Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Affiliates] Changes to current chapter and thematic organisation criteria

I agree with Ben. It is worthwhile understand why existing chapters may not meet these criteria, especially if it is viable/active chapters that fail the criteria, rather than the few dormant chapters who also fail simpler criteria. I suspect these criteria, which are a good baseline, can be refi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A new Wikipedia fork: InfoGalactic

Ads on the horizon according to http://infogalactic.com/info/Infogalactic:Roadmap and https://infogalactic.com/info/Infogalactic:Advertising forks are hard... lots of bugs on https://infogalactic.com/info/Infogalactic:Bug_list_for_editors My first Special:Random result was ... a connection timeou

Re: [Wikimedia-l] We appear have been partially blocked in France (probably accidentally)

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 3:54 AM, geni wrote: > Apparently on the orders of the french government orange added us to > their blocked terrorist sites list. This did apparently have the fun > effect of DOS the government page people were redirected to, Source > (among others): > > http://www.lemonde

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote: > Until we have better tech available, I want to assure you that I want to be > available, and apart from Meta, I gladly offer IRC or video conversations, > or other media, to whoever feels it may be useful (let's track this > committment

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Passing of User:Danveg, and reminder about people in distress

I have made a small change the introduction to indicate the WMF has a important role in the management of the page content, but the WMF is not intended to be the sole author. I believe that is in line with James offer for the commuity to edit the page. On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 5:10 PM, rupert THURN

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF advanced permissions for employees

Hi James, I agree these types of breakages, if unintentional and not regular, should be raised elsewhere first. Given Fae's reluctance to use private correspondence,... Is there a public wiki page which can be used to alert the relevant team to any future breakages, in the first instance? Or ca

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wiki Loves Monuments] Wiki Loves Monuments in Italy largely blocked by WMF fundraising

Would it be possible for the WLM banner to show on the Main Page only during 8-22 September, with the fundraising banner on every other page? -- John Vandenberg ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Collaboration team reprioritization

On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 12:37 PM, MZMcBride wrote: > Amir E. Aharoni wrote: >>Much more importantly, Flow very much does cover basic talk pages. You can >>write a title and an OP and get people to reply. This has been working for >>many months already. This is my definition of "covering basic talk

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimania 2017 Montreal - scooped by Signpost

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 6:17 AM, Gregory Varnum wrote: > Given that enWP alone has 123,540 active editors as of this morning,[1] it’s > not exactly a stretch… What percentage of those are credible stakeholders in Wikimania? How many are going to be eligible for Wikimania scholarships? How many

Re: [Wikimedia-l] help needed - Arkansas

I randomly clicked user pages in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_in_Arkansas and found many 5,000+ currently editing Wikipedians, and one 40,000+ editor. Sounds like hitting user_talk pages might be a better approach to finding suitable Wikipedians. On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 9:58

Re: [Wikimedia-l] help needed - Arkansas

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 5:40 AM, Keegan Peterzell wrote: > (If you don't have userinfo.js [0] in your global .js, I highly recommend > it) > > 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PleaseStand/userinfo.js IMO this should be a standard gadget available for all wikis. -- John Vandenberg

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Celebrating Parisian culture and libertarianism

On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 11:17 PM, Gnangarra wrote: > Not sure we should be making such a link as the events in Paris are not > about Islam just as the actions of the women in Kentucky was not a > reflection of Christianity. Paris is not the only place its unfortunately > its not even the latest p

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Redirect blog.wikipedia.org to the Wikimedia Blog

Why? I would prefer not, as I like the project domains to be kept clean, and I suspect it would (by effect if not intent) be abusing 'wikipedia's name to push meta content higher up in the results. Project domains should be used for that project only, so IMO it would only be appropriate to host a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] In Solidarity with Library Genesis and Sci-hub

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Milos Rancic wrote: > May we actually stop having anything with these pest? > > http://custodians.online/ I dont believe we can stop using closed access journals, as that would reduce the quality of our projects, but we can use links to them as an opportunity to ed

