Maybe I've missed something, but there is still an open consultation process on
Commons, and one of the points raised there is that of a Wikimedian who
operates a website (although a blog would be equally applicable) seriously
libelling another Wikimedian. As it stands this UCoC is silent on
n Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 19:07, Phil Nash via Wikimedia-l
wrote:
Great news. Vulnerable contributors to Wikimedia projects should be owed a duty
of care, not least because they make good, well-informed contributions, but
also that those projects should not become the preserve of a socially and
pol
Great news. Vulnerable contributors to Wikimedia projects should be owed a duty
of care, not least because they make good, well-informed contributions, but
also that those projects should not become the preserve of a socially and
politically advantaged elite.
However, what he have here is only
The search has to be done before the category structure is addressed, even if
that needs to be done. How else would you compartmentalise, what 32 million
images?
And structured data has to be fixed before either. The reason is that
structured data does not have unique names, and I don't think
I haven't seen any evidence of this on Commons. We do delete selfies of
non-Wikimedians because we are not Facebook. Apart from that, I'd like to see
some evidence for this. Thanks
User:Rodhullandemu
---
New Outlook Express and Windows Live Mail replacement - get it here:
