On Thu, 24 Jun 2021 at 18:45, Adam Wight wrote:
> I can imagine many potential conflicts of interest in this two-wiki
> arrangement, most concerning is the possibility that the scope of Wikimedia
> could be restricted in order to drive users towards the for-profit.
>
This is not a hypothetical.
I don't quite think the emoji were the only thing people hated about this.
On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 at 17:09, Joseph Seddon wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> To avoid burying the lead, the feedback is appreciated and we do listen
> whenever feedback is raised. I've just been coordinating with the team, and
> we'v
This discussion comes back every year. Every year we get the same
reassurance that it's being looked into, that we'll try to do better, that
things have been tested, etc.
The reality of the matter is that the alarmist and misleading stuff
*works*. And that it's most probably not going anywhere. Ju
This is sarcasm, right? Right?
On Fri, 5 Jul 2019, 12:16 Todd Allen, wrote:
> Well, inclusionism generally is toxic. It lets a huge volume of garbage
> pile up. Deletionism just takes out the trash. We did it with damn Pokemon,
> and we'll eventually do it with junk football "biographies", with
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 16:12, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
>If there are rumors about physical violence, unbelievable as they may seem,
>the bottom line common sense is to approach the alleged would-be attacker
and
>request politely that they stay away, to deescalate even just a
potentially tense sit
I don't understand in which possible world anyone thought this was a good
idea.
The MfD, that is. It, and the entire discussion in favour, reads as some
sort of caricature of the worst SJW-type excesses.
M.
On Sun, 3 Mar 2019 at 16:41, Fæ wrote:
> As the last second repost had the same forma
+1
On 22 July 2018 at 10:02, Andrea Zanni wrote:
> Hi all,
> I'll ask forgiveness in advance for starting a probable flame.
>
> I support WMIL stance: equity is absolutely within our Wikimedia
> values, and supporting LGBTQ rights is always a good thing.
>
> But I cannot help but see the enormit
Shouldn't articles be judged independently of who exactly wrote them and
for what reason?
If an article reads well, has good content, is sourced, neutral etc, what's
the issue exactly?
On 24 May 2018 at 12:28, Gnangarra wrote:
> I find this rather disturbing that Airtasker accepts adds for peop
+1
On 10 November 2016 at 09:00, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> Hoi,
> You do not get it. Wikimania is first and foremost about spreading the word
> about what we do and who we are.
>
> I have read Pax's original post. He did not go to Wikimania. He asks for
> consideration that any Wikimania will be
Welcome to my exact experience on Dutch Wikipedia. Banned for life for
'outing' a power user.
The 'outing' is in huge inverted commas -- (1) enter her on-wiki username
in any search engine and you get oodles of vanity page(s) with her full
name and (2) she'd done much worse than that to me.
I've
I would venture quite a bit more than 'eight people' are annoyed by the
constant and blatant double standard.
And oh, I now anticipate a patronizing mail that starts with 'Hoi,' and
ends with 'Thanks' -- it's not just 'the same eight people' that keep
repeating their position ad nauseam.
On 8 May
Just to be sure I understand the issue: staff members reached out
specifically to the four of you and asked for confidentiality, and then the
Board demanded 'all documents', presumably including some confidential
staff information, and James only very reluctantly shared it?
Michel
On 2 May 2016 19
...this is about that mail of yours to James that was going to be
published, right?
On 10 March 2016 at 11:01, jimmy wales wrote:
>
>
> Indeed George I agree with everything you have said about the internal
> effects of lack of transparency and openness. Assuming I and other board
> members who
Aspen grove: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Pando_(tree)
On 17 February 2016 at 10:14, Anders Wennersten
wrote:
> I second this opinion, please remember we are many not having English as
> our mother language
>
> Also besides being all lost in the discussion of Knight grant application,
> I do not
Gerard,
I was waiting for this mail. For me personally, your complaining is
achieving exactly the opposite of what you think.
It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to stick your head in the sand and
hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing to see here -- oh look!
something positive ove
Yes. Finally, a voice of reason.
On 8 January 2015 at 08:07, mcc99 wrote:
> Dear fellow Wikipedia devotees,
>
> While I'm new to this list, I've been an avid fan and proponent of
> Wikipedia and all the great service it gives people since it launched.
