia's blackout, and two months
before the English Wikipedia's SOPA black
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:45 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 2 August 2012 05:13, MZMcBride wrote:
>
> > This appears to be an unprecedented power-grab by the office of the
> General
> > Counsel.
>
>
> Um ... that's a bizarre perception.
Well, just look at the number of scenarios where the democr
ut strings attached, or it
isn't. To claim selfless, altruistic purpose and then demand consideration
in return for what has been given is disgusting.
* http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19104494
>
>
> On Aug 2, 2012, at 5:45 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Aug 2, 201
ng the
> ecosystem within which that effort is placed"*. That is completely ethical
> and appropriate; no less than a wildlife volunteer who cares for dolphins
> pointing out things that harm dolphins or any other ecosystem that one
> might care for and try to support by nurturing i
e proposed
> fears, significant/realistic, or were they manipulated, spun, and "sold" to
> community members. That's a fair question. *If the analysis was
> valid*then the community acted in good faith and with good reason.
> *If the analysis was invalid* then the community a
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Todd Allen wrote:
> We do everything in our power to prevent
> the problem, but it would be absolutely cost prohibitive to do it 100%
> with the difference being that fine grained, and this law gives you
> the right to shut us down if we can't hit 100%. We think on
I just think they
> are best preserved on wiki where the majority of participants in the
> blackout hangout (most aren't active on mailing lists) and can participate
> in this analysis with you.
>
> Sarah
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 3, 2012, at 12:52 PM, Andre
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 11:12 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> Why are there so many various levels and steps if it's not a determination
> about principles and about whether a particular cause meets Wikimedia's
> mission? This is what's confusing me.
>
> People on the talk page at Meta-Wiki have seemed to
olitical cause just as
long as the General Counsel approves. Great! What do you think of that?
Andreas
On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Risker wrote:
> On 3 August 2012 22:00, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> >
> >
>
> Andreas, I'm sorry, but you've been involved in Wikime
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 10:17 PM, Tilman Bayer wrote:
> Of course, here the term "high quality" does not necessarily mean,
> say, featured content (e.g. on the English Wikipedia, featured
> articles currently make up less than 0.1% of the total articles), but
> instead refers to comparisons with
David, the BBC says you told them the following:
---o0o---
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19148151
*Donations*
Mr Gerard joked that due to the site's limited financial resources, some of
its infrastructure relied on "gaffer tape and string".
In an error message posted to the site, the Wi
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 8:54 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 6 August 2012 20:43, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> > David, the BBC says you told them the following:
>
>
> See, this is where you part ways with how the media works. These days
> I count it as a win if anything in quo
, in the long term,
> free education for all is the best way to solve world poverty, world hunger
> and conflict. You might disagree - I daresay many people would - but I feel
> that if only we were all as wise as a wise old owl, the world would be a
> much, much better place.
>
&
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Richard Symonds <
richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
> Thanks for the nice reply, Andreas. You get bonus points for liking barges!
>
There are some very homey ones here in Cambridge ... with pot plants
(bananas ...) and hanging baskets and everything, and a
Yes indeed. Cool ideas ... and they look a bit more *professional* than our
effort. ;)
Andreas
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:55 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:
> > Well, it's certainly a possible starting point for discussion:
> > http://www.wikipediaredefined.com/
>
> There are som
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-08-06/Op-ed
> >,
> <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Athena>, etc.
>
> --Ed
>
> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 6:44 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> > Yes indeed. Cool ideas ... and they look a bit more *p
I currently see 370 submissions pending. Does this mean that someone has
processed 700 articles since the beginning of this thread, or am I looking
at the wrong thing?
Andreas
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Steven Zhang wrote:
> So, I had a look at articles for creation today, and there
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Katie Chan wrote:
> On 19/08/2012 11:04, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
>> I currently see 370 submissions pending. Does this mean that someone has
>> processed 700 articles since the beginning of this thread, or am I looking
>> at the wrong thin
A contributor has raised an interesting questions on wikien-l that concerns
French Wikimedians. As French Wikimedians are unlikely to see it there, and
wikifr-l seems moribund, I've appended a copy of the post below.
---o0o---
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2012-August/110434.htm
I've been told (and have verified) that the French Wikipedia indeed does
without categories to mark people as Jewish, LGBT, etc.
I actually quite like that approach.
