On 28/08/2013, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
Has anyone come up with a formulae for the ratio between vandalism
prevented by the edit filters and lost edits on Wiki?
...
Regards
Hi WSC,
Could you link to where there is a definition of what the edit filters
are and what
On 11 September 2013 16:45, Magnus Manske magnusman...@googlemail.com wrote:
There was a recent mail saying that Labs is not considered production
stability. Mainly a disagreement about how many 9s in the 99.9% that
represents.
tangent
A familiar rookie error in adding meaningless
Congratulations to those involved in kicking off this committee.
Though we should probably avoid setting up too many committees I know
this part of the Wikimedia movement's decision making and learning
process has been talked about for quite some time and I'm sure that
the WM 2014 UK team will
...
Apparently, legals say that the current policy is too flexible for the board
to have really meant approving it, so of course the board will like to
change his mind and make it much stricter, while if one wanted to keep it as
flexible as it is now one would need the board to change his
On 13 November 2013 07:40, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:
...
Our biggest issue is copyright infringement.
...
Thanks for raising this James.
Yes, this is an issue but if you are gunning for elephants this month,
I really don't think the copyright elephant is the biggest one in the
herd.
Thank you for the hard work that has gone into the detailed
assessments and reports.
I like the look of the assessment framework and the thinking that has
gone on behind it. If we continue to refine this assessment process,
it would be neat if a hierarchical breakdown of the assessment model
and
On 19 November 2013 20:44, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
Aside @Fae: the tineye crew are curious quite pro-freeculture, I bet they
would be glad to help design a bot that uses their API to check image
copyvios.
This is an area this spins off from my little experiments with better
As well as finding out where this has happened, it would be good to
have some cases of where bots went bad explained. My main concern
would be leaving a bot to create thousands of articles but in the
process creating a headache for limited numbers of maintainers, such
as article copy-editors,
On 27 November 2013 13:43, Anders Wennersten m...@anderswennersten.se wrote:
...
And even if this only is relevant for far less then 1% of all generated
articles it becomes around hundred in total. Many of these cases are quite
complicated to fix (area of lakes, depths) and there is a debate
On 9 December 2013 22:39, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
To clarify the term long-serving Wikimedia Commons bureaucrat,
Michael had both rights of admin and bureaucrat restored seven months
ago...
There was indeed a community
I hope this is a coincidence. I have great difficulty believing that
the WMF board of trustees passed a resolution imagining that it would
appear to be a good thing that the *very first* action it is used for
is to justify the deletion of an artwork of one of its own members.
Whatever else is
On 29 Dec 2013 22:43, Klaus Graf klausg...@googlemail.com wrote:
Can nobody stop the URAA Copyright trolls mass deleting perfect fine files
on Commons?
I think it would be the best if _all_ URAA affected files would be kept
until a DMCA take down notice.
Your proposal would be more useful
If anyone wants to suggest useful changes to Commons guidelines, then this
is a discussion to hold on Commons.
I suspect only a handful of us read this list, and only a few of us have
handled or discussed real URAA cases.
Fae
___
Wikimedia-l mailing
On 6 January 2014 10:02, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
...
This would be the community of the project from which you are blocked
indefinitely.
Throwing around tangential comments about blocks and de-sysops for
correspondents on this list neither moves this forward, nor encourages
others to
On 6 January 2014 13:43, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
... The community expects to place more scrutiny on paid editors, not less.
Sarah has yet to give her side of events and confirm how much of this
is true or whether some of it is spoof or spin. Paid editing, of
itself, is not a
I have not used it but would like to know more. If WMF
employees/contractors are free to sell their services as paid
Wikipedia editors on oDesk, I think that a how-to-sell-your-services
guide would be helpful so that active unpaid volunteers who are not
employees know how to go get some money from
On 8 January 2014 12:14, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Because it's feed the trolls week, obviously.
