On 26/06/2012 2:02 PM, Kim Bruning wrote:
Wow, thank goodness we never had advertising. The TV-Tropes wiki has been
forced to censor a
number of pages due to advertiser pressure.
And thus is the wisdom of eschewing advertizement and sponsorship
highlighted for all too see. I've always
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 includes newspapers nowadays - are not reliable sources at all in
the first
On 03/07/2012 3:23 PM, Theo10011 wrote:
I would ask about a hypothetical, is someone's off-wiki opinion or
behavior or even criminal past, grounds for a block?
It may well be. Both for our protection and that of other editors.
There are cases of real, dangerous persons using Wikipedia to
On 03/07/2012 7:42 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
How would you deal with biographies of people like heads of state, who are
subjects of serious academic study as well as daily news articles?
There's nothing that prevents a subject from having an article in both
namespaces. One can be seen as the
On 03/07/2012 7:49 PM, David Gerard wrote:
We could call it Wikinews.
Arguably, that was the intent behind that project in the first place.
That said, the news article format (as opposed to living prose) is
demonstrably not what the readers want - they already voted with their
browsers
On 27/12/2012 5:54 AM, Anonymous User wrote:
thank you again for your answers so far. I would have had hoped to have
more voices participating, but everyone who did agreed that it should be
done.
I think this is the closest I've ever seen to universal support on
Wikimedia-l ever. :-)
--
On 02/14/2013 07:52 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
Live stream now for me in Brisbane
She did a stellar job!
-- Coren / Marc
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
On 02/19/2013 03:08 PM, Victor Grigas wrote:
Does language constrain our thinking? I think it does.
Let's try to avoid starting a debate on the relevance of the Sapir-Whorf
hypothesis on-list? :-)
-- Coren / Marc
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
On 02/20/2013 07:53 AM, Mathieu Stumpf wrote:
I wonder how one may split education and politic as they are – in my
humble opinion – deeply intertwinned.
+1 Insightful
Indeed, our Imagine slogan is -- fundamentally -- both highly
political and quite radical (even in this age of easy
On 04/01/2013 03:22 PM, Manuel Schneider wrote:
Is this real? How can it tell how much has been donated to WMF through
this comic? I see that there is a special campaign reference in the
donation link but how can it fetch the amount?
It is:
http://samarium.wikimedia.org/
My understanding is
On 04/13/2013 07:25 PM, James Salsman wrote:
In
short, the CFAA amendments alone would likely cost readers, editors,
and the Foundation more than 500 times as much as SOPA or PIPA could
have cost, under what I believe is a very reasonable set of
assumptions.
{{cn}}
-- Marc
On 04/16/2013 04:48 AM, Mathieu Stumpf wrote:
but I suppose that our project also attract more homophobic minds and so
on.
That has not been my experience. I think much of the perception of
liberal bias is actually caused by the generally widespread acceptance
of the average anglophone
On 04/16/2013 11:22 AM, Mathieu Stumpf wrote:
However androcracy being a general society problem, I suppose you may
expect to find that kind of comportement in our movement too.
I'd actually in interested to see /comparative/ numbers. There's no
question that, in absolute terms, there is a
On 05/09/2013 07:19 AM, Anthony Cole wrote:
We would be failing in our mission to disseminate educational information
effectively and globally if, due to an ideological attachment to
NOTCENSORED, we took the former option.
You're saying this as though those things were orthogonal to each
On 05/11/2013 06:26 AM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski wrote:
Let me repeat that: the WMF does not wish volunteers to help out with
running their wiki, even if they have been helping out almost since the
very start of the wiki.
Tomasz, while it seems clear that communications about that move seem to
have
On 05/11/2013 12:41 PM, Seb35 wrote:
At the same time, it’s a very bad timing of doing such a controversial
action just before weekend, and let people wondering during two days the
reasons behind this action. So waiting still 2 days..
Yes, IMO that was a faux-pas. This should have been
On 05/12/2013 04:42 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
The most he could ask from you is a comment on how frequently you have
to be the one pushing the button against the community.
Again with this meme!
Against the community.
*NOBODY* works against the community. Sometimes, we do things that
On 06/07/2013 12:32 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
I thought to leave it quietly, with just a
bit more than a few words to stewards and Wikimedia Serbia, but after
the first question why I am leaving, I realized that I actually owe to
many of you the explanation for leaving the movement after almost
On 06/11/2013 08:19 AM, Anthony wrote:
Putting everything in a single database which can be accessed by a single
developer is a choice.
It is, also, the only *reasonable* choice given the resources at our
disposal.
I've contracted with CSIS in the past and had the immense pleasure of
working
On 06/24/2013 06:03 PM, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
My warm congratulations to the people chosen to the WMF board, and to the
FDC positions, and also my thankfulness to those who were candidates.