> People can learn not just all the basics o
A slight tangent: I did a quick Google search to try and refresh my memory
about the Wikipedia Forever thing, and these were the results:
http://imgur.com/7AU8kTp.
I think it's more than worrying that many of the results have the
fundraising message as a summary.
Cheers,
Michel
On 4 December 20
Quick and easy: don't bother with the Dutch Wikipedia. It is one of the
more toxic environments on the internet. :)
On 28 November 2014 at 14:47, Russavia wrote:
> It is with some degree of sadness that I have to bring this to
> wikimedia-l, but it's something that has to be done I am afraid
>
>
On 10 January 2014 20:12, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
> I very much agree with this. Currently we just don't have the manpower to
> explain to 'the corporate world' in an understanding and clear fashion that
> what they are trying to do is *all wrong*, and what it is they *can*
> actually do. As long
The problem is endemic on nl:wp too -- a *very* small number of very
experienced users with very strong opinions make for an at times, er,
interesting atmosphere.
AGF is often pretty much thrown out of the window, and e.g. of deletions
against consensus or even own rules are rife -- see
https://nl
Well, it's certainly a possible starting point for discussion:
http://www.wikipediaredefined.com/
--
Michel Vuijlsteke
http://blog.zog.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ma
On 26 July 2012 02:57, Kim Bruning wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 09:48:50PM +0200, Svip wrote:
> > Oh and here is a fun fact I have discovered over the years; reading
> > large texts of a serif typeface is a lot easier than a sans-serif
> > typeface.
>
>
> See, I'm *not* crazy to think that!
On 25 July 2012 22:04, Thomas Morton wrote:
> On 25 July 2012 21:01, David Gerard wrote:
>
> > (This is why I'm so disappointed the mobile app doesn't do editing,
> > for example. Or, indeed, some way to take a photo and quickly add it
> > to an article.)
> >
> Yes.
>
> We also need to be unders
On 25 July 2012 15:57, Kim Bruning wrote:
>
> That's default web behaviour. If you want narrower columns, just make the
> browser window narrower.
>
> * If your answer is "Some people don't know how to use a browser"...
> well...
> ARGH
>
Most people never resize their browser windows.
If your
On 16 July 2012 07:09, geni wrote:
> On 16 July 2012 02:51, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
> > Gee. I'd want a webpage that shows me hundreds of different ways
> Wikipedia
> > can look – pink, green, yellow, pastel; serious, snazzy, fun or weird;
> > sidebar left, right, top, or bottom – created by tale
On 15 July 2012 02:40, geni wrote:
> On 15 July 2012 00:52, Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:
> > Maybe if we used some of our millions to pay for a good designer?
> >
>
> Won't work. Aside from the wikipedia forever mess that shows how
> things can go wrong the En main pag
(Well obviously not millions for the design, I meant "use some of our
money". =))
On 15 July 2012 01:52, Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:
> Maybe if we used some of our millions to pay for a good designer?
>
> Michel
>
>
> On 15 July 2012 01:46, Richard Symonds
>
which also has a real-time format visualising a flow
> of
> > images:
> >
> > http://pinterest.com/
> >
> > These sites are beautiful to look at. If Commons were properly designed,
> > its front end would not have hundreds of text hyperlinks, but would sho
On 14 July 2012 23:48, David Richfield wrote:
> I really really don't get all this talk about Wikipedia being ugly.
> To me it's a great example of how text really can move from markup to
> a well-laid-out website with a coherent design philosophy. Wikipedia
> generates results which adapt to win
. edit pages and add stuff.)
And we may want to consider if it is really _everyone_ we want
> to edit our articles.
I don't believe you actually said this.
Michel Vuijlsteke
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
about.
For me the most important part of the article is this right here:
>So the real ugliness of the site, Gardner notes, isn't cosmetic. It's that
>Wikipedia has "a built-in bias against design and user-friendliness."
This *is* a real problem, and it's most emphat
I didn't really mind it -- a fun reminder some people still live in the
Micro$haft Winbl0ws 1990s. :)
Michel
On 25 June 2012 06:21, K. Peachey wrote:
> And this has what to do with the Wikimedia-l List?
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l
32 matches
Mail list logo