Here David, have a cookie.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
+1 to Ting's philosophy. Best WMF trustee ever. ;-)
It may be worth illustrating how I might draw the line between my
unpaid volunteer work and taking payment for some tasks. To date I
have uploaded something like 160,000+ images to Commons and never been
paid anything for my time. My work has
On 9 January 2014 00:07, Frank Schulenburg fschulenb...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
...
The Wikimedia Foundation has recently learned that Sarah has been editing
Wikipedia on behalf of paying clients, as recently as a few weeks ago. She
did that even though it is widely known that paid editing is
The WMF has recently clarified that they frown upon paid editing.
Presumably offering basic wage for people to edit Wikipedia is still paid
editing?
--
fae...@gmail.com http://j.mp/faewm
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Thanks. I don't see how this relates to Wikimedia projects, by definition
it is not.
On 9 January 2014 12:40, Emmanuel Engelhart kel...@kiwix.org wrote:
Le 09/01/2014 13:36, Fæ a écrit :
The WMF has recently clarified that they frown upon paid editing.
Presumably offering basic wage
On 9 January 2014 13:13, Seb35 seb35wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
If a basic income is implemented somewhere in the world, people will have
more time for themselves in mean (probably more partial-time work), so they
will have more time to edit the Wikimedia projects, among other possible
On 9 January 2014 22:43, Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nl wrote:
You are certainly right, Michael. I suppose that WMF and Sarah communicated
with each other, and Frank has carefully chosen to use these words.
Kind regards
Ziko
It would not be abnormal in the US for a termination of
On 18 January 2014 13:41, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 5:37 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
The RFC is non-neutral and unnecessarily complex. With so much
experience of trying these things, along with full time expertise, I
would hope for a more sophisticated
Thanks for the assurance that the community directly and indirectly
influences 100% of the board.
Could someone point me to where this happened for the founder of the
Wikimedia Foundation?
Thanks again,
Fae
On 21 January 2014 17:28, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey
I am
Rather than thinking blackouts, it would be good to see proposals of
releases of new public domain content in support of these ideals.
Fae
On 25 January 2014 09:00, Omar David Sandoval Sida
omar_sa...@hotmail.com wrote:
Few days ago, I was reading about an initiative against mass
On 29 January 2014 12:21, Steve Zhang cro0...@gmail.com wrote:
Part of me still thinks we'd be better off and it would be easier to try
clone Sue rather than trying to find a suitable replacement for her...
Hm, clone armies. Could the WMF strategy extend to creating a Death
Star to preserve all
Having just uploaded a photograph from the 18th century of Wiki, a
Hopi priest, I'm wondering if this is the earliest record we know of
for the name Wiki? Presumably this the the earliest photograph of a
Wiki, so it would be neat to celebrate him in some way on our
projects.
I came across this
On 30 January 2014 18:01, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
Having just uploaded a photograph from the 18th century of Wiki, a
Oops, I meant *19th* century - photo taken in 1898.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https
On 4 February 2014 11:32, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
...
You may also be interested in a related blog post by Simon
Knighthttp://people.kmi.open.ac.uk/knight/2014/02/wikimedia-uk-strategy-consultation/,
one of the WMUK trustees who has been closely involved in this
On 4 February 2014 14:03, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
..
The vast majority of users who do a lot of bot edits are still merrily
working away on English Wikipedia.
As someone who has made around 3 million automated edits on Commons
and uploaded over 200,000 valuable educational images
On 4 February 2014 15:54, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Risker, out of interest, considering my long track record of useful
bot-work on Commons, would you support my proposal to let Faebot do
some sensible non-controversial work on en.wp or do you think I am a
danger to Wikimedia?
