osurgeons. They're going to wave the flag that they're focusing on
a specific aspect of medicine. It's what we do with the diversity
conference, and with the hackathons, too. You're not losing anything by
changing the name: you're recognizing the specialty focus of the
jects, and wonder why editors at your project think that the current
level of participation is too low. I also don't understand why you find
your watchlist flooded using the current discussion process, but this may
be a difference in preferences or in the setup of your specific project.
Riske
tly Damon served as VP of
> Engineering at Edmodo, Inc., an educational content network, and was
> responsible for all web, platform, and mobile engineering, security,
> IT operations, support, and QA efforts.»)
>
> Welcome Damon!
>
>
I am admittedly amongst the lazy, so
pedia* standards:
formatting, manual of style, reliable sources as references (as opposed to,
say, blogs). It doesn't contain most of the elements of peer review seen
for scientific papers.
Risker/Anne
On 3 October 2014 15:56, Erlend Bjørtvedt wrote:
> But remember: all Wikipedia arti
cally checked for those types of duplicate votes, and would have
de-activated the earliest vote(s) keeping only the last one. As it
happens, nobody did that; the only votes we needed to strike were test
votes.[1]
Risker/Anne
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2013
to expect
that questions relevant to the responsibility of the team will receive a
response.
Risker/Anne
On 5 October 2014 14:13, Pine W wrote:
> Hi Tilman,
>
> Thanks for redirecting the thanks to Anna and Maria.
>
> Erik mentioned quarterly reviews accounting for c
f the applicable wikis where people might be posting are not included
in the SUL grouping (for example, FDC wiki or other non-public wikis,
Foundation wiki, etc).
Risker/Anne
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.o
o vote, or shouldn't have been allowed to vote using a staff account, when
that was in the eligibility criteria for many previous elections (not just
the 2013 one) is just rude. As best I can tell, there were no concerns
expressed in the lead-up the 2013 election about WMF staff having franchise.
Risk
On 7 October 2014 00:57, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Risker wrote:
>
>
> IMO the election must be run by a third party, as happened prior to
> 2013, by SPI.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_in_the_Public_Interest
> Adequate staf
Log of this office hours:
http://bots.wmflabs.org/~wm-bot/logs/%23wikimedia-office/20141009.txt
(Will also be posted on Meta)
Risker
On 9 October 2014 15:54, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
> This is happening in #wikimedia-office on the freenode network in about
> five. :-)
>
>
&
g
it an elected position would lead to a somehow better process for
identifying the next Wikimania location.
Risker/Anne
On 10 October 2014 10:44, Fæ wrote:
> On 10 October 2014 14:58, Lodewijk wrote:
> > If you're interested in discussing the future of Wikimania, perhaps it
>
Which organizational values are you speaking about, Pine? The identified
Wikimedia values[1] do not really speak to financial investment strategy.
Risker
[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Values
On 14 October 2014 14:18, Pine W wrote:
> Yes, thanks, those are relevant policies.
Thanks very much for developing this Fae, it's a great idea.
Risker/Anne
On 17 October 2014 03:37, Fæ wrote:
> Due to recent vandalism a new report on Commons for page patrollers
> has been started at
> <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:F%C3%A6/BLP_overwrites>.
Very exciting news.
Risker/Anne
On 5 November 2014 14:19, Pierre-Selim wrote:
> Kudos \o/ and keep on the good work!
>
> Pierre-Selim
> Message d'origine
> De: Lydia Pintscher
> Envoyé: mercredi 5 novembre 2014 19:09
> À: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Répondre à: W
Actually, as I recall, email alerts for changes in articles has never been
activated on English Wikipedia.
Risker/Anne
On 12 November 2014 22:53, Anthony Cole wrote:
> Agree with all that, Svetlana - though we don't have a button at the top of
> articles making it easy for reader
difficult if not impossible for many users (particularly if they
don't have administrator permissions for the site) to lift the
filter/block. Getting donations is not more important than keeping the
sites accessible.