Re: [Wikimedia-l] In Solidarity with Library Genesis and Sci-hub

On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 7:13 PM, Andrea Zanni wrote: > I don't really mind WMF working with closed-access publishers, if that > works. > What I think is that we don't put the same effort indoing something with > the openaccess world: all the initiatives I know are volunteer-based. > > Two pop up i

[Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

"On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 6:14 PM, K. Peachey wrote: > I might have missed it, but I can't see any attribution for the image… as I > doubt it will be a click through to the file page. I couldnt find the image in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cups_of_black_coffee The image is only on

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner (again)

On 3 Dec 2015 10:25 am, "Craig Franklin" wrote: > > On 2 December 2015 at 16:37, MZMcBride wrote: > > > Sadly, other sites can be more obnoxious. Some sites have interstitial > > advertisements that include auto-playing video. The Wikimedia Foundation > > has not yet sunk to that yet. > > > > [[W

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

"On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Lisa Gruwell wrote: > We agree with you that WMF fundraising should not use stock photography. > This was a mistake by a designer. We specify in our contracts with outside > designers that the images used should be custom artwork that WMF owns (and > can then shar

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A moderator's Pleas

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 8:35 PM, Richard Ames wrote: > All - > > Please use a new subject line when introducing a new topic. Please start > the thread with a new message (not a reply) to > wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org My apologies. I have no idea how my email became a new thread without a sub

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 3:25 PM, James Heilman wrote: > 1) Yes everyone realizes that using a non free image in our fundraising > banners is not okay. It was a mistake. These things happen and we correct > them. Funny how the first response from a WMF employee was that they thought using stock ima

[Wikimedia-l] Wikidata training in Oceania, SE Asia (Was: Quality issues)

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Gnangarra wrote: > This is going nowhere, one of the big issues is that there is a lack of > understanding on how WikiData works and whats it purpose is. > > > Wikimedia Australia solution is invest community money into bringing > someone who has contributed to Wi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Board of Trustees

Surely there must be a board resolution that needs to be pubished regarding this? On 29 Dec 2015 9:44 am, "James Heilman" wrote: > On Dec 28th 2015 I was removed from the board of the Wikimedia Foundation. > Many thanks to all those who gave me their support during the last > election. I have wor

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF Board of Trustees

Nod. Found it. :/ https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:James_Heilman_Removal On 29 Dec 2015 1:21 pm, "Nathan" wrote: > On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 9:17 PM, John Mark Vandenberg > wrote: > > > Surely there must be a board resolution that needs to be pubi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

Can the board please very clearly state whether this removal was for cause, or not!? On 1 Jan 2016 12:03 am, "Patricio Lorente" wrote: > Thank you to everyone who responded to my email about the Board’s recent > decision. We recognize this is the Board's first removal of a sitting > Trustee, and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Something

Something is covered in NDAs. -- John ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikime

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Announcement about changes to the Board

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote: > On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Fæ wrote: > >> On 11 January 2016 at 00:37, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote: >> .. >> This does not make sense. The existing trustees are *entirely* >> responsible for the trustee selection process, including

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Strategic planning

'On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Anna Stillwell wrote: > I like the idea of a strategic plan for the movement and one for the > Foundation. > I think that is a good idea. Also agree. I'd like to see strategic plan for the movement done first, and then one undertaken for the Foundation when the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monetizing Wikimedia APIs

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:38 AM, Isaac David wrote: > > Le lun. 18 janv. 2016 à 3:17, Andrea Zanni a > écrit : >> >> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 9:59 AM, David Goodman wrote: >> >>> Nor am I concerned that our information might be used by people who >>> oppose >>> our >>> principles. We ask just

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Proposal for New Project - Wikilore

in regards to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilore On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:55 AM, Johan Jönsson wrote: > 2016-01-18 16:37 GMT+01:00 Tanweer Morshed : >> Yeah, I do think the same as well. Wikisource is a good option for that. > > It could be that the Wikisources I'm familiar with are the ex