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 7:53 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> > T
http://www.fastcodesign.com/1670648/a-promising-wikipedia-overhaul-designed-to-squash-info-overload#1
A follow-up article on the redesign. Excerpt:
---o0o---
So, will we all be able to enjoy this clear and concise online experience
anytime soon? Kazlauskas put the odds at a discouraging, and
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 3:48 AM, Steven Walling wrote:
> In short: I think people like Max and Roger, who make public declarations
> about their identities and conflicts of interest, are not the ones who
> scare me. We can always find those people and start a conversation with
> them.
>
In the p
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Steven Walling wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Andreas Kolbe
> wrote:
>
> > In the past, those conversations were short, and ended in a permaban (cf.
> > Jimbo's past statements about blocking anyone offering commerci
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Steven,
>
> We know people have been beating a door to Roger's path ever since
> Monmouthpedia;
>
... or even a path to Roger's door :))
(Sorry, tired.)
___
Wikimedia-l
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:46 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> > He gets to decide which town goes forward,
> > and whichever town goes forward pays him a consultancy fee.
>
>
> This, OTOH, is spurious made-up bullshit.
Look, David, if a dozen towns express an interest in his services, and
offer him
Will access to Wikipedia for people in Saudi Arabia be uncensored?
Has there been any agreement with Saudi Telecom on censorship?
Andreas
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Jay Walsh wrote:
> Hi folks - sharing a news release that WMF issued this morning along with
> STC.
>
> (This press release
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Moushira Elamrawy wrote:
> Yes, this too, but people always manage to work around it ;)
> In general it is accessible and better than the censorship status in other
> countries (Syria!), and the government is investing in increasing Wikipedia
> Arabic content, so
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 6:23 AM, geni wrote:
> On 14 October 2012 22:12, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> > Will access to Wikipedia for people in Saudi Arabia be uncensored?
>
> Very unlikely.
>
> > Has there been any agreement with Saudi Telecom on censorship?
>
> The
ncements coincidental, or were WMF aware of
the UAE plans?
Andreas
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 6:23 AM, geni wrote:
>
>> On 14 October 2012 22:12, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>> > Will access to Wikipedia for people in Saudi Arabia
"... some feature development". Please just tell us:
Is there anything about political or any other kind of censorship in the
WMF/STC agreement and/or the cooperation? Was the topic ever raised in the
discussions? If so, in which contexts? What was decided?
Is it part of the written agreement?
W
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
> Hi Yann
>
> It's not a partnership with the government, it's with a telecom company
Theo, Saudi Telecom was wholly owned by the Saudi government when it was
founded in 1998. It held monopolies then.
After a partial privatisation in the early
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 1:13 AM, Kul Wadhwa wrote:
> Hi Andreas,
>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> > "... some feature development". Please just tell us:
> >
> > Is there anything about political or any other kind of censorship
Thanks for the info, Osama.
Andreas
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 6:29 AM, Osama Khalid wrote:
> I am from Saudi Arabia, so I guess I will be able to explain a few
> issues.
>
> First of all, it's important to note that Saudi Arabia is a good
> example of a pretty much totalitarian state, with many g
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 6:29 AM, Osama Khalid wrote:
> Actually, censorship is imposed through a national proxy run by the
> Communication and Information Technology Commission[1]. ISPs do not
> get to pick and choose.
>
> [0]: http://www.econtent.org.sa/
> [1]: http://internet.sa/
>
>
Just not
There has been an article on heise.de about this:
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Saudi-Arabien-Mobile-Wikipedia-kostenlos-aber-zensiert-1730843.html
Translated quote:
The English Wikipedia documents a list of 141 articles that are apparently
blocked in Saudi Arabia. Many of these have se
I didn't see the banner either, but this solved the problem for me:
1. Make sure "Suppress display of the fundraiser banner" in your
preferences (it's under gadgets) is NOT checked.
2. Set your browser to "Private Browsing" or "Incognito" of "Stealth" mode,
whichever term your browser uses; this
The encyclopedia in question -- see http://lurkmore.to/ -- seems to be a
bit similar to Encyclopaedia Dramatica.
http://rapsinews.com/news/20121112/265322007.html
Its blacklisting took place under the new law the Russian Wikipedia
protested against recently.
Andreas
_
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Risker wrote:
> We have been, to some extent, the victims of our own success. We grew
> exponentially and not organically, and given the roots of our community,
> the usual group structural forms were eschewed. There was also practically
> no money for anything fo
401 - 500 of 593 matches
Mail list logo
