I would like to second that recommendation. I read that article too, and
thought it highly relevant.
Information is power, and there is a real danger of both monopolisation and
manipulation of information here.
Andreas
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:46 AM, En Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 1:21 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 June 2012 13:15, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com
wrote:
I argued at some time that if there was a strong need for such a filter
that
there would already services in place that would filter the
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
Am 18.06.2012 15:06, schrieb Thomas Morton:
I don't think that we need this argument since the filter can't replace
parents anyway. But it is a constant part of the discussions with various
exaggerated
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 6:06 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, actually, along with several other educational ones, some with
children's games, her school website, etc. The chances that she would
randomly stumble across a sexual image on Wikipedia are -vanishingly-
slim, ...
Child porn is illegal, that's been upheld by the Supreme Court
repeatedly, end of discussion. If 2257 were similarly upheld to apply
even in circumstances of educational/artistic work, I suppose we'd
similarly have to follow it like it or not, but it is untested in such
areas, and I suspect
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
Well, first of all, why?
Secondly, I'm not talking just about sexually explicit photos.
Wikipedia has photos of people being or about to be [[behead]]ed,
[[torture]]d, [[kidnap]]ped, [[assassination]]ed, etc. I checked, and
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
That was a highly theoretical scenario (and one you brought up for
that reason, as I recall.) But in practice, we do have photos of
victims at articles such as [[Rape of Nanking]] and [[Holocaust]].
Some of those photos
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
Besides, the ones putting pressure on TV Tropes, and who made them take
the
pages down, are Google.
That is the same Google who are a major financial contributor to
Wikimedia.
True. But if Google told WMF Change
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
I've never understood why that was considered non-neutral. WMF, as an
entity, can have viewpoints, especially as relates to the organization
itself. The
Jimmy is not Wikipedia. What about that is hard to understand?
I would have agreed with you half a year ago. But Jimbo decided there would
be a SOPA blackout, and a SOPA blackout was had. And every press article
that mentions his campaign for O'Dwyer has the obligatory Wikipedia
founder label.
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 June 2012 at 18:05, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
I would have agreed with you half a year ago. But Jimbo decided there
would
be a SOPA blackout, and a SOPA blackout was had. And every press article
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:19 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 June 2012 18:51, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: And
hell, there really are two points of view about copyright,
I understand you've not really studied the subject but there are far
more than that.
Let's just
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com
wrote:
On the topic of Jimmy; Wikipedia is his calling card, it opens doors. I
think he hasn't done enough in many situations to distance his own views
from us; which is unfortunate. But not necessarily deliberate :)
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Jay Walsh jwa...@wikimedia.org wrote:
It would be interesting to see the community develop its own high
profile
media contacts so this view can be communicated to the world!
If Jimmy can write this in The Guardian (a paper which really seems
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
On 03/07/2012 11:09 AM, Delirium wrote:
1) the sources really are *very* good in that case, not merely ok
sources like newspaper articles;
My own (admitedly radical) point of view is that popular media - and that
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 12:15 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 July 2012 00:04, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with Marc. The other day, someone said here on the list, It's
almost as if what the press say and what the facts are in reality are two
different
On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
On 03/07/2012 7:04 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
What would a Wikipedia look like that did not make use of press sources?
It
would look a hell of a lot more like an encyclopedia. Thousands of silly
arguments would never
Wikipedia-l is not the most active of lists, to put it mildly. Those
interested in discussing the potential advantages and drawbacks of a
Wikipedia without press sources and coming up with some ideas for a
feasible compromise are advised that there is a related thread on
Wikipediocracy, at
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 12:35 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
On 11/07/12 00:32, David Gerard wrote:
On 10 July 2012 15:29, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
SOPA didn't threaten the existence of Wikipedia,
Geoff Brigham opined otherwise, IIRC.
Yes, on the
I do think the Wikimedia sites look dated, and very male, too.