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How to disseminate free knowledge? Was: Profile of Magnus Manske

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 9:49 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/01/wikidata-william-anthony-phd.html That blog post doesnt appear link to the Wikidata item. It is https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q21745493 which only has 14 facts, but only one reference. I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote: > On 2016-01-19 12:53 PM, Pine W wrote: >> >> The constitutional crisis that WMF created by using Superprotect to force >> Image VIewer on the communities [...] > > > ... except that this is not what happened. While that narrative might b

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Board-l] Fwd: WMF trustee Arnnon Geshuri and part in anticompetitive agreements in Google

On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote: >.. > The identified mistakes/shortcomings of the whole process: > > 1. In the background check performed by the HR and the legal department we > have not had a specific PR check as an immanent part. While it sounds like > common sense (d

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Message from Arnnon Geshuri to the Wikimedia Community

Hi Arnnon, Did you provide information regarding your involvement in the antitrust litigation to someone during the WMF selection process? If not, why not? -- John Vandenberg ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanks, likes and progress on Wikimedia Discourse pilot

On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 6:31 PM, Lodewijk wrote: > Is there any progress on finding a mailing list that likes to be guinnea > pig (a.k.a. innovation leader) and try it out? I don't think it has to be > an alternative for this particular mailing list in this phase, any mailing > list of some size wo

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Reducing the net cost of Wikimania

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel wrote: > If we want to talk about the cost of Wikimania it will be great if the WMF > and the local team will share the costs. > > Until now Wikimania London didn't published anything: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2014/Budget

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Elsevier?

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Milos Rancic wrote: > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 11:37 PM, Lodewijk > wrote: >> that is a perfectly fine opinion to hold, thanks for sharing. However, the >> WMF should, in my opinion, only make political statements like severing >> ties with an organisation that o

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Facebook marketing inside pt.wikipedia

Indonesian Wikipedia has used site notice to link to their Facebook group, Twitter, and Instagram for years. Their facebook page has 97,236 likes. https://www.facebook.com/id.wiki posts often get 100 likes compare with Wikimedia Commons page, with 2,793 likes, and posts usually attract < 10 like

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The reinstatement of James Heilman

If the board can not back up Jimmy's assertion he has removed for cause, I am pretty confident the community will 'select' James again, just as soon as they are given an opportunity. -- John Vandenberg ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's fix templates

On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Wil Sinclair wrote: > I'd like to add distribution as one of the pain points. I wanted to > have the templates that are available on enwiki for another Mediawiki > installation, but I couldn't get them to work. It seems like every > template has a maze of dependenci

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 3:29 AM, Wil Sinclair wrote: > This somewhat circuitously brings us back to the subject. We have a > chance to rollout Flow the right way. There are some questions that > come to mind that might tell us if we're headed for a big win or a > bigger debacle: > > 1) Is the WMF w

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Steven Walling wrote: > On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 1:48 PM, John Mark Vandenberg > wrote: > >> IMO the WMF should stop focusing on English Wikipedia as a target >> deploy site, and stop allowing its product management team and WMF >> staf

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 12:18 PM, Romaine Wiki wrote: > 2014-09-06 1:07 GMT+02:00 Steven Walling : > >> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 1:48 PM, John Mark Vandenberg >> wrote: >> >> > IMO the WMF should stop focusing on English Wikipedia as a target >> >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow or not to Flow

On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote: > On 09/07/2014 01:57 AM, Diego Moya wrote: >> a major property of a document-centric architecture that is lost in a >> structured one is that it's open-ended, which means that end users can >> build new features and flows on top of it, with

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Feedback with Android on Commons

On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Erik Moeller wrote: > Yann, > > The Commons app would need lots of love to continue to be worth advertising > as a mainline app. It's not been updated since October, and code rot sets > in after a while (I can easily reproduce crashes when logging in with an > acco

