On 26 February 2017 at 17:49, Tim Landscheidt wrote:
> Eh, they do and that is one of the reasons to oppose the
> Code of Conduct. Its draft implicitly alleges that the
> technical spaces currently are a cesspit that is in urgent
> need of someone with a rake while protecting actual offend-
> er
On 2 March 2017 at 13:30, Peter Southwood wrote:
> It is not possible to get away from politics while remaining in contact with
> civilisation. Politics follows you around. It is possible to ignore politics
> only until they affect you directly.
Well, yes. Who are these people with lives of su
On 2 March 2017 at 12:07, Steinsplitter Wiki
wrote:
> This WMF Annual Report has imho a obvious political connotation. Wikimedia
> should remain politically neutral in any regard. WP:POV;
In 2017, literally the concept of factual information is an active
matter of political dispute.
https://en
This assumes the relevant Community is here now on this very list,
which is an extremely questionable assumption. As has been noted ad
nauseam already. At this point this thread appears hard to distinguish
from forum shopping.
On 2 March 2017 at 17:16, Rogol Domedonfors wrote:
> I'm not asking Ma
+1
On 4 March 2017 at 10:17, Ido ivri wrote:
> A little late into the discussion I just want to note that aside from the
> factual reservations, which seem to make sense, the overall tone, context
> and setting of the WMF Annual report is something I wholeheartedly agree
> with, and I feel that i
This thread is notably long on hypothetical and meta-level discussions
and very short on concrete examples of the supposedly problematic
uploads under discussion. What are the generally accepted examples of
what we're actually talking about here?
- d.
You mean, "how to deal with people who complain they weren't consulted
then turn around and complain they were excessively consulted"? At
this point, the appropriate thing would be to put forward a plausible
solution rather than complain they did the thing you claimed they
hadn't sufficiently done.
A study claiming that YouTube costs them ONE BLION DOLLARS a year,
by having DMCA safe harbours!
writeup:
https://torrentfreak.com/dmca-helps-youtube-avoid-up-to-1bn-in-royalties-per-year-study-claims-170330/
study: http://www.phoenix-center.org/PolicyBulletin/PCPB41Final.pdf
The conceit her
aand it's dead Jim:
http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/otq/whats_up_with_arbital/
The front page is now a "coming soon" for the proposed blogging
platform. Oh well.
- d.
On 11 October 2016 at 22:52, David Gerard wrote:
> Followup on this: Arbital is still going (re
On 14 April 2017 at 11:38, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> A far better (and less WP:BITEy) outcome would be to get then to
Pretty sure WP:BITE doesn't apply in the case of deliberate abuse for
clear purposes of spamming.
- d.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, g
On 14 April 2017 at 17:39, Gabriel Thullen wrote:
> The damage has been done. Theverge.com claims to have done such a
> modification on Wikipedia, to quote them "as did we, in a test yesterday".
> We will probably see more of this.
Yes. This is why we need to respond in such a way as to deter
c
On 25 April 2017 at 22:59, Jimmy Wales wrote:
> Today I announced a new initiative, outside of my Wikimedia activities,
> to combat fake news. It is important to me that I share directly with
> all of you information about this new initiative early on.
I was one of the Wikipedians at the hackat
Advertising-funded Wikipedia that micropays participants from
advertising revenue, on the Ethereum blockchain! The important bit is
to give them startup money.
"Lunyr: Decentralized Wikipedia on the blockchain"
https://medium.com/@cryptojudgement/lunyr-decentralized-wikipedia-on-the-blockchain-407
On 26 April 2017 at 09:23, Andrea Zanni wrote:
> Last time I remember we had a discussion¹ was September 2011 (!):
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-September/thread.html
Everyone interested in Wikified news should read the Wikinews threads
in that page.
That's where th
For those who missed it in the 10th footnote, this is the link to spread:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/05/23/wikimedia-nsa-appeal-standing/
- d.
On 23 May 2017 at 23:00, James Buatti wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
>
>
> The Foundation is pleased to announce an update in Wikimedia Foundation v
Wikimedia has put in a submission against this - but the entertainment
industry is still lobbying as absolutely hard as possible. (Their goal
is to remove safe harbour protection from YouTube so they can demand
money that presently doesn't exist, and that they know doesn't exist.)
Do we have any st
Editing may be a tricky one, particularly on en:wp, which has found
Tor exit points to overwhelmingly be fountains of garbage, and
automatically blocks them.