I'd
On 4 February 2014 16:45, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 February 2014 16:42, Harold Hidalgo hah...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps it would be a good idea to understand how bad ArbCom managed the
... case by putting him against a slow death that would
ultimately end in a year-long ban
On 4 February 2014 17:48, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 February 2014 12:27, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
Risker, 04/02/2014 17:59:
doesn't deserve to have his case reheard on this mailing list
Risker, here's a great tip: If you *really* do not want the case
On 4 February 2014 20:03, Thyge ltl.pri...@gmail.com wrote:
A great tip would be to avoid changing this thread into a personal
attack on Risker or anybody else.
Thank you.
Thyge/Sir48
Er, that was the point of my tip to Risker.
Fae
___
On 6 Feb 2014 22:40, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
...
Are we doing any commons analysis like this at the moment?
Is any similarity-analysis done on upload to help uploaders identify
copies of the same image that already exist online? Or to flag
potential copyvios for reviewers
Yes
On 7 February 2014 04:04, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
That's just beautiful. Thank you, Fae Faebot.
I see that job filtered for mobile uploads without EXIF data.
What obstacles do you envision for running such a service for all images?
Thanks for this honest critical feedback Lodewijk. It is refreshing to
have a straight-forward statement. Most emails from established
members of our community being critical about the WMF board or staff
seem to feel they need to wrap anything negative in so much cotton
wool and glib praise, that
On 13 February 2014 06:30, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org wrote:
...
Because the director happens to be an extremely valued long time member of
the senior staff of the Wikimedia Foundation.
This makes for a useful tip for recruiting managers for new Wikimedia
organizations or and
On 13 February 2014 13:31, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote:
...
It's also a good thing for the movement that it's possible to spin off
projects like this, which the Foundation has decided are no longer core
activity, to other entities.
I agree with the sentiment, especially as
Having led an all day workshop with different GLAM organizations in
Cornwall, fresh in my mind are the stories of woe from respected
museum professionals who have run into hot water on the English
Wikipedia by creating official looking accounts to make edits for
their institution and/or using
On 26 February 2014 13:51, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe it's a cultural issue, does e.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_letter have a geopolitically limited
point of view? Open letters are a common tool of *discussion* with the
public (= community in our case) in
On 26 February 2014 17:07, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 February 2014 16:46, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
If anyone wants to create meaningful and lasting change to Commons,
then please create a Request for Comment on Commons[1] rather than
making a fuss and criticising Commons
On 26 February 2014 17:55, Yann Forget yan...@gmail.com wrote:
...
On this, I agree (at least partially) with David. If only some Commons
admins were not pursuing a political campaign to delete URAA-affected files
under false pretences, everything would be much better.
If you have the evidence
On 19 March 2014 13:11, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net wrote:
Neither of these is true: Wikimedia Foundation hired a paid
Wikipedian-in-Residence at the Belfer Center for Science and International
Affairs, a research center within the John F. Kennedy School of Government
at Harvard
Is there an on-wiki description of the WIR project and its planned outcomes?
I would have thought that to use the term Wikipedian for an official
position, that there should be suitable transparency. If nothing else,
this ensures that the Wikimedia community can help make the project a
success.
Re: http://twkozlowski.net/the-pot-and-the-kettle-the-wikimedia-way/
Two questions:
1. Where can I find a response from either the WMF board or WMF
funding/finance to the criticisms of a lack of transparency or the
apparent failure of the project to deliver value for the donor's money
as raised
On 20 March 2014 17:49, Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevre...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Anasuya, Garfield and indeed the entire legal department work for the
Wikimedia Foundation. Your email (and Fae’s) seems to imply that they work
directly for you, which is of course not the case (because they really
On 20 March 2014 19:05, Lisa Gruwell lgruw...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I am happy to chime in here. WMF served as a fiscal sponsor for the
Stanton Foundation and the Belfer Center at Harvard University in this
project, which started in 2012 and lasted one year. Stanton, a trusted
...
Hi Lisa,
On 20 March 2014 21:51, Anasuya Sengupta asengu...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Just to be clear and follow up on Lisa's mail: this project and process did
not involve grants from WMF, and WMF's role (as Lisa explained) was as a
fiscal sponsor, and thereby to provide initial advice as they began
On 20 March 2014 19:05, Lisa Gruwell lgruw...@wikimedia.org wrote:
...
