Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Fwd: Re: Swedish Wikipedia reach 1 million (with supportof bots)

2013-06-18 Thread Nikola Smolenski

On 18/06/13 01:04, Martin Rulsch wrote:

As far as I know, that's even planned by the Wikidata team.


It isn't exactly planned by the Wikidata tema, a volunteer would need to 
do it.



2013/6/18 Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nl


Hello,
I am also unhappy with the mail from Hubertl, and also some remarks that
good be understood as a criticism of the German Wikipedia editing
community. Actually, both opinions coexist also in de.WP, although the anti
bot faction is obviously stronger.
My concern is that bot articles usually stay the same and don't grow much.
They give a bad impression about a Wikipedia language version, and there is
no one to update them. Maybe it would be better to support WikiData and
later find a solution with WikiData to provide data to small or large



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Swedish Wikipedia reach 1 million (with support of bots)

2013-06-17 Thread Nikola Smolenski

On 16/06/13 15:24, Johan Jönsson wrote:

2013/6/16 Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com

I think that Anders is saying that the result of Wikimedia Swedish is due
to a work of bots and to a work of people.

It means that this result is contrary to the WMF strategy which would have
more people and more contributors.

The next millions of articles will be reached by Polish Wikipedia but also
by cebuan Wikipedia and by Warai-Warai Wikipedia.

May be it's the time to have only bots to write in Wikipedia? I hope that
in future the number of articles will be counted considering at least a
small content ad not only a template in a page, because the use like this
will discourage the communities of editors.


I would say our experience is that it doesn't affect the number of human
editors at all in any way. A couple of people run bots that create very
short articles about taxons or other stuff that, to be honest, probably
wouldn't have been created otherwise. These articles have very few readers.
Why on Earth would this discourage us?

Our main problem is that browsing Swedish Wikipedia using the random
article button isn't as fun as it used to be. That's probably fixable.


I am again using the opportunity to remind that all of this will soon be 
completely unnecessary since it should be possible to generate the 
articles on the fly from Wikidata data.


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] WikiData and WikiSpecies

2013-06-03 Thread Nikola Smolenski

On 03/06/13 11:40, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:

Ting Chen, 03/06/2013 11:29:

I happened to worked with a few biology interwikis on WikiData today and
saw the taxnomical data on it. Given that WikiData is growing and more
potential would not it be a good idea to merge WikiSpecies data into
WikiData


Yes,


and close WikiSpecies (hope now there will no stones or rotten
tomatos flying for this naive question ;-) )?


no.
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2013/02#Include_Wikispecies_into_Wikidata

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikispecies-l/2013-January/thread.html

TL;DR: Wikidata offers only a partial way to store information and no
real interface at all for browsing it.


What if this interface would exist? I believe it could be made really 
quickly and easily.


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] All the lakes in Sweden

2013-05-17 Thread Nikola Smolenski

On 16/05/13 23:18, Andy Mabbett wrote:

On 16 May 2013 18:36, Anders Wennersten m...@anderswennersten.se wrote:

All lakes (3, all down to ones of pondsizes with no name) is now
produced based on lake data from Swedish metereology institute and all lake
environment data from a newly set up authority demanded by EU, in order to
register and track all data of lakes in all Europe.

The articles are generated by AWB and with some manual effort to take care
of text in existing articles and a major effort taking care of all with the
same name (Little lake, Black lake etc)


Are these all on OpenStreetMap, too?


We will know when people start filling in 
http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P402


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] The case for supporting open source machine translation

2013-04-29 Thread Nikola Smolenski

On 26/04/13 19:38, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:

* 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.


Try also Distributed Proofreaders. It is my impression that Wikisource's 
proofreading standards are not always up to par.



As part of our project (
http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource_vision_development), Micru was
looking for a GSoC candidate for studing the reinsertion of proofread text
into djvus [1], but at the moment didn't find any interested student. We
have some contacts with people at Google working on Tesseract, and they
were available for mentoring.



[1] We thought about this both for OCR enhancement purposes and files
updating on Commons and Internet Archive (which is off topic here).


I built various tools that could be fairly easily adapted for this, my
http://www.google.com/search?q=site:lists.w3.org+intitle:hoehrmann+ocr
notes are available. One of the tools for instance is a diff tool, see
image at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2012Apr/0031.