Please reconsider.
Risker/Anne
On 26 November 2014 at 15:33, MZMcBride
antee.
Risker/Anne
On 26 November 2014 at 15:06, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> Hoi,
> Lodewijk when the funding process stifles innovation and, it does by
> design. The process is suboptimal. When the argument is made that the
> chapters are second class citizens BECAUSE they are fo
information was required than is needed for any other means of payment that
I've ever used. Banks in Canada regularly call their customers for
transactions under $5 because fraud is so common - and that is with chip
cards and PINs.
Risker
On 1 December 2014 at 00:08, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
staffers, but this is a lot
better than the version we saw just under a week ago.
Risker/Anne
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscrib
rth investigating, and Lisa Gruwell has already answered
some locally-specific issues. But there were a lot of reasons why this
option was heavily restricted in the past, and it wasn't just because
certain chapters were having governance issues.
Risker/Anne
Fae, Steven hasn't been a WMFstaffer for some months. Luis is, but he
appears to be speaking in his staff role.
Risker/Anne
On 11 December 2014 at 13:14, Fæ wrote:
> Making defamatory comments about Commons volunteers on this list is
> not terribly productive, nor a very nice thing
> - d.
>
>
It's not doing that for me (Canada, using an old IE browser). However, it
IS ignoring my previously set "don't show me this again" cookie.
Risker/Anne
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://
#x27;s little doubt in my mind that more and more people
are blocking those banners already - the more annoying they get, the more
people block them, and the smaller the potential contribution pool. We're
starting to chase our own tails here.
Risker/Anne
__
list?
Risker/Anne
On 3 January 2015 at 13:35, Lila Tretikov wrote:
> For everyone here: I've asked our Grantmaking team to comment and clarify
> the details of this plan.
>
> On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Lodewijk
> wrote:
>
> > Answering to Teemu and Chris:
> >
27;ve read, or a single objection I've
seen raised, that wasn't about how unnecessary it is to focus on women. I
don't think we've ever heard that about the global south, or non-European
languages, or a lot of other areas where there are acknowledged biases.
Risker/Anne
On
.well, as I say, this is not a good result.
People were putting Wikipedia on Adblock because of those banners, and they
were doing it long after the goal had been reached.
I'd say I was speechless, but actually I am working extremely hard to hold
my tongue here, awaiting an explan
e the reserve for future needs of the
organization and movement, including the possibility of adjustments in
fundraising methods as appropriate. "
Risker/Anne
[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/2014-11-21#Executive_Update_from_F
script and see the results there.
I'll admit to sharing Rich's curiosity about who was most thanked.
Risker/Anne
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.
quot; when smaller departments have
"Chiefs" and the other focus departments have VPs?The organizational
chart is getting a bit tricky to follow. :-)
Risker/Anne
On 19 February 2015 at 17:15, Lila Tretikov wrote:
> Dear Wikimedians,
>
> Among the WMF’s top priorities
hat he "can't
keep his word" is a rather overblown reaction to a major change in the
process in which you seem to have invested a lot of yourself in the past.
I have no real thoughts about whether this very different way of seeking
community input into strategy is better or worse. I
March 19. You have no reason to believe that the draft report hasn't been
completed. Perhaps you could hold your concerns about deadlines being
missed until the final report is due.
Risker/Anne
On 1 March 2015 at 21:06, Pine W wrote:
> Keegan,
>
> May I point out that the term on t
he schema. (I'm assuming it
has something to do with the accounts being very old, but it sure looks
weird.)
Risker/Anne
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists
ry Street
> San Francisco, CA 94105
>
> +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635
> +1 (415) 712 4873
> kma...@wikimedia.org
>
>
Thank you very much for telling us about this, Katherine. I am unable to
read the file on Commons (the print is far too faint, and also quite
small), and I real
it unreadable for me, a person with fairly normal
vision. The Commons page should probably also have a link to the Meta
page.