One example I always think of when this issue comes up is Wikifashion:
http://wikifashion.com/wiki/Main_Page
I would love for Wikipedia to have optional skins like that, made by
graphic designers, just like you can have all sorts of
The board resolution announcement presently shows that it passed 9-1, with
Jimbo's the only voice dissenting:
http://www.webcitation.org/69AyEvzIS
On his talk page, however, Jimbo claims that this misrepresents him, and
that he voted to scrap the image filter like everyone else:
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 7:34 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 July 2012 14:44, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
The way to solve the design issue is to enable third parties to create
alternative skins that users can install in preference over the default
ones offered
It shouldn't take five years though, should it? And there are dozens
(hundreds?) of jobs in queues, waiting to be done, which can't be done
because nobody is free to do them.
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:50 AM, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
On Monday, 16 July 2012 at 19:46, Andreas Kolbe
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 2:24 AM, Mark delir...@hackish.org wrote:
On 7/16/12 7:43 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
We need to be a lot friendlier to the non-programming public.
I agree that's true, but I'd also be curious how we can do that without
falling into the trap of the user-friendly
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Deryck Chan deryckc...@wikimedia.hkwrote:
On 17 July 2012 00:46, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
I honestly don't understand why it is taking so many years to develop a
WYSIWYG editor, for example, or a new Commons search function.
Honestly
getting done, but
would only result in them sitting around playing cards, I'll shut up about
this.
Andreas
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 8:56 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 July 2012 20:48, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
So there were how many years of faffing about before
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
The point really is who actually cares about ArbCom decisions
I am really surprised to see a former member of ArbCom say this. Everybody
on this list cares about ArbCom decisions, most of the time, and so
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 9:45 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 August 2012 05:13, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
This appears to be an unprecedented power-grab by the office of the
General
Counsel.
Um ... that's a bizarre perception.
Well, just look at the number of
, altruistic purpose and then demand consideration
in return for what has been given is disgusting.
* http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19104494
On Aug 2, 2012, at 5:45 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 12:11 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
What type
it over time. Very few
people throw sustained effort or money into a vacuum without any care
whether it grows or dies.
FT2
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 2:28 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
For the record, I did not endorse the SOPA blackout, and I deeply resent
my
work
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
We do everything in our power to prevent
the problem, but it would be absolutely cost prohibitive to do it 100%
with the difference being that fine grained, and this law gives you
the right to shut us down if we can't hit
of participants in the
blackout hangout (most aren't active on mailing lists) and can participate
in this analysis with you.
Sarah
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 3, 2012, at 12:52 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 11:12 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Why are there so many various levels and steps if it's not a determination
about principles and about whether a particular cause meets Wikimedia's
mission? This is what's confusing me.
People on the talk page at Meta-Wiki
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 10:17 PM, Tilman Bayer tba...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Of course, here the term high quality does not necessarily mean,
say, featured content (e.g. on the English Wikipedia, featured
articles currently make up less than 0.1% of the total articles), but
instead refers to
David, the BBC says you told them the following:
---o0o---
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19148151
*Donations*
Mr Gerard joked that due to the site's limited financial resources, some of
its infrastructure relied on gaffer tape and string.
In an error message posted to the site, the
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 8:54 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 August 2012 20:43, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
David, the BBC says you told them the following:
See, this is where you part ways with how the media works. These days
I count it as a win if anything
old owl, the world would be a
much, much better place.
Richard Symonds
(Wikimedia UK staff, but with my volunteer hat on).
On 6 August 2012 21:06, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 8:54 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 6 August 2012 20:43
On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 10:11 PM, Richard Symonds
richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Thanks for the nice reply, Andreas. You get bonus points for liking barges!
There are some very homey ones here in Cambridge ... with pot plants
(bananas ...) and hanging baskets and everything, and a
Yes indeed. Cool ideas ... and they look a bit more *professional* than our
effort. ;)
Andreas
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:55 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:
Well, it's certainly a possible starting point for discussion:
http://www.wikipediaredefined.com/
I currently see 370 submissions pending. Does this mean that someone has
processed 700 articles since the beginning of this thread, or am I looking
at the wrong thing?