This is a very interesting approach :)

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikidata Stubs: Threat or Menace?

2013-04-26 Thread Nikola Smolenski
Since I was thinking about how to do this for some time, I wrote some 
developers' notes at 
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata/Notes/Article_generation so feel 
free to comment if anything is not clear or not desirable.


On 26/04/13 14:10, Jane Darnell wrote:

Well, I am going to come out of the closet here and admit that I for
one will sometimes want to read that machine-generated text over the
human-written English one. Sometimes to uncover the real little gems
of Wikipedia, you need to have a lot of patience with Google translate
options.

2013/4/26, Delirium delir...@hackish.org:

This is a very interesting proposal. I think how well it will work may
vary considerably based on the language.

The strongest case in favor of machine-generating stubs, imo, is in
languages where there are many monolingual speakers and the Wikipedia is
already quite large and active. In that case, machine-generated stubs
can help promote expansion into not-yet-covered areas, plus provide
monolingual speakers with information they would otherwise either not
get, or have to get in worse form via a machine-translated article.

At the other end of the spectrum you have quite small Wikipedias, and
Wikipedias which are both small and read/written mostly/entirely by
bilingual readers. In these Wikipedias, article-writing tends to focus
on things more specifically relevant to a certain culture and history.
Suddenly creating tens or hundreds of thousands of stubs in such
languages might serve to dilute a small Wikipedia more than strengthen
it: if you take a Wikipedia with 10,000 articles, and it gains 500,000
machine-generated stubs, *almost every* article that comes up in search
engines will be machine-generated, making it much less obvious what
parts of the encyclopedia are actually active and human-written amidst
the sea of auto-generated content.

Plus, from a reader's perspective, it may not even improve the
availability of information. For example, I doubt there are many
speakers of Bavarian who would prefer to read a machine-generated
bar.wiki article, over a human-written de.wiki article. That may even be
true for some less-related languages: most Danes I know would prefer a
human-written English article over a machine-generated Danish one.

-Mark


On 4/25/13 8:16 PM, Erik Moeller wrote:

Millions of Wikidata stubs invade small Wikipedias .. Volapük
Wikipedia now best curated source on asteroids .. new editors flood
small wikis .. Google spokesperson: This is out of control. We will
shut it down.

Denny suggested:


II ) develop a feature that blends into Wikipedia's search if an article
about a topic does not exist yet, but we  have data on Wikidata about
that
topic

Andrew Gray responded:


I think this would be amazing. A software hook that says we know X
article does not exist yet, but it is matched to Y topic on Wikidata
and pulls out core information, along with a set of localised
descriptions... we gain all the benefit of having stub articles
(scope, coverage) without the problems of a small community having to
curate a million pages. It's not the same as hand-written content, but
it's immeasurably better than no content, or even an attempt at
machine-translating free text.

XXX is [a species of: fish] [in the: Y family]. It [is found in: Laos,
Vietnam]. It [grows to: 20 cm]. (pictures)

This seems very doable. Is it desirable?

For many languages, it would allow hundreds of thousands of
pseudo-stubs (not real articles stored in the DB, but generated from
Wikidata) to be served to readers and crawlers that would otherwise
not exist in that language.

Looking back 10 years, User:Ram-Man was one of the first to generate
thousands of en.wp articles from, in this case, US census data. It was
controversial at the time and it stuck. Other Wikipedias have since
then either allowed or prohibited bot-creation of articles on a
project-by-project basis. It tends to lead to frustration when folks
compare article counts and see artificial inflation by bot-created
content.

Does anyone know if the impact of bot-creation on (new) editor
behavior has been studied? I do know that many of the Rambot articles
were expanded over time, and I suspect many wouldn't have been if they
hadn't turned up in search engines in the first place. On the flip
side, a large surface area of content being indexed by search
engines will likely also attract a fair bit of drive-by vandalism that
may not be detected because those pages aren't watched.