My congratulations to them, and also my thanks to Kat for her long years
of dedicated service to the
On 07/01/2013 06:38 AM, David Gerard wrote:
tl;dr: voting creates winners and losers, and losers are unhappy and
disengage.
That piece is somewhat thought provoking, but amusingly naive. It
starts from the presumption that individual decisions cannot impact the
movement or the collective
On 07/02/2013 11:13 AM, David Gerard wrote:
He claims this is how he did the Pirate Party, so you appear to be
claiming that a successful minor political party may work in practice
but can't possibly work in theory.
I suppose. :-) I'm surprised it did work; if it actually did it this
way.
On 07/02/2013 11:42 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
Well, how would Marx feel?
I'm pretty sure Marx also qualifies as amusingly naive, for much the
same reasons. :-)
-- Marc
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
On 07/05/2013 01:07 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
No, sorry if I was misleading: decrease in relative numbers only.
That's not surprising; someone with malice aforethought isn't going to
be stopped by a captcha, someone who just though Hey, I'll correct that
typo is likely to not want to
On 07/09/2013 08:37 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
How is that not theft that we are facilitating?
Because theft, is to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of
it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the
thing or of his property or interest in it.
In some jurisdiction,
On 07/12/2013 07:10 AM, Eddy Paine wrote:
Secondly we are a world wide organisation, and there are still enough
countries where tats are not accepted yet.
Then surely, we must err on the side of conservatism!
Let's make certain that every woman on staff has a picture in a burka.
-- Marc
On 07/13/2013 01:00 AM, John Vandenberg wrote:
The very first entry on prism-break is TOR, which is blocked on
Wikimedia projects for editing, by explicit blocks and by the TorBlock
extension, which is enabled on all wikis, even Chinese Wikipedia.
That'd be easy to solve were it not for the
On 07/28/2013 11:46 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
So chapters can offer to help porting tools like this to Labs and
ongoing maintenance of these tools?
Is there a list of such tools that have been identified as needing paid
support?
It's probably worth nothing that WMDE has, in fact, already
On 07/29/2013 03:30 PM, Ziko van Dijk wrote:
On German Wikipedia, our dear Superbass has contributed a short opinion
piece on the principal resistance against the Visual Editor. I think that
it should be withhold from you, and I hope that my translation transfers
its wit.
My poor German
On 07/29/2013 06:00 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
achieving the sum of all human knowledge requires all humans to
collaborate in it
+1
This is particularly important as the quality of coverage decreases
sharply as you stray further from the interests that coincide with the
profile of current editors
On 07/29/2013 07:00 PM, David Gerard wrote:
Are there any wikitext constructions that are actually going to be
deprecated?
I'm not privy to the architecture decisions, but I'm pretty sure that
the absolute worst monstrosity is the possibility of opening markup in a
(possibly deeply recursive
On 07/29/2013 10:02 PM, Rschen7754 wrote:
If I'm reading this right, it *would* cause massive problems on the English
Wikipedia
Oh, it *would* if the syntax was just disabled outright!
Now, if it were me that was in charge of fixing wiki markup, this is
what I would do:
(a) require that
On 07/29/2013 11:10 PM, Risker wrote:
which are used daily on hundreds of pages,
and they serve a very important function.
Yeah, but they are duct tape over weaknesses/flaws in wikimarkup, not a
valuable feature. This revolves back to the difficulty in trying to
pretend a talk page in
On 07/30/2013 05:23 PM, James Forrester wrote:
That'd be great, yes (and really easy to do using Parsoid's DOM) - we
could do annotations, comments, content collapsing, etc. - but I can't see
how it would work with wikitext in a way that would leave it
sanely-editable for users. I'm not sure
On 07/31/2013 10:52 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
I think it would be helpful, if possible, to give some guesstimates of
this, i.e.: how longer a wait it would cost us to reach some rank of
quality if the deployment was downscaled; or, what would be the
deadline for feedback on aspects X and
On 07/31/2013 09:27 PM, Ryan Lane wrote:
I would be fired and jailed before I knowingly let that occur. If this was
the case I'd very surely not be working for Wikimedia Foundation.
And very many of us live outside the jurisdiction of the entities that
would be doing the monitoring and would be
On 08/02/2013 01:32 PM, James Salsman wrote:
Padding each transmission with a random number of bytes, up to say 50
or 100, might provide a greater defense against fingerprinting while
saving massive amounts of bandwidth.
It would slightly change the algorithm used to make the fingerprint, not
On 08/02/2013 05:50 PM, Matthew Flaschen wrote:
It seems from the context better tested meant something like people
are using this in practice in real environments, not only automated
testing.