- d.
On 5 June 2017 at 18:30, David Cuenca Tudela wrote:
> I think that's an excellent idea and very much aligned with our commitment
>
Apposite, but defective in a number of respects; also, explicitly advocacy
for Tor editing without really addressing the objections to it (that it's
99+% a firehose of garbage).
Rather than me reading through several pages to pick out what you might
mean, could you please quote the bits you consid
On 28 July 2017 at 21:59, Fæ wrote:
> Rogol, it's worth repeating that the only one here talking about
> fraudulent conduct is yourself.
If you write a post containing the word "fraud" over and over, people
are going to assume you are accusing someone of fraud.
Particularly when you use a word
On 2 August 2017 at 00:00, Katherine Maher wrote:
> at his article [2], and at https://freebassel.org.
This is giving an SSL error ...
- d.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
On 2 September 2017 at 02:09, Michael Peel wrote:
> This is possibly the most annoying feature of the Wikimedia projects at the
> moment. You access a page. Then you start reading or editing it. And then
> suddenly the page jumps when a fundraising banner / central notice / gadget /
> beta fea
ns comes from
> logged in users etc), but there are also campaigns tht are quite relevant
> for logged in users.
>
> Lodewijk
>
> On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 7:16 PM, Ori Livneh wrote:
>
>> On Sep 3, 2017 13:02, "David Gerard" wrote:
>>
>> On 2 Septembe
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/09/stop-sesta-congress-doesnt-understand-how-section-230-works
What's our position/analysis on this?
- d.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
ht
It's scared them off SOPA-like activities.
https://torrentfreak.com/sopa-ghosts-hinder-u-s-pirate-site-blocking-efforts-171008/
The main reason why pirate site blocking requests have not yet been
made in the United States is down to SOPA. When the proposed SOPA
legislation made headlines five yea
At present it's literally only me as wikimediaau-l list admin. This is less
than ideal, i.e. I can't guarantee any sort of consistent service.
It fell to me when everyone actually in Australia quit after some spurious
legal threats. So that's the threat model ...
Anyone want to volunteer as backu
matter?
>
> Frederick
>
>
> --
>
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
> _/
> _/ FN * फ्रेड्रिक नोरोन्या * فريدريك نورونيا +91-9822122436
> _/ RADIO GOANA: https://archive.org/details/@fredericknoronha
> _/
> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
>
>
>
> On 16 Jan
On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 at 13:41, Dariusz Jemielniak
wrote:
> even though I appreciate blockchain as a technology,
This is a common buzzword phrase. What *in particular* do you
appreciate about them, that someone who knows what they are and how
they work but isn't a fan would find a credible claim?
yep. Asking nicely is always the best first option, and WMF is good at
that. Reusing our stuff is excellent, but correct licensing is important,
and a link back would be very nice.
On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 at 13:50, Gnangarra wrote:
> Agree with Andy here, the WMF cant sue as the copyright holder, bu
On 4 March 2018 at 02:41, Pine W wrote:
> What's making you happy this week?
Trimmed my en:wp watchlist to pages I was actually interested in and
cared about. Made a few more meaningful edits I was more interested in
this way :-)
really, if you edit with "add page to my watchlist" ticked, you'
On 11 April 2018 at 22:56, geni wrote:
> But the foundation wants actual money (US$ mostly). Why convert
> bitcoin into anything other than cash (which is what it does at the
> moment)?
in fact, I believe the WMF never touches a bitcoin - BitPay takes in
the bitcoins, changes them to actual mon
On 27 April 2018 at 17:21, geni wrote:
> Not really. At best you end up with a less efficient version of a
> downloadable database. People claiming that "blockchain technology" is
> useful for things are either cyptocurrency advocates (with the usual
> conflicts of interest) or third parties tryi
Coinbase and cashing out is their own problem. What will happen to the
WMF bitcoin option?
https://medium.com/@coinbasecommerce/upgrading-the-merchant-experience-d97679274c71
(I'm just writing up this terrible story for my blockchain blog.)
- d.
On 27 April 2018 at 19:05, David Gerard wro
Wrote up the story so far:
https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2018/04/27/no-wikipedia-is-not-partnering-with-the-request-network-dont-believe-the-hype/
Any new stuff, corrections, clarifications etc most welcomed!
- d.