A model like the proposed one might offer a solution to a lot of these
challenges. How I imagine it could work:

* Templates could be defined for different Wikidata entities. We could
make it possible to let users add links from items in Wikidata to
Wikipedia articles that don't exist yet. (Currently this is
prohibited.) If such a link is added, _and_ a relevant template is
defined for the Wikidata entity type (perhaps through an entity
type-template mapping), WP will render an article using that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The case for supporting open source machine translation

2013-04-25 Thread Nikola Smolenski

On 24/04/13 12:35, Denny Vrandečić wrote:

Current machine translation research aims at using massive machine learning
supported systems. They usually require big parallel corpora. We do not
have big parallel corpora (Wikipedia articles are not translations of each
other, in general), especially not for many languages, and there is no


Could you define big? If 10% of Wikipedia articles are translations of 
each other, we have 2 million translation pairs. Assuming ten sentences 
per average article, this is 20 million sentence pairs. An average 
Wikipedia with 100,000 articles would have 10,000 translations and 
100,000 sentence pairs; a large Wikipedia with 1,000,000 articles would 
have 100,000 translations and 1,000,000 sentence pairs - is this not 
enough to kickstart a massive machine learning supported system? 
(Consider also that the articles are somewhat similar in structure and 
less rich than general text - future tense is rarely used for example.)


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] The case for supporting open source machine translation

2013-04-25 Thread Nikola Smolenski

On 24/04/13 12:35, Denny Vrandečić wrote:

In summary, I see four calls for action right now (and for all of them this
means to first actually think more and write down a project plan and gather
input on that), that could and should be tackled in parallel if possible:
I ) develop  a structured Wiktionary
II ) develop a feature that blends into Wikipedia's search if an article
about a topic does not exist yet, but we  have data on Wikidata about that
topic
III ) develop a multilingual search, tagging, and structuring environment
for Commons
IV ) develop structured Wiki content using natural language as a surface
syntax, with extensible parsers and serializers

None of these goals would require tens of millions or decades of research
and development. I think we could have an actionable plan developed within
a month or two for all four goals, and my gut feeling is we could reach
them all by 2015 or 16, depending when we actually start with implementing
them.


I fully support this, though! This is fully within Wikimedia's current 
infrastructure, and generally was planned to be done anyway.


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] The case for supporting open source machine translation

2013-04-24 Thread Nikola Smolenski

On 24/04/13 08:29, Erik Moeller wrote:

Could open source MT be such a strategic investment? I don't know, but
I'd like to at least raise the question. I think the alternative will
be, for the foreseeable future, to accept that this piece of
technology will be proprietary, and to rely on goodwill for any
integration that concerns Wikimedia. Not the worst outcome, but also
not the best one.

Are there open source MT efforts that are close enough to merit
scrutiny? In order to be able to provide high quality result, you
would need not only a motivated, well-intentioned group of people, but
some of the smartest people in the field working on it.  I doubt we
could more than kickstart an effort, but perhaps financial backing at
significant scale could at least help a non-profit, open source effort
to develop enough critical mass to go somewhere.


A huge and worthwile effort on its own, and anyway a necessary step for 
creating free MT software, would be to build a free (as in freedom) 
parallel translation corpus. This corpus could then be used as the 
starting point by people and groups who are producing free MT software, 
either under WMF or on their own.


This could be done by creating a new project where volunteers could 
compare Wikipedia articles and other free translated texts and mark 
sentences that are translations of other sentences. By the way, I 
believe Google Translate's corpus was created in this way.


Perhaps this could be best achieved by teaming with www.zooniverse.org 
or www.pgdp.net who have experience in this kind of projects. This would 
require specialized non-wiki software, and I don't think that the 
Foundation has enough experience in developing it.


(By the way, similar things that could be similarly useful include free 
OCR training data or free fully annotated text.)


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are there plans for interactions between wikidata and wiktionaries ?

2013-03-11 Thread Nikola Smolenski

On 11/03/13 16:14, Gerard Meijssen wrote:

What we are asking for is that we ensure that the structures that exist in
OmegaWiki are replicated in Wikidata for reasons that are clear and
obvious. Technically there are a few things that make sense to have..

For instance.. In the Dutch language we have a noun, a verb an adjective
 we do not have a country in this class. A noun can be male, female or
neutral  we do not have a stupid.  We have singular and plural and we
do not have dual like in Arabic.


Uh-oh. How will this square with 
http://blog.wikimedia.de/2013/02/22/restricting-the-world/ ? :)


Perhaps this could be a feature of Wikibase that would not be turned  on 
on Wikidata itself, but could be for other installations, such as the 
new Wiktionary.