Risker/Anne
On 2 April 2015 at 16:35, Jan Ainali wrote:
> Risker: For your convenience:
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ainali/sandbox
>
>
>
candid report. If it's an indication of a
> change in communication style, I like it.
>
> Good to have it available on Meta as well as in pdf format (I think the pdf
> is very nicely done).
>
>
I agree, pretty much. This is probably the best 'big picture" look at t
hat have put so
> much time and energy into making this happen, the list is extensive and my
> gratitude is with you all.
>
Congratulations and thank you to you, Keegan, and to all who have worked on
this project over successive years. Here's hoping the process goes smoothly!
Risker/Ann
Chen20471018752.17%
FDC Ombudsman ElectionCandidateSupportNeutralOpposeSupport Ratio
S/S+OUser:Kirill Lokshin - Kirill Lokshin37062710478.06%User:NickK - Mykola
Kozlenko33366110775.68%
Risker
On 15 May 2015 at 19:48, Gregory Varnum wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> On behalf of the 2015 Wikimedia F
reassess
whether or not those goals are appropriate, there does not seem to be a
well-articulated long-term vision in this plan. Instead there is the
suggestion that the organization may change course quite significantly, and
that projects intended to take 3 or 4 quarters to accomplish migh
Minor correction: Appeals are due JUNE 8, 2015, not July 8.[1]
Risker/Anne
(Member of the FDC)
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Information#Calendar
On 1 June 2015 at 11:18, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
> Hello Wikimedians,
>
> The Funds Dissemination Committee (FDC) me
x27;m
not aware.
Risker/Anne
On 3 June 2015 at 18:14, Michael Peel wrote:
>
> > At the link, you can find
> > List votes: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Elections 2015
> > https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/list/512
>
> I personally don't
there is a right to examine
the list of individuals who can vote at the office of the local senior
election official for a few weeks afterward, and then at the national
election office once any challenges have been completed. Of course in
places where voting is mandatory, the failure to vote is goi
On 3 June 2015 at 19:11, Michael Peel wrote:
>
> > On 3 Jun 2015, at 23:48, Risker wrote:
> >
> > On 3 June 2015 at 18:42, Michael Peel wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>> By the way, my understanding is that the practice of generating a
> public
>
t talking about
diversity, but very poor at implementing it.
Risker/Anne
On 6 June 2015 at 13:55, MF-Warburg wrote:
> I still think it was a big mistake (of the electcom? I don't remember, but
> /someone/ pushed it through without discussions) in the 2013 election to
> abolish the Schul
rence in the movement than having a seat on the board would have, and
certainly would be making more difference than being on the FDC would
have. I think there's a fair amount of truth in that.
Risker/Anne
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list,
des some form of my
username. I can imagine the subjects of some of our biographical
articles thinking the same way. Who knows, this might actually sell...
Risker/Anne
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ma
ng to exist five
years from now in the way that we know them today...)
Risker/Anne
On 22 June 2015 at 13:41, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> Magnus pointed the way forward when he started MediaWiki. When you look
> into the whole stack of his data related tools, you will find how they ma
One has to
wonder if some other countries, especially those with a large number of
Wikimedians or a massive geographic area, might wish they had gone with
regional affiliates rather than a national one.
Risker/Anne
On 27 June 2015 at 23:26, Ricordisamoa wrote:
> I know the confederated approac
een better,
and I wonder about other geographically large countries where this would
also be more workable.
Risker
On 28 June 2015 at 01:17, Ricordisamoa wrote:
> I infer that you would have preferred a single US chapter from the start,
> wouldn't you?
>
>
> Il 28/06
se positions; it
wasn't a good situation for either the engineers or the WMF. Or, to twist
an old expression, it's not good use of resources to try and make a silk
purse out of a Cray supercomputer.
Best wishes to Damon.
Risker/Anne
On 2 July 2015 at 22:06, Pine W wrote:
> I thi
7;t editable on the project on which it is hosted
is probably not a very effective way to persuade people to turn it into an
actual page.