On 27 April 2018 at 21:04, David Gerard wrote:
> TrustNodes tested
Logo still at the bottom of https://request.network
- d.
On 28 April 2018 at 16:12, Nadine Le Lirzin wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> First of all, thanks for reporting the issue. Impressive reactivity :)
>
> Then, sorry for the intempestive and unwelcome communication about this
> local partnership. The
I'm a big fan of the GDPR and why it had to be created. (I'm doing a lot of
the bureaucratic work on the tech side at the day job and am getting very
used to thinking of ways something could constitute Personally Identifying
Information.)
But I'm wondering how we'll approach it for the Wikimedia s
I'm not 100% comfortable with the approach of doing it because we legally
can - we do a lot of stuff because it's the right thing, not just because
we're legally obliged to. The concern is a real one and worth giving
serious consideration.
(As I noted in my email about the GDPR, we do a lot of stu
worth noting again that in my (I am paid to have these opinions now)
professional opinion, nothing about cryptocurrencies is good or
useful, and WMF's involvement should proceed precisely as far as
taking donations at arm's length (never touching an actual
cryptocurrency). And documenting the pheno
t; Best regards,
> Jim
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 1:49 AM David Gerard wrote:
> >
> > worth noting again that in my (I am paid to have these opinions now)
> > professional opinion, nothing about cryptocurrencies is good or
> > useful, and WMF's involve
Forgive me, but this is coming across as hopping from excuse to excuse.
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 at 18:03, Dennis During wrote:
>
> It is important that any wiki process be applied fairly. In this case I
> think the Croatian wiki cannot be the first to have a new process applied.
> I hope that the pro
I've had people complaining to me personally about the multiple-page
fundraising banners on mobile, like I can do anything about them ...
this is really deeply pissing people off.
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 15:03, Joseph Seddon wrote:
>
> Hi James,
>
> As I mentioned in my original reply to Molly, De
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section
says pretty much the same:
> The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's
> topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic
> is notable, and summarize the most important
So ... when did someone last test putting up a copy of the sites from
the backups?
(just a complete copy with history, not even at publicly-accessible scale)
On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 at 19:31, Steven Walling wrote:
>
> Great question to think about for our long term sustainability. I think we
> alre
I seem to recall seeing a thread on this list every few years about
how to revive Wikinews and make it do something useful and
interesting.
In practice, it had a burst of enthusiasm for about six months after
it started and then went pretty much dormant, and has been there ever
since.
- d.
On
Yann, you SERIOUSLY need to back up this claim of "dishonesty" on the
part of a Wikmedian of long experience. Your assumption of bad faith
here is stupendous.
You can't simultaneously complain of the workload, then work this hard
to drive people away.
- d.
On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 05:10, Yann F
Seconded. These pages appear to have a substantial population of
raving obsessives I have no intention of bothering to deal with.
- d.
On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 22:10, Rebecca O'Neill wrote:
>
> Just you reply to your point on how many people are speaking out against
> this decision, I'm a relativ
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 00:19, Nathan wrote:
> The
> T&S team made a very token effort to intervene, and then imposed a high
> profile ban with the flimsy excuse of a diff that says "fuck arbcom". They
> then used that diff to excuse not including ArbCom, as if ArbCom had never
> been subjected t
I think the problem is that the pathological people, having been
called out on being pathological, decided to double down on the
original complainant. See also: Gamergate, a clearly apt and apposite
comparison.
On Thu, 13 Jun 2019 at 19:48, Pine W wrote:
>
> I'm sad to hear that. I would not want
and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for
doing only what you describe?
On Fri, 14 Jun 2019 at 11:32, Todd Allen wrote:
>
> The only case of "harassment" apparently cited here was "I kept writing
> garbage articles, and someone kept flagging them as garbage! Harassment!
id indeed sanction him for what
> they told him they sanctioned him for.
>
> Todd
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:37 AM David Gerard wrote:
>
> > and you're *seriously* positing that the WMF would ban an admin for
> > doing only what you describe?
> >
&g
On all wikis?
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 at 19:19, Yaroslav Blanter wrote:
>
> Right.
>
> I guess a central notice about an RfC would be appropriate.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
> On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 8:16 PM Kiril Simeonovski <
> kiril.simeonov...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > It seems like ther
l wikis in a similar way as the
> announcements about board or steward elections.
>
> Best,
> Kiril
>
> On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 9:46 PM David Gerard wrote:
>
> > On all wikis?
> >
> > On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 at 19:19, Yaroslav Blanter wrote:
> > >
> >
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_user_information_procedures_%26_guidelines
What do you tell non-US authorities who ask if their local courts can
submit orders allowing Wikimedia to release information?
Are there relevant international treaties in place that would mean
that a fo
here's the AP writeup https://apnews.com/3dc4b3da93ba67f728b27608badb7d93
- d.
On Thu, 26 Dec 2019 at 13:16, Rajeeb Dutta wrote:
>
> A wonderful news to end 2019, thanks for the update.
>
> Best Regards,
> Rajeeb Dutta.
> (U: Marajozkee)
> (Sent from my iPhone pardon the brevity)
>
> > On 26-De
Particularly as they've demonstrated by their actions an unwillingness
to work with Wikipedia properly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive318#Review_of_User:Sn%C3%B8hettaAS_block_please
- d.
On Sat, 14 Mar 2020 at 04:34, Peter Southwood
wrote:
>
> I w
> strategy shouldnt we already know who we are, as it is that should have
> > been the key starting point for a strategy process. Its comprehensible not
> > to have known or explored that before deciding where, how, why we will be
> > doing anything for the next 10 yea
> > >
> > > Thank you!
> > >
> > > Samir and the brand project team
> > >
> > > [1]
> > >
> > >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/Timeline
> > >
> >
On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 at 09:49, Samir Elsharbaty
wrote:
> While having Wikipedia as a central concept
> is a project requirement,
... and here we have the source of all the problems here: the answer
has been predetermined.
- d.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing
s://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project
> >
> > [4]
> >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Wikimedia_brands/2030_movement_brand_project/FAQ
> >
> > [5]
> >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
ng of
> course and can be fixed.
>
> Regards, in a personal capacity
>
> Thanks
> Tito Dutta
> Note: If I don't reply to your email in 2 days, please feel free to remind
> me over email or phone call.
>
>
> On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 at 23:22, David Gerard wrote:
I'd like to stress - I can see a case for renaming it all as
"Wikipedia". I could even make that case!
I'm not inclined to advocate such a change myself - and I'm not
convinced that branding is a problem we have - but it's not an
unreasonable *position*.
But pre-deciding the outcome, then feeding
Front page:
> This wiki was unsuccessful in achieving its original goals (see
> https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-Wikipedia-and-Citizendium).
> A dedicated few writers have continued working in the wiki, improving
> articles that they believe are useful, and which for various
here's the discussion:
https://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Forum_Talk:Technical_Issues#Any_further_thoughts.3F
On Sat, 4 Jul 2020 at 22:11, David Gerard wrote:
>
> Front page:
>
> > This wiki was unsuccessful in achieving its original goals (see
> > https://www.quora.
2020 at 22:20, Joseph Seddon wrote:
>
> Is there any merit in us helping them continue to exist?
>
> Seddon
>
> On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 10:13 PM David Gerard wrote:
>
> > here's the discussion:
> >
> > https://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Forum_Talk:Technical_I
All cloud providers are approximately level in evil. The way we break
it down at my day job is:
* AWS: when you want it to work and want customer service
* Microsoft: when you hate yourself, you're running Windows or both
* Google: when you want zero customer service ever under any circumstances
*
If we didn't want serious discussions to come to this mailing list, or
have discussions on it taken seriously, this thread would so far be a
great example for not doing so. Thankfully, it won't actually succeed
in derailing the discussions.
- d.
___
Wi
Being put together by Eliezer Yudkowsky of LessWrong. Content is
cc-by-sa 3.0, don't know about the software.
https://arbital.com/p/arbital_ambitions/
Rather than the "encyclopedia" approach, it tries to be more
pedagogical, teaching the reader at their level.
Analysis from a sometime Yudkowsky
For comparison: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Special:Statistics
the twitter version: "Wikinews is half as active as Citizendium."
- d.
On 1 May 2016 at 17:45, rupert THURNER wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Tilman Bayer wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:42 PM, rupert THURNER
On 17 May 2016 at 13:44, Chris Sherlock wrote:
> I've just been blocked forever. I've been bullied, and I'm having suicidal
> thoughts.
Followup: Chris is fine :-) All is well. He's quite touched at how
many people rallied around to help him. Mostly he's a bit embarrassed
about just how many
On 23 June 2016 at 10:17, James Forrester wrote:
> TL;DR: The Editing Department is working to make the content editing
> software better. The big work areas are improving the visual editor and
> editing wikitext. We will bring in a wikitext mode inside the visual editor
> for simpler, faster swi
On 13 September 2016 at 17:19, Lane Rasberry wrote:
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ray_Saintonge,_Heathrow_Terminal_5,_20110801_P1020446.jpg
Yes, that shot was after I went across London to catch him between
planes and have a few pints at Heathrow :-D
- d.
___
"INFOGALACTIC: an online encyclopedia without bias or thought police"
Home page: http://infogalactic.com/info/Main_Page
Announcement:
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/10/project-big-fork-infogalactic.html
Roadmap: http://infogalactic.com/info/Infogalactic:Roadmap
- d.
__
n, Oct 10, 2016 at 9:35 PM geni wrote:
>
>> S
>>
>> On 10 October 2016 at 19:13, David Gerard wrote:
>> > "INFOGALACTIC: an online encyclopedia without bias or thought police"
>> >
>> > Home page: http://infogalactic.com/info/Main_Page
On 10 October 2016 at 20:50, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> Ads on the horizon according to
> http://infogalactic.com/info/Infogalactic:Roadmap and
> https://infogalactic.com/info/Infogalactic:Advertising
Well past that:
http://infogalactic.com/info/Infogalactic:Corelords
- d.
__
cs articles are notoriously opaque and not good for
explaining a concept to people who don't already understand it. And
CC-by-sa educational articles on math are a win for everyone.
On 14 March 2016 at 01:03, David Gerard wrote:
> Being put together by Eliezer Yudkowsky of LessWrong. Content i
This is the more detailed writeup that Le Monde cribbed from:
http://www.nextinpact.com/news/101786-google-fr-bloque-pour-apologie-terrorisme-orange-invoque-erreur-humaine.htm
and it's hilarious, even in translation.
Orange blames "human error". Indeed.
- d.
On 17 October 2016 at 21:54, geni
Larry Sanger's attempted crowdsourced Wikinews, Infobitt, is dead -
the name infobitt.net no longer resolves (though the domain is still
registered).
It died sometime after June 23, the date of the last screenshot on the
Wayback Machine; tweets concerning it suggest it was up until August
or Septe
For various reasons * I follow music industry news. One drum the record
industry has been beating *hard* in the past year is attempts to reduce the
DMCA "safe harbor" provisions in order to squeeze more money from YouTube.
It's been a running theme through 2016.
e.g.
https://www.theguardian.com/te
Good to know :-) I was mostly just wondering if the music industry
initiative was making any headway, from an outside perspective. Because if
they chip a bit off, they won't stop there.
On 19 December 2016 at 20:22, Charles M. Roslof
wrote:
> Throughout 2016, the US Copyright Office has been col
On 21 December 2016 at 02:53, Newyorkbrad wrote:
> I think it might be useful to focus on how any of the proposed changes
> to the law would affect Wikipedia/Wikimedia specifically, apart from
> the broader philosophical discussion. Is there a good link for
> exactly what changes to the safe har
On 21 December 2016 at 02:53, Newyorkbrad wrote:
> I think it might be useful to focus on how any of the proposed changes
> to the law would affect Wikipedia/Wikimedia specifically, apart from
> the broader philosophical discussion. Is there a good link for
> exactly what changes to the safe har
I should add: I spent a few months following the various AFD queues on
WP lately, and MY GOODNESS THERE ARE SO MANY BLATANT SPAMMERS. What
Jytdog raises is an actual problem. The short reason for a lot of the
Problems with Wikipedia is actually "spammers mean we can't have nice
things".
- d.
On
On 7 January 2017 at 20:31, Jytdog at Wikipedia wrote:
> With those companies freely (and often mockingly) advertising their
> services, the spigot is opened wide - they constantly get more customers
> and send people here to edit.I would like to know if legal is
> authorized to take action t
`What we actually need is clarity from the en:wp arbcom. They could
easily say "yes Legal has advised X but we are stricter", and note
that they have already banned users for outing blatant bad faith
spammers. GorillaWarfare's commentary on this, both personal and
speaking for the arbcom, are proba
On 27 January 2017 at 03:33, Romaine Wiki wrote:
> But I think it is possible to make sure risks are spread over the world.
