11 sept. 2020 à 12:22, Quim Gil a écrit :
>> On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 9:31 AM Benjamin Ikuta
>>> Please, enlighten me.
>> Here is an alternative suggestion. Check the UCoC draft and see whether you
>> see room for improveme
Please, enlighten me.
On Sep 10, 2020, at 11:39 PM, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> Am Fr., 11. Sept. 2020 um 08:07 Uhr schrieb Benjamin Ikuta
>> Is there some context that makes this much worse than it seems, or do I have
>> a deeply flawed understanding of civi
Am I reading this correctly?
You were moderated for calling the UCoC flatulence?
Is there some context that makes this much worse than it seems, or do I have a
deeply flawed understanding of civility?
On Sep 9, 2020, at 2:21 PM, Dan Szymborski wrote:
> That's OK. I have much bigger
I agree, the lack of transparency is quite concerning, as is the use of AWS.
I sure hope we're not going to be producing closed source code!
On Jul 9, 2020, at 10:19 AM, Amir Sarabadani wrote:
> Thanks Joseph for the links. It's more clear now.
> I think I need to clarify something:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020, 00:54 Benjamin Ikuta wrote:
>> For the sake of transparency, how many messages were blocked?
>> On Jun 23, 2020, at 2:31 PM, Asaf Bartov wrote:
>>> Dear Wikimedians,
For the sake of transparency, how many messages were blocked?
On Jun 23, 2020, at 2:31 PM, Asaf Bartov wrote:
> Dear Wikimedians,
> We have ended the emergency moderation of the mailing list
> We did our best to process the moderation queue at least several times a
> day, but are
Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to Commons
because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much broader than that
Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why people don't
contribute more broadly?
Countless editors, myself included, have complained about this over the years.
Regarding the WMF's response, actions speak louder than words.
On May 4, 2020, at 7:55 AM, John Erling Blad wrote:
> Often I surf Wikipedia without being logged in, and so I did right now. I
> got the usual
Thanks for that.
Pardon me if I've missed something, but that seems to imply, but not directly
state, that AI training is a derivative work; could you clarify that?
On Jan 18, 2020, at 2:58 PM, Ryan Merkley wrote:
> [My comments are my own, and don’t reflect or suggest any official
My dad recently said to me:
"I was solitated by them after looking something up. I thought it strange the
way they were pleading for donations. They made it sound like they might be
shutting down if we the general public didn't donate."
Has there been any research into how common it is for
> Why are you attempting to connect using old versions of TLS?
> On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 at 20:30, Benjamin Ikuta
>> Was support for legacy TLS temporarily discontinued or something?
>> I noticed I couldn
Was support for legacy TLS temporarily discontinued or something?
I noticed I couldn't connect the other day, but now it seems I can again.
For what it's worth, I strongly oppose any measure that makes Wikimedia
projects less accessible.
I would also like to see an answer to this.
On Oct 23, 2019, at 4:59 AM, AntiCompositeNumber
> Furthermore, requests that "generally target all wikis" are also now
> excluded. Does that mean that requests relating to the work of stewards and
> global sysops, who do much of the work
I am also curious about this.
> On Oct 20, 2019, at 2:55 PM, RhinosF1 - wrote:
> Any idea of when an incident report may come out?
> Wikimedia User & Incident Reporter
> On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 at 00:29, Heather Walls wrote:
>> Hello again,
>> As a follow-up to my
Thank you for writing this; I completely agree.
I've long thought the WMF should put more resources into community wishes, not
I do hope this will be reconsidered.
Perhaps there could be more wishes granted to non-Wikimedia projects, while
maintaining the same number of wishes for
Could we have a formal RfC already, please?
> On Sep 13, 2019, at 6:02 PM, Todd Allen wrote:
> Also, "use the mailing list" is a problem in itself. Discussion should be
> taking place publicly and on-wiki, not via email. Lack of transparency in
> this process is a serious problem, and it
I agree that an RFC would be a reasonable way forward.
> On Sep 6, 2019, at 10:02 AM, Fæ wrote:
> If the WMF is going to make statements that are not derived from all
> the demonstrable facts, perhaps the community should now respond with
> a completely unambiguous RFC on meta so there
What I have said is that I hope the wider
> community will engage with and provide feedback to the core group who is
> working on developing the strategy. Much of the draft is really good, some
> requires more discussion and some adjustments.
It is disturbing that you would even consider overriding the community in such
a massive way.
On Aug 23, 2019, at 9:44 PM, James Heilman wrote:
> The board will be discussing this of course. We do not have a group
> position at this point in time.
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:47
As a strong inclusionist myself, I'm a bit disappointed to see this.
See also: https://www.gwern.net/In-Defense-Of-Inclusionism
On Jul 5, 2019, at 3:15 AM, Todd Allen wrote:
> Well, inclusionism generally is toxic. It lets a huge volume of garbage
> pile up. Deletionism just takes out the
It would do a great deal to clear the air of speculation if they would at least
confirm they're not accusing Fram of off wiki harassment.
On Jun 30, 2019, at 8:20 AM, Stephen Philbrick
> Please keep in mind the plausible scenario that one or more people
> contacted T & S, and
story is lying or a
> large number of professionals lied, conspired, and lashed out.
> Occam’s razor.
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 5:15 AM Benjamin Ikuta
>> Why do you doubt Fram? What do you think happened? And why can't the
Why do you doubt Fram? What do you think happened? And why can't the WMF say
even so much as a, "That's not accurate."?
You really think he's just outright lying?
On Jun 14, 2019, at 4:03 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> If you really think Fram's framing of events here is even plausible,
My two cents: I'd rather have such discussions on wiki.
Old browsers are more compatible with the wiki website, and it'd be more
convenient and accessible otherwise.
On Jun 25, 2019, at 11:01 AM, Fæ wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jun 2019 at 18:47, Maria Cruz wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
Thanks for this.
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one dismayed by the unilateralism and lack of
On Jun 10, 2019, at 8:25 PM, Techman224 wrote:
> Forwarding to WIkimedia-l since WikiEN-l is relatively dead.
> Since this message, an Arbcom member (SilkTork) stated that
Do you think it might be a common misconception, perhaps?
On May 20, 2019, at 6:39 AM, Paulo Santos Perneta
> The idea that NC is "open and free" is growing like a cancer in Brazil and
> Portugal. I've been noticing that for some time already, and I do believe
> we as a Movement
What did you learn about epistemology?
On May 16, 2019, at 1:21 PM, Sati Houston wrote:
> Hi All,
> After almost 5 years at WMF, I’ve decided to move on from the Foundation.
> My last day will be June 4th.
> These last few years have been an unexpected journey. When Anasuya Senguta
Well, there's always good ol' Jimbo's talk page.
On May 15, 2019, at 6:25 AM, Yaroslav Blanter wrote:
> This is of course fine, and everybody is free to participate or not to
> participate on this mailing list, but, generally speaking, does WMF have
> any channels to listen to the
Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or capable to do the
job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
> Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
> The good habit - which I was keeping
I'm not familiar with this specific situation, but I agree that more
transparency and accountability would be good.
On May 6, 2019, at 12:40 AM, Paulo Santos Perneta
> A few days ago the Wikimedia affiliate I belong to was officially informed,
> by a WMF source, that
> On Apr 27, 2019, at 4:44 PM, Strainu wrote:
> They might just as well employ a bunch of journalists to write
> articles, it won't make it a successful project.
That certainly wouldn't be the worst use of funds...
What real life problems would there be?
On Apr 9, 2019, at 6:11 AM, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
> The idea of rebranding Wikimedia to Wikipedia will create FAR more problems
> than it solves, specially in places where identifying ourselves with
> Wikipedia could create real life
> | | |
> | |
> Cronologia delle modifiche di "Ulva lactuca" - Wikipedia
>Il giovedì 14 marzo 2019, 00:14:57 CET, Benjamin Ikuta
> ha scr
I, for one, would indeed go so far as to say we should be doing editatons about
Naruto and Pokemon.
On Mar 12, 2019, at 10:10 AM, Paulo Santos Perneta
> I would not go as far as saying we should be doing edithatons about Naruto
> and Pokemons,
I agree, we should not be deleting useful articles.
On Mar 11, 2019, at 4:52 AM, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l
> I know people in many fields with great technical expertise. people who
> published articles on Science and
Is it perhaps a common misconception that Wikipedia is Wikimedia, or visa
On Feb 25, 2019, at 7:13 PM, Zack McCune wrote:
> :: Apologies for cross-posting to multiple mailing lists. We want to ensure
> we spread the word about this opportunity to as many people as possible. ::
Thank you for this.
Could you elaborate on the definition of knowledge, please?
This is something I've long been interested in.
On Feb 18, 2019, at 3:04 AM, David Cuenca Tudela wrote:
> Hi Amir,
> *How can the Wikimedia movement be more truly international *
I'd be interested in hearing about perceptions of the movement.
On Feb 17, 2019, at 3:35 PM, David Cuenca Tudela wrote:
> Last Friday I participated in a workshop in Brussels where people from
> different NGOs met to learn from each other to foster flat,
> democratic, and
I'll admit I was initially deceived by his initial message.
> On Jan 16, 2019, at 10:05 AM, Risker wrote:
> I regret to say that I feel James has abused this forum once again for his
> own personal agenda, much of which is unrelated even indirectly to the WMF
> or the Wikimedia movement.
I also assumed that, and was quite concerned.
> On Jan 16, 2019, at 1:22 AM, Kevin Payravi wrote:
> I've heard confusion from a couple folks and want to make sure it's clear
> here that this survey is coming from you as an individual, Jim, and has no
> origination or coordination with
Mail list logo