Trialing the process on some small projects that actively volunteer to
participate would be a first step.
Risker/Anne
_
regret.
>
>
Actually, I think that we should consider it a strength in an individual to
refuse to consider applying for a position where every aspect of their
career and personal life would be microscopically examined by thousands of
people. Self-respect is a positive attribute.
Risker
ou're giving wise counsel.
Before you do that in the future, perhaps it would be a good idea to
understand why a project had to, after years of trying to work with a
valued editor and to mitigate the problems caused, finally remove him from
the project.
Risker
On 4 February 2014 07:05, Sa
On 4 February 2014 08:55, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> Risker, 04/02/2014 13:40:
>
>> Sam, I am quite concerned that you would use a public mailing list to
>> express your displeasure about a specific individual's block [...]
>>
>
> You're putting words
On 4 February 2014 10:30, Fæ wrote:
> On 4 February 2014 14:03, Risker 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 Com
On 4 February 2014 11:21, Fæ wrote:
> On 4 February 2014 15:54, Risker 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
year-long ban handled by a single administrator.
>
>
> Risker has not noted her personal involvement in such. She's not
> defending the treatment of Rich Farmbrough as any sort of uninvolved
> commentator.
>
>
I'm not defending the treatment of any individual editor
On 4 February 2014 12:27, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> Risker, 04/02/2014 17:59:
>
> doesn't deserve to have his case reheard on this mailing list
>>
>
> Then it would have been useful if you had refrained from issuing a motion
> of order against a simple, incid
so
I'm not sure which consensus you're speaking of.
Risker/Anne
On 11 February 2014 12:59, Cynthia Ashley-Nelson wrote:
> Consensus indicates that the implementation of this decision will greatly
> hinder the work of affiliates.It may help to disclose the initial problem
> sta
ng who has supported or opposed motions.
Risker/Anne
On 11 February 2014 16:49, Cristian Consonni wrote:
> 2014-02-11 19:22 GMT+01:00 Cynthia Ashley-Nelson :
> > Yes, I agree that the consensus of the Board is clear.
>
> IMHO, I wouldn't say that for two decisions taken with
ted by these decisions, are able to share their knowledge from
those experiences.
Risker/Anne
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia
Heh. So the Wikimedia representative was in Finland?
Still a bit of correction coming, I think.
Risker/Anne
On 3 March 2014 14:05, Stryn@Wikimedia wrote:
> The corrected report seems to be
>
> http://www.finlandtimes.fi/national/2014/03/02/5152/Report-submitted-to-police-d
fferent reasons?
Mostly, thoughthis just really feels like it is trying to take the
Wikimedia community down a path that has nothing to do with our core
objectives, and to turn us into just another advocacy group. I'm not
interested in that.
Risker/Anne
On 13 March 2014 22:38, James Salsman wrote:
>
>
> If the Trustees have decided that we should pay advocates,
>
Link to the board of decision to pay advocates please.
Risker
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
the_.E2.80.9CLegal.2C_Community_Advocacy.2C_Communications.2C_Human_Resources.2C_Finance_and_Administration.E2.80.9D_spending_in_the_Annual_Plan.3F
>
>
It's the name of a department "Legal and Community Advocacy" or LCA for
short. That&#x
ng at all for Arbcom to
do here. In fact, I'd be concerned if they're poking around on this when
there are several matters well within their mandate that are not apparently
being addressed.
Risker/Anne
On 2 April 2014 03:07, ENWP Pine wrote:
> Although much of my original email
e split into two separate conferences. There is
definitely an audience out there for many of these same topics which is
being ignored completely.
Risker/Anne
On 2 April 2014 08:32, Jens Best wrote:
> But if people who think that the 2+1-rule is questionable with good
> arguments can'
an
executive or employee of one and (3) be granted authority to attend this
conference. Those are very big hoops to jump through in order for
non-aligned Wikimedians and movement participants/supporters to participate
in the discussion.