... The Stanton Foundation covered all of the costs
associated with it (approximately $50,000). While WMF provided advice and
posted the position on the Wikimedia Blog, Belfer made the final hiring
decision, which is
On 21 March 2014 00:56, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
...
This project was not funded through the individual
donations of the general public but rather through a third party
foundation that had an interest in seeing this happen, so from an
ethical perspective, it's reasonable that the
On 21 March 2014 07:37, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
...
needed, to fully expose Harvard's evil agenda and the secret workings
of the reptilian order which most WMF senior staff are part of.
...
Erik, you are a senior manager within the WMF. If you cannot resist
offensive schoolboy
On 21 March 2014 11:31, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
...
it seems to have been the Belfer
Center directing his actions and not the WMF.
If Sandole is a reliable source for his employment during 2012-13,
then we must take into account his recent statement which indicates
that the WMF had some
On 21 March 2014 08:20, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
...
Just after talking about stomping down with its hobnail boots on
Wikimedia UK, huh? :-) I'm sorry to have offended your delicate...
I apologise for the hobnail boots comment, it was unnecessarily dramatic.
This is a slight
Russavia,
Thank you for compiling this analysis. In particular the credible
sources you have put together should make the Wikimedia Foundation's
review a lot easier. I was particularly interested in the role of WMF
Fundraising in this project.
I look forward to soon being able to compare this
On 22 March 2014 09:40, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
...
Does anyone believe for one minute that
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buck_passingdiff=551697085oldid=549480580took
6 hours to draft? And anywhere between 0 and 3 hours to research?
...
Correction to link
On 23/03/2014, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com
There isn't a legitimate basis for evaluating how the funds are spent
other than A's desires and intentions. It's still a restricted gift, we
can't pretend that this is money from general fundraising and decide it
should have been spent in a
On 23 March 2014 08:32, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote:
On 3/23/2014 1:08 AM, Fæ wrote:
On 23/03/2014, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com
There isn't a legitimate basis for evaluating how the funds are spent
other than A's desires and intentions. It's still a restricted gift, we
As someone with aging eyesight, I am pleased to find readability
changes that make it easier to follow a large screen full of text
without having to override font styles in my browser or tablet.
I even appreciate tying this in to our tradition of tempting fate by
rolling out changes on April
On 21 March 2014 20:23, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
...
I have a copy of the weekly memos as well, and we've asked for his
permission to release them.
Hi Erik,
A helpful visual table of the weekly reports is available at
I'm even going myself. :-)
Fae
On 31 March 2014 14:45, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-03-31 11:47 GMT+02:00 Fæ fae...@gmail.com:
This seems to not be the case
looking at the proposed attendee list[1] with the UK sending a massive
party of 8 people (excluding Wikimania
On 31 March 2014 14:59, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
...
Really Fae, as you are no longer the chair, why rule from the grave?
Thanks,
Thanks Gerard, I'll return to being dead and buried now.
Fae
--
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
On 31 March 2014 16:23, Jon Davies jon.dav...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
...
For the record we have people going for four reasons:
- CEO and Chair as standard
- Two staff and one trustee who are invited to do presentations on areas
of strength in the chapter.
- Two trustees (we are
Thanks for all your hard work Ziko. It has always been appreciated.
Fae
--
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
Hi Sue,
Thank you for your report at
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedian_in_Residence/Harvard_University_assessment.
Could you please clarify if In the future, the Wikimedia Foundation
will not support or endorse the creation of paid roles that have
article writing as a core focus,
On 1 April 2014 14:23, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
...
That analysis and examination of that bad move would have been done just
and quickly and effectively by polite inquiry than it would have with
shrill cries.
We're an extraordinarily transparent movement; we don't need
On 02/04/2014, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote:
Great! We are starting to have the conversation we need to have!