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Harvard urges Elsevier boycott

2013-01-15 Thread Nikola Smolenski

On 15/01/13 09:50, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:

David Gerard, 15/01/2013 09:30:

On 15 January 2013 08:26, Andrea Zannizanni.andre...@gmail.com  wrote:

* the folks at archiveteam set up this:
http://aaronsw.archiveteam.org/ It
is not properly legal, read it all.


Note, btw, that this page was set up for humorous purposes - the
papers it liberates are the public domain papers JSTOR has recently
made freely available. The one not properly legal thing the user
does is do something outside the JSTOR terms of service.


I'm also an ArchiveTeam member, and the JSTOR liberator was definitely
NOT set up for humorous purposes: it's a serious project, and everyone
should consider joining.
For the occasion, it also gives people the option to add a message of
memorial about Aaron.


I'd just like to remind that while people who liberate documents do 
violate JSTOR's TOS, people who subsequently access the documents have 
never agreed to the TOS and are not bound by it, so everything should be 
perfectly legal for them.


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: Big data benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

2013-01-15 Thread Nikola Smolenski

On 15/01/13 00:21, Richard Farmbrough wrote:

Of course any effort to make article source more readable meets with
opposition - in the case of references in particular.  And not only from
those who cite CITEVAR legitimately, but from at least one admin who
will block for putting references in numerical order.  These are the
sorts of things which would not have lasted long in (admittedly slightly
mythical) Good Old Days


Unfortunately, even this admin has some justification for what he's 
doing: he probably encountered someone who was using reordering to 
introduce subtle vandalism (since it can't be checked in diff).


Again I see that part of the problem is that there are too few people 
guarding too much content, but I don't see what to do to change this.


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: Big data benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

2013-01-09 Thread Nikola Smolenski

On 09/01/13 10:03, Kim Bruning wrote:

On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 07:45:41AM +, David Gerard wrote:

Right. So anyone in this thread going into detail about en:wp policies
is actually not addressing this, and the problem is on a higher level?


:-/ Back to the drawing board. That actually makes
the problem a lot harder!

(does mean we know where to start looking though)


I am not sure that Facebook is the problem. 
http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=wikipedia,facebook does show that 
Facebook overtook Wikipedia sometime in 2007, but that happened 
relatively slowly.


Having said that, there have been suggestions to introduce social 
networking features in Wikipedia. WikiLove is a step in that direction. 
So, what could be the next step? Befriend users and see their edits and 
new articles? Like edits and articles?


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: Big data benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

2013-01-08 Thread Nikola Smolenski

On 05/01/13 04:47, Tim Starling wrote:

For example, requiring phone number verification for new users from
developed countries would be less damaging.


I don't see how is this supposed to help (and I don't think most new 
users would want to do this; I certainly wouldn't).


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Editor retention (was Re: Big data benefits and limitations (relevance: WMF editor engagement, fundraising, and HR practices))

2013-01-08 Thread Nikola Smolenski

On 08/01/13 11:35, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:

Nikola Smolenski, 08/01/2013 10:30:

On 05/01/13 04:47, Tim Starling wrote:

For example, requiring phone number verification for new users from
developed countries would be less damaging.


I don't see how is this supposed to help (and I don't think most new
users would want to do this; I certainly wouldn't).


Not to say that it would be a good idea, but Google does it already and
phone verification is probably less painful than our CAPTCHAs are to
non-English users (https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5309 ).


It's not that it's painful, it's that I don't want various organizations 
to know my phone number.



In general, as far as we know captchas are currently not stopping
spammers at all, while effectively stopping many legitimate (less


Care to elaborate? Do we know how are spammers avoiding captchas (by 
software or by humans)? How come other websites don't have this problem?


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] photography restrictions at the Olympics

2012-07-27 Thread Nikola Smolenski

On 27/07/12 03:47, birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Jul 26, 2012, at 4:23 AM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:

There is a contractual arrangement between the IOC and the photographer as 
specified in terms and conditions on the ticket. If some one makes photos 
available commercially then they may be sued by the IOC under the terms of that 
contract. The issue isn't about copyright but about the contractual agreement 
and personal liability between the photographer and the IOC.