Risker/anne
On 2 April 2014 14:32, Cornelius Kibelka
While I don't think this discussion should change the process or the
attendance for this specific conference, particularly as it is just around
the corner, it would be useful to take some of these points into
consideration for future planning.
Risker/Anne
On 2 April 2014 17:08, Nicole
able to adequately voice ideas other than the status quo.
Risker/Anne
On 2 April 2014 17:17, Nicole Ebber wrote:
> Right, sorry, what I meant was that these arguments can be collected
> for the preparation of the "Future of the WMCON" session at WMCON
> itself, not for changing
FDC can do that, if for no other reason than
conflict of interest: the FDC is funded from that budget.
Risker/Anne
On 3 April 2014 21:32, Nathan wrote:
> Which part do you think is a joke? The same notice is posted on all the
> proposal forms.
> __
at is being reported as part of the WEP, what
projects are affected, and which programs have more participants.
Thanks!
Risker/Anne
On 6 April 2014 21:30, Jaime Anstee wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> (Please pardon any cross-posting)
>
> The final in our series of the Evaluation Report
and describe
where they see the two interfacing; those are public statements made by
individuals, and it's reasonable to respond to those. I'm not seeing a lot
of benefit in getting out the pitchforks and torches to go after a single
individual for an uncontextual
alaried or
contract), though. Indeed, one of the biggest COI issues we have on English
Wikipedia is former employees trying to use our articles to "bring problems
to light" about organizations.
The disclosure was made. Incidentally, that's all that would need to be
done even at
ccounts
for organizations, but given the harshness toward "commerce" accounts on
some other projects, I'm not sure it would work universally.
Best,
Risker/Anne
On 19 April 2014 19:17, Gryllida wrote:
> On a second thought, do we want to add an optional "affiliation"
suggest that the FDC seek authorization from the Board for an
independent third party review if it feels that there is not the necessary
ability for the FDC to produce its own assessment. Any assessment by the
WMDE should represent its own perspective.
Risker
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
On 25 April 2014 15:17, Michael Peel wrote:
> Hi Risker,
>
> Thanks for your thoughts.
>
> > Instead I suggest that the FDC seek authorization from the Board for an
> > independent third party review if it feels that there is not the
> necessary
> > abili
On 27 April 2014 12:37, Michael Peel wrote:
> Hi Risker,
>
> On 27 Apr 2014, at 16:01, Risker wrote:
>
> > However, having accepted the validity of the "proposal", the FDC does not
> > have the authority to delegate its role.
>
> I think you're misun
On 27 April 2014 14:35, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> Risker, 27/04/2014 19:49:
>
> Well, no, I'm not misunderstanding. If a staff assessment is needed, then
>> it needs to be done by staff.
>>
>
> Inappropriate metonymy here, "staff" doesn'
banners. I got a personal talk page message
because I'd been identified as a "useful" person to comment.
In other words, there is much less transparency or effort to reach out to
the broader community for the WMF proposal, which is radically different
from all other proposals.
Risker
On 27 April 2014 17:23, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Risker wrote:
>
> > Nemo, my position is that it shouldn't be being done at all because the
> > request is outside of the FDC's scope, and that assessment is done, then
> >
On 27 April 2014 22:04, Gergo Tisza wrote:
> Risker writes:
>
> > There is a huge difference between a request to any of the movement
> > stakeholders specifically for comment and asking a specific stakeholder -
> > one that has a lot to gain if the role of the WMF itsel
On 27 April 2014 22:29, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> On 04/27/2014 10:15 PM, Risker wrote:
> > WMF
> > staff review the applications using a specific rubric agreed upon with
> the
> > FDC, and post their results.
>
> So what then is the supposed conflict in letting W
On 27 April 2014 15:00, Cristian Consonni wrote:
> 2014-04-27 19:49 GMT+02:00 Risker :
> > Well, no, I'm not misunderstanding. If a staff assessment is needed,
> then
> > it needs to be done by staff.