Andreas
On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Steven Zhang cro0...@gmail.com wrote:
So, I had a look at articles for creation
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Katie Chan k...@ktchan.info wrote:
On 19/08/2012 11:04, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
I currently see 370 submissions pending. Does this mean that someone has
processed 700 articles since the beginning of this thread, or am I looking
at the wrong thing?
More than
A contributor has raised an interesting questions on wikien-l that concerns
French Wikimedians. As French Wikimedians are unlikely to see it there, and
wikifr-l seems moribund, I've appended a copy of the post below.
---o0o---
I've been told (and have verified) that the French Wikipedia indeed does
without categories to mark people as Jewish, LGBT, etc.
I actually quite like that approach.
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 7:53 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 3:48 AM, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.comwrote:
In short: I think people like Max and Roger, who make public declarations
about their identities and conflicts of interest, are not the ones who
scare me. We can always find those people and start a conversation
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com
wrote:
In the past, those conversations were short, and ended in a permaban (cf.
Jimbo's past statements about blocking anyone offering
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Steven,
We know people have been beating a door to Roger's path ever since
Monmouthpedia;
... or even a path to Roger's door :))
(Sorry, tired.)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:46 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
He gets to decide which town goes forward,
and whichever town goes forward pays him a consultancy fee.
This, OTOH, is spurious made-up bullshit.
Look, David, if a dozen towns express an interest in his services, and
Will access to Wikipedia for people in Saudi Arabia be uncensored?
Has there been any agreement with Saudi Telecom on censorship?
Andreas
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 6:32 PM, Jay Walsh jwa...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi folks - sharing a news release that WMF issued this morning along with
STC.
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 6:23 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 14 October 2012 22:12, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Will access to Wikipedia for people in Saudi Arabia be uncensored?
Very unlikely.
Has
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Yann
It's not a partnership with the government, it's with a telecom company
Theo, Saudi Telecom was wholly owned by the Saudi government when it was
founded in 1998. It held monopolies then.
After a partial
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 1:13 AM, Kul Wadhwa kwad...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi Andreas,
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
... some feature development. Please just tell us:
Is there anything about political or any other kind of censorship in the
WMF
Thanks for the info, Osama.
Andreas
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 6:29 AM, Osama Khalid osa...@gnu.org wrote:
I am from Saudi Arabia, so I guess I will be able to explain a few
issues.
First of all, it's important to note that Saudi Arabia is a good
example of a pretty much totalitarian state,
I didn't see the banner either, but this solved the problem for me:
1. Make sure Suppress display of the fundraiser banner in your
preferences (it's under gadgets) is NOT checked.
2. Set your browser to Private Browsing or Incognito of Stealth mode,
whichever term your browser uses; this is to
The encyclopedia in question -- see http://lurkmore.to/ -- seems to be a
bit similar to Encyclopaedia Dramatica.
http://rapsinews.com/news/20121112/265322007.html
Its blacklisting took place under the new law the Russian Wikipedia
protested against recently.
Andreas
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
We have been, to some extent, the victims of our own success. We grew
exponentially and not organically, and given the roots of our community,
the usual group structural forms were eschewed. There was also practically
no money
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 6:41 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.comwrote:
David Gerard, 09/01/2013 00:32:
On 8 January 2013 23:27, Kim Bruningk...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
I think that the requirements for a wiki (open, welcoming, anyone can
edit,
eventualism) are always going to be
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
I think that the requirements for a wiki (open, welcoming, anyone can edit,
eventualism) are always going to be at tension vs the requirements for an
encyclopedia (reliable, good sourcing, etc).
Right now,
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Richard Symonds
richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Hi Andreas/Nemo
Which column are you looking at to give you the growth numbers on those
projects?
I am mostly looking at the column for editors making more than 100 edits a
month, as that is where the
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Here are the French charts:
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaFR.htm
Here are the English ones:
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaEN.htm
I've fixed the link to the English charts: I accidentally
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.comwrote:
Andreas Kolbe, 10/01/2013 19:21:
Open these two pages:
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/**ChartsWikipediaFR.htmhttp://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/ChartsWikipediaFR.htm
http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:04 AM, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
BTW that entire rag tag group of amateurs doing something amazing,
doesn't hold very true indefinitely We were doing something amazing when
we started, but
Doh! For Wikipedia community governance review at the end of the first
paragraph read Wikimedia UK governance review.
A.
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
An idea that arose from a discussion on whether to lift restrictions on
Gibraltarpedia hooks
Rui,
There are four answers I could give you. See whether you like any of them:
*Answer the First*
This problem has existed ever since Wikipedia became visible enough for
agenda-driven editors to bother with it, and people have made complaints
like yours ever since. Nothing has changed, and
Marc,
The page I linked to says in part:
It goes without saying that using the process described we are also unable
to verify the identity of the person(s) behind the user account.
(Es versteht sich von selbst, dass wir mit dem beschriebenen Verfahren
auch nicht die Identität der hinter dem
.
Best regards,
Rui
On 23 July 2013 19:12, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Rui,
There are four answers I could give you. See whether you like any of
them:
*Answer the First*
This problem has existed ever since Wikipedia became visible enough for
agenda-driven editors
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:36 AM, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks Andreas
Iit didn't cross my mind that you would actually go and check - at the time
the search terms were in Portuguese, so you will probably find different
results - If I find the original pic I will send it to
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 7:28 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 July 2013 19:27, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 5:36 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Erik, James - how did de:wp convinced you when en:wp hasn't?
I don't really agree
I guess the benefit to the Wikipedia Zero providers is that making
Wikipedia available for free to their subscribers is a competitive
advantage for them. That seems obvious enough, and it is acknowledged in
the Wikimedia Foundation FAQ,
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships:
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 10:13 PM, George Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.comwrote:
It was not rhetorical, but you missed the point.
Net neutrality is an issue because service providers (can / may / often do)
become a local monopoly of sorts. Monopilies are not necessarily bad (how
many water
Nathan,
I am unable to find a mention of sockpuppetry in the Terms of Use, whether
in Section 4 or elsewhere.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use
I don't think there could be such a mention, really, given that project
policies recognise a number of legitimate uses of socks.
A.
Smith, they did not use the
name of some other user. They created multiple accounts. There was no other
user whose username they used, or whom they tried to impersonate.
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com
. That is not a permissible use of socks. The
community expects to place more scrutiny on paid editors, not less.
On Jan 6, 2014 6:23 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
That doesn't follow to me from that wording, Nathan. The English
Wikipedia
for example allows socking to enable
wrote:
I'm not in principle against transparent paid editing, but it could
actually be considered to violate the ToU's wording: misrepresenting your
affiliation with any individual or entity
Regards,
Sir48
2014/1/6 Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com
Sure, Todd. But that is not actually
Christophe's comment about Wikipedia's company articles not being very
complete reminded me of a fun infographic:
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5474/11871822903_714f36a83e_h.jpg
There is a strange, systemic hostility towards business at work in the
English Wikipedia. Combined with a love for pop
Quite. Museums' self-interest in employing a Wikipedian-in-Residence is
often quite evident from the way the position is described (raise our
profile etc.)
And what about, say, the Henry Ford Museum? Or the Volkswagen museum? Is
that not knowledge? Is it evil, because it's part of a business?
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjor...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
(Note these are my own personal views and in no way reflect any views of
the WMF or anyone else)
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 7:34 AM, Christophe Henner
christophe.hen...@gmail.com wrote:
Now, the question
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:
Ting and Christophe,
Glad to hear we are moving forward on finding more sophisticated ways of
thinking about paid editing. At least for the English Wikipedians I've
talked to, many are pleasantly surprised that the
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de wrote:
Hello Peter,
I see the following two possibilities:
Either the paid editing brings a higher quality and thus by that quality
imposes itself as an authority and thus discourage further unqualified
editing
Or the paid
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com
wrote:
Which reminds me – I often think it odd that Wikimedia will fund a
Wikipedian-in-Residence for some regional tourist attraction (think
As far as I am concerned, what was wrong with this situation wasn't that
the Wikimedia Foundation paid a trained academic to edit Wikipedia. I
venture that most donors and members of the general public wouldn't have a
problem with that at all.