This is a contract with the ticket fine print. But I don't see how that 
contract could actually bind the photographs. Certainly it prevents you, the 
contractually bound ticket holder, from using media you produced under this 
contract in a commercial manner.  However the IOC cannot possibly extend the 
contract beyond the ticket-holder. Nor force the ticket holder to police 
third-parties.  Let's run a few possibilities:

Ticket-holder (TH) places own-work photo on FaceBook.  It goes viral across the 
Internet and is eventually posters of the photo are found in the marketplace.  
IOC wishes to end poster sales.  Your position that this the contract must be 
effective against third parties would mean that if TH fails to hire a lawyer 
and vigorously enforce their copyrights; then they have broken the terms of the 
contract with IOC and are liable for damages. This is not how contracts work.  
If TH does not choose to enforce their copyrights then IOC can do nothing.

TH has a great photo, their sister owns a bookstore. TH informally licenses the 
photo to Sis to use in advertising.  The IOC does not even have the standing to 
discover if Sis has a license to use the photo or is instead infringing on the 
creator's copyright.  Only the copyright holder has standing contest the use of 
their work.  IOC can do nothing.

TH dies. Daughter inherits copyrights and sells photos taken at last month's 
Olympics. IOC can do nothing.

TH donates the full copyrights on all photos they created at the Games to a 
non-profit organization on the condition that their identity is not revealed. 
The non-profit, now copyright holder, licenses the entire collection CC-SA. IOC 
can do nothing.


An excellent list :) I'd like to add: you sneak in the stadium without 
paying the ticket. IOC can do nothing.


Seriously, if IOC decides to go after someone, don't they first have to 
prove that he bought the ticket? And how can they prove that?


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

2012-07-11 Thread Nikola Smolenski

On 11/07/12 09:40, Milos Rancic wrote:

Yep, I forgot it. BTW, note the comments below RIA Novosti news on
Russian Wikipedia strike [1]. That baseline fluctuates a lot :)

[1] http://en.ria.ru/society/20120710/174509543.html


By the way, Western media are spinning this to be an anti-Putin protest, 
see f.e. 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/10/russian-wikipedia-shut-down-protest


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

2012-07-11 Thread Nikola Smolenski

On 11/07/12 09:57, Fred Bauder wrote:

Try
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/10/russian-wikipedia-shut-down-protest?INTCMP=SRCH

It is quite possible, as in China, political censorship is the actual
purpose, and pornography, and whatever, is just the excuse.


Yes, but this has nothing to do with Putin. First, it doesn't seem that 
this law is pushed personally by Putin. Second, Russian Wikipedians 
would be against the law regardless of whether it is pushed by Putin or 
not. Third, a anti-Putin pro-Western government could be expected to be 
even worse in this regard.



On 11/07/12 09:40, Milos Rancic wrote:

Yep, I forgot it. BTW, note the comments below RIA Novosti news on
Russian Wikipedia strike [1]. That baseline fluctuates a lot :)

[1] http://en.ria.ru/society/20120710/174509543.html


By the way, Western media are spinning this to be an anti-Putin protest,
see f.e.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/10/russian-wikipedia-shut-down-protest


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

2012-07-10 Thread Nikola Smolenski

On 10/07/12 08:16, Milos Rancic wrote:

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 7:58 AM, Keegan Peterzellkeegan.w...@gmail.com  wrote:

Okay, I'll bite.  This is just my opinion and based on SOPA in the United
States and what our government represents.


Thanks! I am responding as a non-cognitivist moral skeptic nihilist.


I thought you're an egoist.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia goes on strike

2012-07-10 Thread Nikola Smolenski

On 10/07/12 15:45, Keegan Peterzell wrote:

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety.   ~ Benjamin Franklin


The blackout was exactly the opposite. A little temporary (one day) 
safety (all the content was still available at countless mirrors) was 
given up in order to obtain an essential liberty.


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


Re: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer

2012-06-28 Thread Nikola Smolenski

On 27/06/12 22:25, Andreas Kolbe wrote:

I can’t see how keeping the current structure of the internet the same way
it was in 1995 is more important than a body of law that’s hundreds of
years old.


Excellently put. He really can't.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l