>
> You are suggesting that the staff assessment of the WMF pro
On 28 April 2014 01:37, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> Risker, 28/04/2014 05:22:
>
> There is an actual cost to the WMDE to carry out this
>> assessment
>>
>
> With which you've replied to your own questions on why WMDE. Thanks
> generous WMDE for the gift.
&
projects.
>
>
I think Newyorbrad's point is that this is sectioned off into a distant
project that few people know about - as I recall, it's not even part of the
SUL so one has to log in separately there - and it seems not to be
mentioned very often anywhere else.
Risker/Anne
should be required, what information should be in
them, how to deal with controversial or complex information in infoboxes,
etc.
So I suppose the first step would be in determining what metrics should be
included in a quality assessment of a project.
Risker/Anne
unk science published in
peer-reviewed journals if the topic is "sexy" enough - their own
study wouldn't meet our standards for inclusion.
Risker/Anne
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
other issues is compared to the article on
concussion; the costly condition of "mental disorders" is compared to the
article on major depressive disorder despite, again, haing an article on
mental disorders.
And each article is reviewed by only two people; when one looks at the
result
om reference sources that just happen
to be available, the level of understanding of the subjects by the
reviewers, the limited number of reviewers, and the fact that subject
matter experts themselves are often in disagreement. It has not
demonstrated repeatability.
It's possible to create a st
ly
we could learn from them - especially on the readability point, which I
think really is a very serious issue. Wikipedia isn't really intended to
educate physicians about medical topics, it's intended to be a general
reference for non-specialists.
Very few people are going to make lif
On 7 May 2014 22:24, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 2:41 AM, Risker wrote:
> >
> >
> > I think perhaps there is a lack of research into the extent of research
> > already being done by independent, qualified third parties. Several
> > examples
In answer to the question of the WMF funding research:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:FAQ
Risker/Anne
On 8 May 2014 01:13, Anthony Cole wrote:
> Wow.
>
> Wil - you're going to love WikiData.
>
> Phoebe: I have seen that list of peer-reviewed articles related to
the assessment?
Risker/Anne
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Proposal_assessment_by_Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_l
made it very clear that they have not completed any
assessment report in relation to the WMF request. [1]
The sentence in the WMDE assessment should be corrected.
Risker/Anne
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2013-2014_round2/Wikimedia_Foundation/Staff_proposal_assessment
al that was
assessed (the WMF did), that you can simplify this further by eliminating
the first clause, and simply saying "FDC have asked Wikimedia Deutschland
(WMDE) to do the staff assessment of the WMF's proposal." The FDC can
explain further itself why it has asked WMDE to do the
the edit or action, even if the affiliation changes at a subsequent time
(kind of like subst'ing templates). Not sure this is possible through
preferences.
Risker/Anne
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailin
information, who were perhaps unexpectedly greeted by an image of stacked
dead bodies with their morning cornflakes - and based on the discussion on
Commons, being confronted with this deliberately and intentionally, and in
a format that the majority of people cannot access or mitigate.
Risker/Anne
an sixty years later? They have to see this again so that...
why exactly?
Risker/Anne
On 9 May 2014 16:00, David Gerard wrote:
> The actual argument from Talk:Main Page:
>
> "Well, I have deliberately selected this frame. And yes, it is a
> shocking picture of victims kille
On 9 May 2014 16:14, David Gerard wrote:
> On 9 May 2014 21:13, Risker wrote:
>
> >The person who selected the image does not care that most of the
> > people who viewed that image saw only dead bodies without context.
>
>
> You could go to Talk:Main Page and say th
thing really isn't as solved as well as people
think. It still comes up as image #4 on a multimedia search of enwiki for
"electric toothbrush" and about #45 for a multimedia search of
"toothbrush". Even though the title was changed, it remains in the
category that gives h
201 - 300 of 469 matches
Mail list logo