So: What is the purpose of the Wikimedia Conference?
This has never been clearly defined, in my view.
I certainly found attending last year useful as it was a
I suggest avoiding getting too drawn into heated debate, neither do
you need to take responsibility by yourself.
As always, Commons benefits from having a good case book to illustrate
policy. As well as the UDRs being raised, it would not hurt to re-hash
some of the DRs for marginal cases. I
of past notices for files deleted from Wikimedia Commons
is at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Office_actions/DMCA_notices (As
far as I am aware, none has ever relied on the URAA as a rationale for
copyright.)
Fae
On 3 April 2014 21:34, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
I suggest avoiding
Proposal: Paid volunteers should take care to identify themselves on
Wikimedia Projects and discussions related to Wikimedia Projects.
Sue Gardner's initial report by the WMF into the Belfer case makes a key
decision that there must be effective processes for escalation of employee
activities
On 4 April 2014 14:05, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
...
It seems to me that the term 'paid volunteer' is an oxymoron.
...
Yes, it is oxymoronic, many common terms are, though I am open to an
alternative form of words. I understand that volunteers who are also
employees
On 4 April 2014 14:33, Gryllida gryll...@fastmail.fm wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2014, at 22:14, Fæ wrote:
*Definition of paid volunteer:*
Paid volunteers are employees, contractors or part time contractors of
Wikimedia organizations or other organizations having agreements or
partnerships
On 04/04/2014, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Just a quick correction, you say that Even a paid researcher on a
university project would not meet this definition, unless the project were
part funded or in partnership with Wikimedia.
This is not quite accurate: even a
Yann, the nuclear industry controversy was more the issue of
control/ownership of content (which can happen on Commons, for example
the news today about attempts to restrict reuse of Barack Obama's
image). It is a tangent to this proposal. If you have other examples
and think current project
On 5 April 2014 08:09, Peter Southwood peter.southw...@telkomsa.net wrote:
Will you be expecting every supporter of a political party, every member of
a religious group, every national of a country, every supporter of a
football team and so on ad nauseam... to declare COI when editing a
If that is indeed the case, the comment to fuck the community would fit
quite well in the divisions that /some/ people are alleging exist.
Tomasz
Could whoever is being quoted as saying this please come forward
publicly and explain what they meant?
If this was anything more
if a couple of trolls got hold of some
out-of-context quotes.
Chris
On 7 Apr 2014 11:56, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
Steffen, the Wikimedia movement expects board members on Wikimedia
organizations to be fulfilling their role as representatives of our
movement. If you misquoted please explain
won’t help, as it is an entirely
self-evident statement. Answering direct questions, unfortunately, does not
make much difference to those who find witch hunts fun.
Michael
On 7 Apr 2014, at 12:27, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
Chris, rather than again[1] using school-boy politics
No. You may want to look at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Standards_in_Public_Life
this does not include keeping things secret just because someone said
let's keep this secret. The exact opposite is true, if you are in a
trusted public position then you must show leadership for
On 10 April 2014 16:23, Dariusz Jemielniak dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote:
...
I do not think that decentralized funding is very good against corruption.
...
I would add a far more common issue than fraud, and one that costs us
far, far more money. Competent management.
Our Foundation and Chapters
Congratulations to Carlos and Cynthia. :-)
Bence, the decisions made by Affcom are not always easy or happy ones
for volunteers, and I am grateful for the care you take bearing this
responsibility.
Fae
--
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
For organizations that pride themselves on openness and transparency,
being told that WMF Board Trustee candidates have made speeches, been
asked questions and taken part in thoughtful discussion about our
Wikimedia Movement in closed sessions that will remain unpublished,
seems a long way from
have been a solution, which I believe we lacked to think
about sadly.
However, I believe the questions were noted to be sent to some of the
candidates, perhaps a good way would be to republish them and ask them
to answer on meta ?