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Feedback with Android on Commons

On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Dan Garry wrote: > Thanks to all in this thread for raising these issues. > > A discussion about sunsetting the Commons Android app is ongoing on > mobile-l right now. I would encourage anyone who's interested to subscribe > and comment. Hi Dam, thanks for your re

Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow or not to Flow

On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Wil Sinclair wrote: > Tim, do you think that this list of all the useful stuff that talk > pages can currently includes things that aren't being done because > they are too advanced for newbie editors or too inconvenient for > veterans? > > Regardless, you make a s

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Conference 2015

On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 8:17 PM, Wil Sinclair wrote: > Actually, I'd like to speak up on the name. > > I imagine the name reflected the enthusiasm of its first attendees, > but "Wikimania" has all the wrong connotations in today's world. True > mania is marked by little control, commitment, and re

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

rojects. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAuth/DannyH_(WMF) Danny will no doubt hit the 300 global edit mark by the cutoff date which would be ~March 2014., roughly one year after he started. I suspect he may also meet any sensible criteria established for merged patches, but havent checked that.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 8:11 AM, Risker wrote: > On 5 October 2014 20:51, Marc A. Pelletier wrote: > >> On 10/05/2014 08:24 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote: >> > I checked a few of the WMF admin staff who have been employed more >> > than a year, and many don

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustee elections

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Risker wrote: > John, please explain what your point is here. I mean really, picking on > individual people who voted in the election? That's crossing the line, > especially as they met the voting eligibility criteria for the election > involved, which happened 16

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Recognition of the MediaWiki Stakeholder's Group

Quim Gil writes: > PS: Stakeholder's or Stakeholders? I did send Gregory an email shortly after he notified me that we were accepted when the problematic apostrophe was pointed out to me. We'd like to have the apostrophe removed, if possible. Mark. -- Mark A. Hershberger Nich

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Recognition of the MediaWiki Stakeholder's Group

Gregory Varnum writes: > We have updated everything to reflect the correct spelling. Although it > sounds like now you'd like no apostrophe? Yes. I apologize for the confusion and extra work. Mark. -- Mark A. Hershberger NicheWork LLC 7

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Organizational effectiveness tool (for Wikimedia organizations)

On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: > Why does the questionnaire seemingly exclude the WMF? > > If the WMF is one "other organized

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Organizational effectiveness tool (for Wikimedia organizations)

On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Samuel Klein wrote: > Thanks Anasuya! That's quite a comprehensive survey but instructive to > fill out. > > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 3:46 AM, John Mark Vandenberg > wrote: >> >> No, .. from the survey itself: >> >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again)

On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Lila Tretikov wrote: > I would like to expose this more, maybe after this crunch. Just keep in > mind that it takes time to anonymize and process -- a time that is > otherwise spent on optimizing or collaborating. One bucket of resources, > many demands... and I'd l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again)

On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:46 AM, svetlana wrote: > John Mark Vandenberg wrote: > >> i.e. specifically asking >> previously highly productive volunteers who have stopped contributing >> whether they feel the increase in funds has not resulted in their work >> being ad

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again)

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 12:48 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: > On 04.12.2014 02:30, John Mark Vandenberg wrote: >> >> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:46 AM, svetlana wrote: >>> >>> John Mark Vandenberg wrote: >>> >>>> i.e. specifically asking >>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner interfering with Google results

On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Nick Birse wrote: > Russavia asked me to check this to confirm it wasn't just him or his > regional Google setup, and it's both correct and looking into it further > it's hitting every single page on Wikipedia that Google has indexed. > > If you search for "DEAR WIK

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner interfering with Google results

On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Russavia wrote: > Thanks John for the link. > > I've made an edit to > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ushuaia_%E2%80%93_Malvinas_Argentinas_International_Airport > as I've been told that Google will update text in their search results when > articles are created and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

