Laura Hale wrote:
>I think Rupert's proposal does not go far enough in terms of addressing
>the potential conflict of interests by contributors because it focuses
>exclusively on paid edits while failing to address other conflict of
>interests problems that lead to neutrality issues. While anyone
2014-02-25 21:20 GMT+05:30 Laura Hale :
> So if you are editing an article about Serbian politics, you would be asked
> if you are a Serb nationalist, a Croatian nationalist, a right wing
> political party member, a left wing political party member, male,
> Christian, Muslim, have a PhD, work for
>
>
> > On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:25 AM, rupert THURNER <
> rupert.thur...@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > could wmf please extend the mediawiki software in the following way:
> > > 1. it should knows "groups"
> > > 2. allow users to store an arbitrary number of groups with their
> profile
> > > 3.
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 2:32 AM, Steven Walling wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:25 AM, rupert THURNER >wrote:
>
> > could wmf please extend the mediawiki software in the following way:
> > 1. it should knows "groups"
> > 2. allow users to store an arbitrary number of groups with their profile
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 7:25 AM, rupert THURNER wrote:
> could wmf please extend the mediawiki software in the following way:
> 1. it should knows "groups"
> 2. allow users to store an arbitrary number of groups with their profile
> 3. allow to select one of the "group"s joined to an edit when sav
No, I mean, that's what article talk page is for.
It's close to useless to get a contributor admit COI by ticking a box.
1) He won't do it.
2) It's much better to add a box to ?action=edit, when a page is created,
asking the contributor to type something in manually ("what motivated you to
crea
I don't know if this is a broadly shared opinion, but like Rupert, I
think this is too difficult to step-in as an organisation. This is in
particular true if you want to do it on an international/multi-language
level.
GLAMs, which are the organisations we want to treasure, are impacted
among other
Hi rupert,
I think this requester feature has merit, as it provides a tool for
communities to use for this purpose (COI) and others.
One possible implementation is the tag system already part of the Abuse
Filter extension. Bug 18670 requests the tag system be more flexible,
allowing false positiv
I think this doesn't really address the core issues that surround this
hotly debated topic of paid editing. No further comment.
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> Hoi,
> Why ?
> Thanks.
> GerardM
>
>
> On 22 February 2014 21:13, Gryllida wrote:
>
> > I do mind 5 and
Hoi,
Why ?
Thanks.
GerardM
On 22 February 2014 21:13, Gryllida wrote:
> I do mind 5 and 6, since their submissions would be deleted aggressively.
> I feel that you may introduce a marker if you want, but not a separate
> queue.
>
> On Sun, 23 Feb 2014, at 2:25, rupert THURNER wrote:
> > hi
I do mind 5 and 6, since their submissions would be deleted aggressively. I
feel that you may introduce a marker if you want, but not a separate queue.
On Sun, 23 Feb 2014, at 2:25, rupert THURNER wrote:
> hi,
>
> could wmf please extend the mediawiki software in the following way:
> 1. it shoul
hi,
could wmf please extend the mediawiki software in the following way:
1. it should knows "groups"
2. allow users to store an arbitrary number of groups with their profile
3. allow to select one of the "group"s joined to an edit when saving
4. add a checkbox "COI" to an edit, meaning "potential
12 matches
Mail list logo