And, indeed, given the constraints and objectives of the Tool Labs
(i.e.: no secrecy, all open source
On 08/02/2013 08:15 PM, James Salsman wrote:
No, that is not true, and
http://www.ieee-security.org/TC/SP2012/papers/4681a332.pdf
explains why. Padding makes it difficult but not impossible to distinguish
between two HTTPS destinations. 4,300,000 destinations is right out.
... have you
On 09/03/2013 08:36 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
Any censor from the United States or European governments that works
directly with us (I have no personal knowledge of this, I just know it
has to be) is concerned with classified information, not someone's
opinions or factual information about
On 09/02/2013 06:17 PM, Tim Starling wrote:
OK, well there's one fairly obvious solution which hasn't been
proposed or discussed.
[collaborating with the PRC]
That's because, ideologically, it would be abhorrent to a very large
segment (possibly even the majority) of editors, staff and
On 09/03/2013 09:45 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
Abusive nonsense does not make that fact go away. Someone,
actually, many someones, need to be trusted.
Доверяй, но проверяй.
I agree with your assessment of the risks of working with the PRC, I
simply think that if you think that those risks do not
On 09/03/2013 12:33 PM, Delirium wrote:
I certainly agree with learning from history, but when it comes to
censoring encyclopedias or similar reference works, are there good
examples that might more concretely narrow down the specific type of
thing we ought to be learning from history?
Not
On 09/05/2013 04:18 AM, Lars Gardenius wrote:
That Wikipedia:Dispute resolution mirrors a very naive approach in a
worldwide organization. It has never worked before and it doesn't work now.
Where doesn't work is mostly defined as didn't give the result I
demanded.
I've been part of that
On 09/05/2013 11:49 AM, Lars Gardenius wrote:
But if your child is mobbed at a Wiki when he/she tries to contribute, or
your grandmother is being abused when she contributes to a Wiki, you want
somewhere to turn. As said there is no such instance in the Wikis, there is
noone responsible how
On 09/18/2013 06:58 AM, Jon Davies wrote:
Can we have it in that place that hosts Groundhog day?
I fully intend to prepare a bid for Montreal to host this, once the
requirements are made slightly clearer. I already have all the contacts
with venues and government levels from my organization
On 10/09/2013 03:09 AM, David Gerard wrote:
Referring to John and Federico as these two individuals comes across
as attempting to depersonalise and deprecate your opposition.
I should expect the intent (and this is how it came across to me) is to
not *personalize* the dispute by naming them.
On 10/21/2013 08:13 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
On a typical site, paid staff would deal with problematic users.
The obvious, and perhaps a bit trite, answer would be that we are most
certainly not a typical site by any meaning of the term. :-)
Seriously, however, I can understand why some current
On 10/24/2013 09:37 AM, Risker wrote:
Wow, Fae. Justwow.
I think Fae was being highly ironic there.
-- Marc
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
On 10/26/2013 10:00 AM, Florence Devouard wrote:
2) that WMF disclose private information about us (OTRS member for
example) volunteers to other volunteers, who may not even be identified
in the least (as in arbitration committee members)
The members of the English Wikipedia Arbcom, at
On 10/30/2013 11:20 AM, Risker wrote:
Just to clarify, since UTC is a confusing time for most of us
{{cn}}
I've heard that said very often (that 00:00 is somehow confusing to many
people), but I've yet to actually see someone being actually confused by it.
There is exactly one minute
On 10/30/2013 11:45 AM, Newyorkbrad wrote:
It's simple enough to use 0001 instead of .
It is, but if there /are/ in fact a large number of people being
confused by it, then treating 00:00 as though it had special status by
avoiding it will only *add* to that confusion rather than clarify the
On 10/30/2013 11:51 AM, Newyorkbrad wrote:
Time designations are human conventions, not laws of nature, and should be
as clearly expressed as possible. Anyone who disagrees with me is free
to state his or her opinion until today.
That deadline has come and gone, as you well know. :-)
On 11/13/2013 04:57 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
Rectius: there *used* to be a bot (RevertBot, Lusumbot). The program
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Pywikibot/copyright.py has been
stopped when search engines changed their limits and Lusum has been
waiting for the WMF's Yahoo! BOSS
On 11/13/2013 04:41 PM, Tobias wrote:
I think the community has done a very good job in the past 12 years when
it comes to copyright. It is important to see that we are a community
site – nothing is ever going to be perfect, and certainly we are not
free of any copyright violations. But we are
On 11/20/2013 07:13 AM, The Cunctator wrote:
Yes, let's keep on pushing for policies that drive away editors!
Let's be clear here: contributions that are copyright violations are not
desirable to begin with. If someone is driven away because they cannot
cut and paste from random websites
On 11/20/2013 11:59 AM, Michael Snow wrote:
An essential part of collaboration is, after all, reviewing each other's
work. From the terseness of the comment, it might be alluding to either
aspect or both.