Comparisons to PBS/TV are not a useful pro-Wikipedia Zero argument, as the TV network model is itself a convincing argument effectively used by the pro-net-neutrality people as a worst case outcome of eroding net neutrality - most people agree we need to avoid the Internet descending to a TV networ

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:47 AM, Luis Villa wrote: > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Katherine Casey < > fluffernutter.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> All sniping aside, it seems to me the problem (question?) here is whether >> Commons's interpretation of package copyright is legally accurate, or >>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons copyright extremism

On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 2:21 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > This problem is not new. It is not as if the Commons community is not aware > of this perception. The perception that there might be a situation where > someone is sued is not necessary shared by lawyers. They have to make a > living

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Congratulations to MediaWiki Farmers User Group for being approved as a Wikimedia User Group

*sigh* I was hoping the farmers had united but good luck to the virtual farmers of ~85% men On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Gregory Varnum wrote: > Greetings, > > Please join the Affiliations Committee in congratulating the MediaWiki > Farmers User Group on their official approval as a Wi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Foundation global ban policy

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:30 PM, MZMcBride wrote: > Hi. > > Within the past week, Philippe has posted the Wikimedia Foundation's > global ban policy: . Raised it on the WMF board noticeboard, as I would expect they develop & approve something

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Annual Report from the Wikimedia Foundation

https://annual.wikimedia.org/2014/#editcounterinfo says "The edit counter is a live count of all edits across all databases in Wikimedia’s servers. How does it work? Every five minutes or so, the system queries the databases in the Wikimedia cluster for the sum total of all edits on the Wikimedi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Love on the wikis

On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 4:13 AM, Emily Blanchard wrote: > Thanks Fabrice! This is pure sweetness. > > St. Valentine's Day comes but once a year! Actually ... It is celebrated at different times in the year, in various parts of the world. And the Eastern Orthodox Church officially celebrates it

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Works which can't be freely licensed

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 6:51 PM, Milos Rancic wrote: > Which, actually, reminds me that we definitely need a "non-free" > repository. For example, we could get that grammar to be quoted in > whole, but there is no sense to change it. > > But, my initial point was: Am I missing something? Would the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Works which can't be freely licensed

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:23 PM, Amir E. Aharoni wrote: >> > But, my initial point was: Am I missing something? Would there be any >> > reason why such grammar would have sense without ND clause? > >> Milos, > >> Could we not import these works onto Wikisource in original format, >> where they wo

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Works which can't be freely licensed

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:46 PM, Amir E. Aharoni wrote: >> > But since Milos asked: In Wikisource changing the original is indeed >> > vandalism, but somebody must notice that it's vandalism. AFAIK > Wikisource >> > doesn't have a proper way to authenticate that the document is in its >> > origin

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Bye

When was odder put on moderation, and what for? On 24 Feb 2015 14:49, "Federico Leva (Nemo)" wrote: > John Mark Vandenberg, 23/02/2015 21:59: > >> Which email ? the crowdfunding email? >> > > Yes, because odder is in moderation (lik

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Data privacy, encrypted links and recent change captures

On 01/01/2014 9:11 AM, "Federico Leva (Nemo)" wrote: > > John Vandenberg, 30/12/2013 08:10: > >> Are the Wikimedia transit links encrypted, especially for database replication? >> MySQL has replication over SSL, so I assume the answer is Yes. >> >> If not, is this necessary or useful, and feasible

Re: [Wikimedia-l] SUL finalization update (no, for real this time)

On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 7:07 AM, Keegan Peterzell wrote: > ... > All accounts that will be affected by this will be contacted on their talk > page within the next couple of days.[4] All local wikis also have a > publicly listed database of users who will be renamed, available at > Special:UsersWho

Re: [Wikimedia-l] SUL finalization update (no, for real this time)

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Legoktm wrote: > On 03/17/2015 09:54 PM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote: >> On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 7:07 AM, Keegan Peterzell >> wrote: >>> ... >>> All accounts that will be affected by this will be contacted on their talk >>&