What was wrong?
1. The obvious appearance of
Article on the matter in The Daily Dot, April 14:
http://www.dailydot.com/business/wikipedia-paid-editing-scandal-stanton/
Apparently, Tim Sandole complains of not having been managed properly by
anybody, saying, The person I dealt with at Wikimedia didn't seem to know
anything about Wikipedia.
Anne, there are really well-established systems of scholarly peer review.
There is no need to reinvent the wheel, or add distractions such as
infoboxes and other bells and whistles.
I find it extraordinary that, after 13 years, a project designed to make
the sum of human knowledge available to
mellitus, back pain, hyperlipidemia and concussion.
Carry on.
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:19 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 May 2014 23:14, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
For what it's worth, there was a recent external study of Wikipedia's
medical content that came
Junk science? I suppose the Article Feedback Tool was more scientific,
then, because that's the best the Foundation has come up with so far.
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:27 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 May 2014 18:14, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Anne, there are really
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Michael Maggs mich...@maggs.name wrote:
Measuring the quality of Wikipedia articles in general is an issue that
Wikimedia UK is interested in looking at, though by means of automation
rather than the gold-standard but much less scalable method of scholarly
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 1:06 AM, Thyge ltl.pri...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe you should suggest that to the universities and not just to this
mailing list.
Nothing prevents to set up an independent panel of academic experts and
to start doing that job today.
regards,
Thyge
Well, I'd like the
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 1:30 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 8:24 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
I'm a total newb here, and I know the grant system between WMF and the
different chapters has been debated in the past. But I have a simple
question: if WMF is
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 2:41 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I think perhaps there is a lack of research into the extent of research
already being done by independent, qualified third parties. Several
examples are provided in the references of the study you posted, Andreas.
For
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 3:41 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, of course readability analysis is done by automation. I've yet to
find a consistent readability assessment that doesn't use automation. It's
not an area where subjectivity is particularly useful.
And that was an average
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 10:08 AM, edward edw...@logicmuseum.com wrote:
While academic attitudes to Wikipedia may be of some interest they are
not a proxy for quality.
I don't understand this. I'm not saying I disagree, I just don't
understand. How would an attitude be a 'proxy' for quality?
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Anthony Cole ahcole...@gmail.com wrote:
Regarding expert review, Doc James has just announced that a version of
Wikipedia's article Dengue fever has passed peer review and been accepted
for publication by the journal Open Medicine. I think this is a special
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 8:26 PM, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
-- Forwarded message --
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
While acknowledging the likely truth of the flaws in scientific
knowledge production as it stands (single studies in medicine being
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Stevie Benton
stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Hello everyone,
I think Wikimedia UK has an example project, related to medical articles,
that may be of interest. John Byrne is the Wikimedian in Residence at
Cancer Research UK, one of the UK's largest
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote:
Admins and crats on commons have also historically made a large number of
decisions that fly in the face of WMF board resolutions, often
repeatedly.
David Gerard's point is ringing very true here: you will not
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 1:18 AM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 9:53 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.comwrote:
Admins and crats on commons have also historically made a large
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 11:20 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.comwrote:
Andreas, in response to your last message -- I'm perfectly fine with the
examples you provided! I just happen to think they do a better job
supporting my position (Commons is healthy and productive)
I'd have been
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:09 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Pete, you know the toothbrush image you talk about on your blog still
shows up on a Commons search for electric toothbrush, right? It's in
Category:Nude
or partially nude people with electric
toothbrushes
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 9:05 AM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote:
The point of I'm trying to make in this discussion is, we
do a lot more good by focusing on what's working, and then expanding on
that, than we do by getting all accusatory about the things that are *not*
working.
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with your more sophisticated concerns about what is going on.
However, I think it's really important to put them in context. If Wikimedia
Commons had existed in 1985, this would be a very compelling line of
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote:
Kevin,
Feel free to have one of the people who don't have a nasty head injury
ask me the question. That would be fine, and I would actually prefer
it. Given your head injury, I'm actually a little surprised that
1 - 100 of 527 matches
Mail list logo