> Certainly as we are an international movement that intends to cover the
> knowledge of the whole humanoid civilisation.
> To come to a conclusion, I think WMF and the Wiki
On 9 February 2017 at 15:13, Stephen Philbrick <
stephen.w.philbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Does anyone have a link to the recent Foundation Statement about the Daily
> Mail? We are receiving inquires at OTRS, and it would be nice if I see see
> our official position.
Here's the current version tha
-- Forwarded message --
From: WereSpielChequers
Date: 30 July 2015 at 12:57
Subject: [Wikimediauk-l] visual Editor is now worth using in outreach editathons
To:
If anyone is still running outreach editathons to try and recruit new
editors, you might want to consider using visual
On 30 July 2015 at 14:43, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
> I've been doing this in Israel for a while already. (In Hebrew! From right
> to left! Thanks to User:Mooeypoo [cced], she is awesome!)
> It's pretty successful.
Yes, I recall a blog post explaining bidirectional and mixed-script
issues, and th
Takes out the GPL too: http://keionline.org/node/2363
(yep, the TPP is every bit as good as we were expecting)
I anticipate a sudden tech coalition at that one, which we should get in on.
- d.
On 6 November 2015 at 12:22, Gnangarra wrote:
> We have a new problem to face in the coming months
The NPG may be *less than delighted*:
news: http://www.communia-association.org/2015/12/04/1761/
PDF:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/481194/c-notice-201401.pdf
Are digitised copies of older images protected by copyright?
Simply creating a copy of an i
I got it to work on Ubuntu 14.04 by approximately this method. It's
INCREDIBLY long winded, you have to download about a gigabyte of stuff
from Microsoft, one file didn't exist at the listed download site any
more and I had to get a questionable copy off someone's "saved stuff"
web directory, and a
... and the court papers, and the smoking gun documents, and ...
This is the sort of thing that needs some serious explaining. Assume
good faith, but we're starting from some pretty *startling*
circumstances and evidence here.
- d.
On 9 January 2016 at 09:19, Craig Franklin wrote:
> Chris,
>
>
On 18 January 2016 at 20:33, Magnus Manske wrote:
> * New things are not necessarily good just because they are new. What seems
> to be an improvement, especially for a technical mind, can be a huge step
> backwards for the "general population". On the other hand, projects like
> the Visual Edito
On 22 February 2016 at 03:49, Risker wrote:
> I can think of Echo/Notifications which, despite some rather minor
> grumblings and need for a few tweaks at the beginning, has been fully
> embraced by the community. It's not entirely perfect for all use cases,
> but it is so much better than anyth
I've just been standing back at a safe distance and watching the
current disaster with an "ooh, ouch" expression on my face. Still,
editing Wikipedia is less triggering than editing RationalWiki.
I was only actually shocked at Oliver's resignation.
- d.
_
No yak left unshaven!
On 4 September 2014 21:07, Michael Peel wrote:
> Another option would be an open process on-wiki, along the same lines as the
> FDC board-selected seat nominations. Is there a need to keep applications
> confidential here?
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> On 4 Sep 2014, at 20:51, Ad
Sorry, clarification: I'm alluding to Wikipedians' tendency to go off
into detailed side-discussions at the drop of a hat. I didn't mean
this as a dig at anyone.
On 4 September 2014 21:28, David Gerard wrote:
> No yak left unshaven!
>
> On 4 September 2014 21:07, Michael
Erik - how confident are you that you're coming up with something that
the present users of talk pages - people actually trying to get work
done on articles - will love? Not just barely tolerate - what are you
bringing us?
- d.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing
On 8 September 2014 05:46, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> If it is good
> software, the projects will *ask* for it to be deployed, like they did
> with LiquidThreads, and users will want to use it on their user talk
> even if the wider community isnt ready to migrate.
This is the key point.
Tho
On 9 September 2014 10:45, Erik Moeller wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 12:22 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> Those of us who presently use talk pages to get the work done. What is
>> going to make us *love* Flow, for all its imperfections, and demand to
>> have it for our
On 10 September 2014 12:54, Andrew Gray wrote:
> * inter-wiki or intra-wiki integration of multiple-venue discussions
> rather than several parallel pages and potentially parallel
> discussions (not a very frequent issue, but a messy one when needed;
> Pine notes this below)
Yeah, that's gettin
1 - 100 of 540 matches
Mail list logo
