I don't know if we can confidently assume non-registered users know
that they're using a shared IP - one of the most frequent complaints
from readers, historically, was some variant on why the am I
getting all these messages, I never edited anything with varying
degrees of alarm/distress.
A.
Andrew sums up the situation in the UK very well. For some Wikimedian in
Residence positions they are entirely funded by the chapter. Others involve
funding from both the institution and the chapter. A third model involves a
residency being funded by a third party. For example, there's a residency
On 01/13/2014 12:19 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
Not as fast as revisions, and we seem to cope with those.
Fair enough.
So you'd implicitly create the user, track it by cookie? With some well
designed UX this'd work well and hide IPs entirely (and allow users that
do create an account to
On 13 January 2014 05:18, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
On 01/13/2014 12:19 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
Not as fast as revisions, and we seem to cope with those.
Fair enough.
So you'd implicitly create the user, track it by cookie? With some well
designed UX this'd work well and
I'm not into the technicalities, but to hide ip's entirely on the sites
would be the biggest advance in improving privacy I can think of...
regards,
Thyge - Sir49
2014/1/13 Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org
On 01/13/2014 12:19 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
Not as fast as revisions, and we seem
I assume thhis is some sort of spam; here's a translation:
Hello,
I'm sorry for the inconvenience, I would like to get to know you and form a
sincere friendship with you, please reply to me. I promise I'll be honest and
maintain a good relationship with you.
Kisses,Macoral Marriet
Make of that
Absolutely yes.
It's suffucient to check in internet.
Il 13/gen/2014 21:29 Benoit Landry benoit_lan...@hotmail.com ha scritto:
I assume thhis is some sort of spam; here's a translation:
Hello,
I'm sorry for the inconvenience, I would like to get to know you and form
a sincere friendship with
On 13/01/14 20:37, Risker wrote:
m...@uberbox.orgOf course there already exists a way to thank IP
editors. It is to go to their talk page and leave them a message that says
Thanks for your edit here [link to diff]. It is far more personal, far
more likely to encourage the user to edit further
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not entirely certain it's a good idea to technologize such very basic
user interactions. It takes as much work to thank someone using
notifications as it does to leave them a talk page message.
That's empirically not
Indeed. I see a user's awesome edit, via a diff. I hit thank. I hit
okay.
I see a user's awesome edit, via a diff. I hit the talk link, I hit the
new section button, I fill in my message, I save my message.
Ultimately, though, this compares apples to oranges; nobody is
technologizing this kind
Dear all,
Today the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees have posted the first of a
new series of monthly blog posts to the Wikimedia blog. The first post,
from Vice Chair Phoebe Ayers, is an introduction to the Board, its mandate,
and its work within the community.
You can find that post at
I dunno, guys. I certainly would take a talk page message over a
mechanical thank any day of the week. More particularly, I notice a
significant trend in using thank notifications to express agreement with
people without having to actually say yeah, I agree somewhere.
That the loss of human
Steven Walling, 13/01/2014 23:24:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not entirely certain it's a good idea to technologize such very basic
user interactions. It takes as much work to thank someone using
notifications as it does to leave them a talk page
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I dunno, guys. I certainly would take a talk page message over a
mechanical thank any day of the week. More particularly, I notice a
significant trend in using thank notifications to express agreement with
people without
On 14/01/14 00:18, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
On 01/13/2014 12:19 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
Not as fast as revisions, and we seem to cope with those.
Fair enough.
So you'd implicitly create the user, track it by cookie? With some well
designed UX this'd work well and hide IPs entirely (and
On 13 January 2014 15:03, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I dunno, guys. I certainly would take a talk page message over a
mechanical thank any day of the week. More particularly, I notice a
significant
On 01/13/2014 01:25 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
I don't follow what you're saying about a bot account being the only
alternative. You can use the exact same user interface exposure (i.e.,
little (thanks) links) and simply post to the IP's talk page rather than
creating an Echo (logged-in user)
On Jan 13, 2014, at 4:18 PM, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:
we're getting almost 3,000 thanks
actions a day, every day
It would be interesting to know if that impacted the number of barnstars
—
Philippe Beaudette
Director, Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc
On 01/13/2014 10:14 PM, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
Without publically displayed IPs for anonymous edits, people couldn't do
that.
That has, traditionally, been very much useless in practice. It's
extraordinarily rare that abuse teams will even speak to checkusers, and
they have some veil of
On 01/13/2014 11:20 PM, Tim Starling wrote:
The English
Wikipedia edit rate has been declining since about January 2007, and
is now only 67% of the rate at that time. A linear regression on the
edit rate from that time predicts death of the project at around 2030.
That's... come /on/ Tim!
On 14/01/14 15:38, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
On 01/13/2014 11:20 PM, Tim Starling wrote:
The English
Wikipedia edit rate has been declining since about January 2007, and
is now only 67% of the rate at that time. A linear regression on the
edit rate from that time predicts death of the project
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Reversing the decline in editor population has been a major strategic
priority of WMF for many years. You are saying you have never heard of
it before? Well, here is some reading material for you:
On 01/13/2014 11:56 PM, Tim Starling wrote:
Reversing the decline in editor population has been a major strategic
priority of WMF for many years.
My own opinion about how that decline isn't nearly as bad as some claim
is well known. But also entirely besides the point: I was referring to
that
On 14/01/14 16:08, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
On 01/13/2014 11:56 PM, Tim Starling wrote:
Reversing the decline in editor population has been a major strategic
priority of WMF for many years.
My own opinion about how that decline isn't nearly as bad as some claim
is well known. But also
24 matches
Mail list logo