--
Christophe
On 14 April 2014 17:15, Fæ fae...@gmail.com
Thanks Christophe,
The metrics are easy to understand, I like their simplicity. This
makes your goals easy to track, such as both number of volunteer hours
and numbers of volunteers being used to analyse volunteer involvement.
It would be neat if all chapters were to make these standard, cheap
On 16 April 2014 15:19, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
...
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.
I believe it was clear from Sue's frank report and
It would be fantastic if the Foundation were to take *positive action*
and make it clear that its employees are immediately directed to not
edit Wikipedia articles about each other, ex-colleagues, the
Foundation, the Foundation's partners, suppliers and contractors or
the Foundation's critics.
On 17 April 2014 08:46, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
...
On this, you and I seem to be about as far apart as we can be, so we
will have to agree to disagree. This is why in threads like the Belfer
one I encourage people to stay cool and not let this stuff get to
their heads, because
On 17 April 2014 09:40, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 1:08 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
This is not the first time that Erik has been sarcastic and rude in an
apparent attempt to close down discussion in public responses to
whistle-blowers.
Please. You
2014 09:58, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 April 2014 09:46, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
Every time I see Fae or Russavia in a from: line, I dread opening
the email. Fae, posts like this, where any actual point you have is
buried under a mountain of your overwhelming bitterness
On 17 April 2014 12:49, Erlend Bjørtvedt erl...@wikimedia.no wrote:
Same practice here, through spontneous reflection independent of wmfr.
Seemes that this is at least natural for a chapter. I believe wmf employees
should also be encouraged to contribute to the projects.
There seems some
Thanks Chris.
Interesting you chose to link to my unfinished peer review with WMEE,
considering you asked me to halt my inter-chapter governance
activities when you were the Chair of WMUK. If you think it is a good
idea to allow me to finish the peer reviews I started, perhaps you
should check
On 30/04/2014, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote:
While this is a compelling interpretation - for the sake of argument -
I am not sure the words of the ED of the WMF can bind the Board of the
WMF in the decisions they make. I could imagine situations where they
could, and normally the ED
There seem to be emails going around about possible misuse of images
to covertly promote a brand on Wikipedia. As far as I can tell, it is
a hoax, perhaps to throw mud at a well known company.
Discussion at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost#Cracking_Wikipedia
If
On 6 May 2014 15:28, Newyorkbrad newyorkb...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there one place, perhaps on Meta, where a Wikipedian/Wikimedian could
find a summary/briefing on the various different programs that exist?
Newyorkbrad
Hi Brad,
Yes, this is the purpose of https://outreach.wikimedia.org.
On 10 May 2014 19:02, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/04/2014, James Alexander jalexan...@wikimedia.org wrote:
...
we ask for a use case for every rights request, you can see most of them
here
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AvhjkTJIpW2zdDl1bVBuOU1jQUJwOHd5YmhmSzFaZHcsingle
On 15 May 2014 09:20, Asaf Bartov abar...@wikimedia.org wrote:
This seems like very good advice, Tom. Have you tried it?
I agree, it sure is great advice. A shorter version is the management
classic good news sandwich. Here's a version similar to those you
might see used in emails:
1. Your
We have written an open letter to Sue about this decision. A copy of our
letter to Sue can be found here on the Wikimedia UK wiki.
This open letter may have some emotive reason for being produced, but
after reviewing it carefully, I can see no strategic value for WMUK by
publishing it.
It
On 21 May 2014 13:19, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
...
2. Probably not. See
http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/frequently-asked-questions/faqs-about-registering-a-charity/can-i-register-the-uk-branch-of-an-overseas-charity/
This means that the WMF would need
On 10 May 2014 19:02, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
... I'll take a look at Faebot keeping
a table regularly synchronized on meta using the Google spreadsheets
API.
For anyone that may be interested in seeing which WMF employees have
what advanced permissions, there is now a wikitable on meta
1 - 100 of 555 matches
Mail list logo
