> Wikimedians enjoyed close collaboration with the government (for example,
> the Kazakhstani Encyclopedia has been released under a free license and
> verbatim copied to the Kazakh Wikipedia, so that I do not expect much.
> On Tue, Jul 23, 20
What is the position of the Kazakhstan chapter on this?
On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 at 11:36, Yury Bulka
> I'm sure many have heard about this:
> Essentially, the government in Kazakhstan started
> What kind of accessibility audit was undertaken on the new design?
You might like to look at Phabricator ticket T6845 concerning an
accessibility issue dating back to 2006 which remains unresolved.
Wikimedia-l mailing list,
armed for their
> genuine contributions.
> That MUST NOT (rfc2119 ) be how we handle things.
> Once again, I cannot stress this enough.
> Do not do this. This is a bad idea on so many levels. Pretty much all of
> them, really.
>  https://www.ietf.org
> Yes, the environment is full of toxic people. This has always been true,
> and yet it exists. You want a revolution to make Wikipedia a friendlier
> place? It isn't going to happen. There is no such place, at least not with
> the critical mass of human participants that this project
> Why do you think this is important and what real purpose do you think this
> will serve?
A good question. The stated object of global bans is "to help assure
the safety of users of the Wikimedia projects and/or assist in
preventing prohibited behavior that hinders dialogue, project
In an attempt to move the discussion on from unprofitable and
inappropriate speculations about information shared in confidence,
let's look at one of the aspects that is made public. When the WMF
issues a WMF Global Ban in line with
Astonishing the amount of speculation on this list about what might
have happened and who might or might not be telling the truth.
Considering that nobody posting here has any information about the
facts of the case, would it not be better to cease from speculation
which can have no positive
> The committee is a body of volunteers and they can't be forced to disclose
> their real identities. There's no such policy in the CoC
That does not appear to be correct. The CoC policy requires that the
volunteer committee members identify themselves *to the Foundation*.
May we not know the real names of the committee members, as opposed to
their pseudonyms? Surely that is necessary, both as a matter of
general principle, and specifically in case it were ever to turn out
that a member of the committee might be involved in a complaint.
Am I right in thinking that this email, containing a long account of
the alleged poor treatment of the Treasurer of WMBE, referred to
throughout in the third person, was in fact written by that person?
On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 10:00, Romaine Wiki wrote:
> Hello all,
> On Saturday
On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 at 18:39, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
> There is no "very basic principle of Human Rights and dignity" to be free
> from the presumption of guilt by others. You may be confusing Article 11
> of the UHDR, but this applies explicitly only to "penal offenses." Unless
> Fram is
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 18:46, James Heilman wrote:
> Wiki Journals use CC BY SA. We do not support or want to us ND as that
> would prevent translation into other languages. That is why I disagree with
> Plan S's move to allow ND.
So part of the offer is that an author's article may be
What is the objection in principle to ND licencing? If you publish a paper
detailing your experiments on apricot kernels as a cure for cancer with a
conclusion that they are completely worthless, and give it a BY licence, I
can now "remix" it, that is publish exactly the same material, except
Mail list logo