* Josh Lim wrote:
In the absence of any meaningful alternative, what should we do then?
Close down Wikipedia Zero and let the developing world languish in the
dark?
Technically it would be entirely possible for service providers to offer
access to Wikipedia for free even if the Wikimedia
* Sydney Poore wrote:
It appears to me that you are entirely missing the actual nature of the
problem and the reason for having a campaign targeted at the gender gap.
The *problem* is that there have been a suboptimal number of grant requests
for funds to address the gender gap even though it a
* Sydney Poore wrote:
It has become pretty obvious that funding the interests/values of existing
community members through regular channels is not creating content free of
systemic bias in general nor closing the human gender gap. (I say this as
someone who has read all types of WMF funding
* Liam Wyatt wrote:
I understand from the explanations that the reason for not accepting
any non-gender-gap focused grants for several months is because of the
expected workload on the staff in reviewing applications and
supporting the projects that do get funded.
However, what I don't understand
* Kim Bruning wrote:
Found another article calling out Wikipedia. Are there also
articles praising us? :-)
https://medium.com/backchannel/less-than-zero-199bcb05a868
Quoting,
Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp and Wikipedia become “the Internet” for
the users of mobile data supported by
* Siko Bouterse wrote:
Why the gender gap? Although we’ve committed to supporting and increasing
gender diversity, so far these kinds of projects haven’t emerged
organically at any meaningful scale. In the first half of this year, IEG
and PEG have spent only 9% of funds on projects aiming to
* Peter Southwood wrote:
OK, I was just wondering if acceptance of this form of marketing was an
American thing or more generally an English language thing. Obviously
not universally acceptable to English speakers, even in USA and England,
but possibly more offensive to people with other
* Andrew Gray wrote:
(In all seriousness: I generally agree with Liam's concerns, but I'd
also like to note that the banners running on mobile are much more
discreet, though are just as eye-catching. Well done to whoever
thought of those.)
When I encountered one of those I had to scroll four
* Russavia wrote:
I mentioned on the Gender Gap mailing list the other day that this was not
me, but now it would appear that email addresses on this mailing list are
being scraped.
Whoever controls that list added the address in my From and my signature
which pretty clearly suggests use of some
* Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
Dear fundraising team. Thank you for your efforts to make the fundraiser as
quick as possible. I understand that effective banners allow us to keep the
yearly donation drive as short as possible.
Considering the rate at which the Foundation and its Chapters increase
and
* geni wrote:
On 2 December 2014 at 06:53, Lila Tretikov l...@wikimedia.org wrote:
All -- we will not have a pop-up banner.
And how exactly would you describe this then?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Oversized_donation_notice.png
I got something like that on my mobile phone
* Tim Starling wrote:
On 17/01/14 01:14, Todd Allen wrote:
This proposal asks to move to a free as in beer model, where content will
be free to view, but not necessarily to reuse (and with the opaque license,
it may not even be possible to tell).
I don't really understand this argument. It's
* Andrew Lih wrote:
BTW, Luis from WMF has put a very lengthy and detailed analysis of the
legal issues that does help quite a bit, at the end of the RFC:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comment/MP4_Video#Commercial_use_and_h264
I note that the Wikimedia Foundation does
* Fabrice Florin wrote:
The Wikimedia Foundation's multimedia team (1) seeks your guidance on a
proposal to support the MP4 video format. As you know, this digital
video standard is used widely around the world to record, edit and watch
videos on mobile phones, desktop computers and home video
* Frank Schulenburg wrote:
And so I ask you to respect Sarah's privacy at what is surely a
difficult time for her, ...
An extremely visible public announcement that the Wikimedia Foundation
has fired her within two days of an allegation of misconduct -- that is
how you are making it sound -- is
* Nathan wrote:
We should thank them for editing using a major banner, a la the fundraiser.
I don't know why we do huge fundraising drives but seem to neglect editing
drives, even though editing is really the core way for people to donate to
Wikimedia.
That would make many editors very annoyed
* Romaine Wiki wrote:
January 1st was Public Domain Day [1] and after xx years of copyright,
it expires on the first of January of the year after. As result hundreds
of images were restored on Commons on the 1-1-2014, but many of them did
not get a place in articles on Wikipedia and her sister
* Michael Maggs wrote:
On 3 Jan 2014, at 14:22, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoe...@gmx.net wrote:
I find it a bit worrying that Commons makes little effort to distinguish
between copyright on this sculpture and copyright on this photograph
of a sculpture. It would seem preferable if there was suitable
* James Salsman wrote:
Can we please stop paying the Microsoft and NSA taxes and start buying
datacenter equipment which costs a lot less? Cubieboard/Cubietrucks for
instance?
Related: https://twitter.com/DellCares/status/417812096072818688.
--
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjo...@hoehrmann.de ·
* Risker wrote:
Just to clarify, since UTC is a confusing time for most of us...is
that the minute after 2359 UTC on November 2 (i.e., 7 hours after the first
session), or is it the minute after 2359 UTC on November 3?
I've seen it used both ways so I just want to be clear.
Could you
* Tomasz W. Kozlowski wrote:
it came to my attention very recently that a link to a YouTube video has
been included in our fundraising banners[1] last year, enabling people
by default to watch a video about Wikipedia loaded through a YouTube
iframe / element.
I am told that there are technical
* Geoff Brigham wrote:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/06/14/prism-surveillance-wikimedia/
You are not making a good case there as to what to do and why and how
this community is affected and needs to act. An immediate question seems
to be whether the Wikimedia Foundation should become signatory
* Andrea Zanni wrote:
At the moment, Wikisource could be a interesting corpora and laboratory for
improving and enhancing OCR,
as the OCR generated text is always proofread and corrected by humans.
As part of our project (
http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource_vision_development), Micru was
* Jay Walsh wrote:
I'm amused that this thread commenced with a reflection about the need to
distribute press releases at the appropriate global time window and has
rolled into this. I've been at this for five years and this is the first
time I've seen so much attention paid to the manner we
* Nathan wrote:
It's simple. The WMF didn't do anything. The English Wikipedia did. That
project effectively changed the content of the entire encyclopedia for
political reasons. That is the condicio sine qua non for abandoning
neutrality. You might say it was done for great reasons, and that it
* Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
Am 17.06.2012 01:21, schrieb Anthony:
I have never seen a censorware that works
flawlessly (not even china can do this right). Either it allows to much
(incomplete blacklist) or it is unnecessary limited (incomplete whitelist
producing angry mob). Additionally it has
* Michael Peel wrote:
My understanding of this line of argument was that images would be
displayed where you would expect them to be displayed (e.g. the article
on penis or vagina would naturally include a picture of a penis or
vagina), but wouldn't be immediately displayed where you wouldn't
* David Gerard wrote:
So, is the time ripe yet for us to start pushing for a 14-year term,
or do we wait a bit? I suggest we start contemplating it, however.
You don't say who we are, but in case some people think the Wikimedia
Foundation should position itself on copyright matters much beyond
28 matches
Mail list logo