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CAPTCHA issues discouraging new editors

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 12:22 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote: > [I'm posting this here because although the experiences described > relate to en.WP, I'm sure it applies to other projects as well] > > > I have trained over 100 people to edit Wikipedia this year; in around > a dozen different sessions. > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding

On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 6:59 AM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote: > On 03/22/2014 02:45 PM, Russavia wrote: >> It's already been established that there is massive copyvio in there, >> and I think it is absolutely unacceptable for a copyvio to still be in >> this article under the circumstances. > > It's u

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimania-l] Setting ticket prices

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 4:47 AM, James Alexander wrote: > On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Carlos M. Colina > wrote: > >> Wait, are we in kindergarden? I think Rupert's email was sent off-list, so >> basically there is no need to bring it up to the list, regardless how >> related it is to the thr

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Our next strategy plan-Paid editing

If nothing else, the existing community quality rating system (i.e. FA, GA, etc.) should be used. It may not be perfect at the individual article level, but it does scale well. On Mar 26, 2014 6:36 AM, "Pete Forsyth" wrote: > Philippe, > > The Public Policy Initiative produced strong validation f

Re: [Wikimedia-l] is Wikiquote in decline or just stagnant

See the graphs for 5+ editors here: http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikibooks/EN/ChartsWikipediaZZ.htm http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikiquote/EN/ChartsWikipediaZZ.htm http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikinews/EN/ChartsWikipediaZZ.htm It is wikinews that has been loosing contributors since mid 2008, and new ar

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Reminder: Nominations open for affiliate-selected board seats

There are 36 hours remaining for nominations for the affiliate-selected seats. Self-nominations are allowed. The two existing chapter appointed board members, Patricio Lorente and Alice Wiegand, are currently the only candidates, which will save a lot of volunteer time in the selection process. ;-

Re: [Wikimedia-l] COI editing by WMF staff

On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 2:39 AM, Risker wrote: > On 17 April 2014 15:23, Pete Forsyth wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Erik Moeller wrote: >> >> > On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Pete Forsyth >> > wrote: >> > > After he was hired, Zack continued to use that account -- more >> > r

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia Indonesia and Humanitarian Open Street Map receive ALL VOICES GRANT

On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 5:48 AM, Anna Torres wrote: > Hi Isabella, > > Great news! Congratulations to all of you :) > In Argentina we are planning to build up a fundraising strategy this year. > Is there somewhere we can take a look to the project? While the WMID team puts online their project do

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.

On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Kevin Gorman wrote: > Hi Yann - > > Commons is unique in that AFAIK it's our only project that, by it's very > nature, effects other projects, as well as outside collaborations. Well, no, it isnt. Wikidata also has a direct effect on the other projects. A very

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons' frontpage probably shouldn't prominently feature a decontextualised stack of corpses.

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 9:42 AM, MZMcBride wrote: > Nathan wrote: >>A lot of the issues Kevin is probably referring to revolve around the 2011 >>debate, and many of the most blatant problems have since been cleaned up. > > Perhaps some of the most blatant problems have been addressed, but I'm > sk

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons tagging and/versus categorization

I think intersection is the most significant cause of the current categorisation system. My understanding of the current reasoning behind categorisation as seen on Commons and elsewhere is that: 1) the lack of category intersection causes the very specific categories, which are essentially saved

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

On May 29, 2014 5:33 AM, "Thyge" wrote: > > Please raise and discuss questions about policy on meta. This is not the > place. > > Regards, > Thyge > Wil, I suggest that you do go to http://meta.wikimedia.org and find pages about these issues. *Read the archives of the talk pages*. And start new d

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

Wil, On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:29 AM, Wil Sinclair wrote: > Stepping in to add another aspect to both questions, as I think it > might focus the discussion. > > Child Protection: Are children encouraged to use commons through any > programs or outreach efforts of any kind? Who are you addressing

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Blocking Wil from this List

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 6:24 AM, Wil Sinclair wrote: > I'm starting a thread with the correct title, so that everyone knows > that we're discussing whether I should be banned and for what reasons. Like Sam said in another thread, I doubt you would be blocked on this list, and there would be an up

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 8:05 AM, Wil Sinclair wrote: > As I mentioned to Sam, I have just one more thing to say here before I > let you guys deliberate on whether to block me. > > I've been getting tons of private emails from people who say that they > don't want to see me blocked, but that they a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Airtel Offers Nigerians Free Access to Wikipedia

On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 5:43 AM, C. Scott Ananian wrote: > This is a fascinating discussion, but one which has been addressed in > much greater depth elsewhere: > http://lmgtfy.com/?q=net+neutrality+wikipedia+zero > > It would indeed be interesting to hear EFF's take on the matter, which > does

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer

On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Erik Moeller wrote: > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 4:12 PM, MZMcBride wrote: >> Many new features (e.g., the improved search backend) are deployed fairly >> regularly >> without fanfare or objection. > > Indeed, change-aversion tends to correlate pretty strongly with

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Community RfCs about MediaViewer

'On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Erik Moeller wrote: > On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:02 PM, John Mark Vandenberg > wrote: >> Or .. sometimes the licensing and attribution information isnt >> correct > > In the common case, Media Viewer provides more prominent and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Offwiki

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 2:59 PM, MZMcBride wrote: > Wil Sinclair wrote: >>Hi all, I've started a new wiki called Offwiki: http://offwiki.org. >>Our community discusses potential changes to Wikipedia and its >>Wikimedia sister projects that aren't easily discussed in forums like >>this mailing list

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Unacceptable -- CheckUser abuse gone uninvestigated

On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Nathan wrote: > Are you able to specify which policy or statement entitles you to the > information you request? I can find no basis for it in the privacy policy, > the Meta checkuser policy or the checkuser page on Commons. Can you also > outline for your audience

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Unacceptable -- CheckUser abuse gone uninvestigated

On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 5:41 PM, geni wrote: > On 2 August 2014 06:25, John Mark Vandenberg wrote: > >> On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Nathan wrote: >> > Are you able to specify which policy or statement entitles you to the >> > information you request? I can find

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Unacceptable -- CheckUser abuse gone uninvestigated

On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Nathan wrote: >>.. > I could be wrong, but it was my understanding that the logs are maintained > indefinitely but the data is retained for only 3 months (i.e. the results > of the check that is recorded in the log). The checkuser log are kept indefinitely, but it

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Effective censorship of Wikipedia by Google

On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Risker wrote: > I'm not sure you're correct about what is being "disappeared", Fae. I > believe that the Guardian is referring to an article of theirs that is now > not seen in Google search results for certain terms. The article makes it > pretty clear that The G

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Effective censorship of Wikipedia by Google

On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 12:27 PM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote: > On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Risker wrote: >> I'm not sure you're correct about what is being "disappeared", Fae. I >> believe that the Guardian is referring to an article of theirs that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 10:08 PM, MZMcBride wrote: > David Gerard wrote: >>On 10 August 2014 15:51, MZMcBride wrote: >>> You'd been threatening to implement super-protection for a long time. I >>> see you finally made good on this very bad idea. This is certainly bold, >>> but also incredibly rec

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:18 AM, Brian Wolff wrote: >> >> Now, having observed that not only user Eloquence (aka Erik Moeller) >> himself engaged in the enforcement of right on de.wp >> [1] but soon after a workaround was published a change was deployed >> [2, 3] as counter measurement to block

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Superprotect user right, Comming to a wiki near you

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 3:49 AM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 2:01 PM, John Mark Vandenberg > wrote: > >> Before this, there was no expectation that a page could be protected >> such that sysops could not alter the content of the superprotected &g

<    1   2   3   >