That's actually an interesting question that has been lurking beneath
all the editing is
On 11/20/2013 01:06 PM, Richard Symonds wrote:
Not quite: I would argue that anti-vandalism work is a gateway drug to
the rest of the project. Just a hunch, though.
I'm pretty sure that typo correction fills pretty much the same niche,
though.
-- Marc
On 11/20/2013 01:13 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
My general point is that opportunities for automation are best
considered with our overall mission in mind, not just the speed or
efficiency of a particular workflow. In certain situations, automation
that creates more work rather than removing it
On 12/10/2013 03:07 AM, David Gerard wrote:
There's a whole site full of possible inspirations:
And yet:
Our donor services team haven't seen any negative emails about this
banner. Moreover adding the floating tab results in an increase in
donations of roughly 15%, one of the biggest
On 12/10/2013 10:01 AM, John Vandenberg wrote:
https://twitter.com/nyatagarasu/status/405134111796240384
It's hard to know for sure, of course, but I'm pretty sure huge
couldn't possibly refer to the minuscule floaty div MZMcBride refered
to. :-)
-- Marc
On 01/08/2014 02:30 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
Can anyone explain the relationship between Wikimedia and oDesk?
The short of it: oDesk is indeed roughly the same kind of job board as
freelancer.com and its ilk. The foundation is simply a client, and uses
it only to pay its contractors and (most of)*
On 01/08/2014 11:07 AM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
The system itself is a little [suboptimal]
It should go without saying (but may be worth clarifying) that this is
my personal opinion from having suffered oDesk for a year and not that
of the Foundation. :-)
-- Marc
On 01/08/2014 12:37 PM, Katie Chan wrote:
Only a single type of scholarship will be available from the Wikimedia
Foundation for Wikimania 2014.
I rather liked the idea of partial scholarships in past years since it
would allow more people to attend on the same budget when practical.
Can I ask
On 01/12/2014 10:57 PM, Tim Starling wrote:
We could even allocate a row in the user table for them, which would
be beneficial for various features that currently exclude anons due to
the need to link to a user ID.
What you're discussing is an unnamed user account that's implicitly
created and
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 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 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 01/14/2014 02:18 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote:
Database-stored information on
templates is where are those templates linked from, not and when were
those links added (unless something has changed relatively recently)
And even then that'd give dubious results. Some talk page get archived
On 01/14/2014 04:07 PM, Tilman Bayer wrote:
but I wouldn't rule out
the possibility that they still achieved a good approximation.
I'd wager that what they have gotten might be a poor sample; there is
certainly a correlation between being a power/advanced user and more
intricate talk page
On 01/15/2014 01:15 PM, WereSpielChequers wrote:
Of course there remains the issue that our audience is still growing faster
than the Internet whilst nobody really knows whether the underlying rate
of goodfaith editing is increasing or stable.
My own eyeball metric on this is entirely
On 01/16/2014 01:21 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
I prefer for us to remain on the path where our whole stack of both content
and software is unencumbered.
I'd really hope we're not setting up a false dichotomy in our
discussion; nobody has been argued about supporting MP4 containers in
On 01/16/2014 05:02 PM, Mark wrote:
These confounds might, in the end, not account for much after all. But I
have been looking and haven't found even an attempt to *really*
substantiate claims that the number of actual encyclopedia editors has
declined, versus just superficial quantitative
On 01/18/2014 10:53 AM, Mark wrote:
A consensus has emerged that MP4 video uploading can be enabled on
Wikimedia Commons without major legal or technical problems (see [here]
for details)
While there are a great deal of interesting philosophical and ethical
questions surrounding this issue,
On 03/04/2014 10:50 PM, Yuri wrote:
But it got rejected, and I am not sure I am clear why.
I haven't opined on the specific bug, but I would also have rejected it.
The reason why is simple: it goes exactly opposite everything the
projects stand for.
Our mission isn't collect all of the
Russavia,
First, I write here in my capacity as a volunteer and a member of the
community you claim to speak on behalf of, clearly not as a staffer of
the Foundation (not that engineering has anything to do with programs
like this anyways).
On 03/22/2014 09:00 AM, Russavia wrote:
I understand
On 03/22/2014 02:45 PM, Russavia wrote:
It's already been established that there is massive copyvio in there,
and I think it is absolutely unacceptable for a copyvio to still be in
this article under the circumstances.
It's unacceptable under /any/ circumstances, but I don't see an obvious
On 03/23/2014 05:06 PM, James Forrester wrote:
Note that a complete submission is required, including an abstract of 300
words or more that explains to the Programme Committee why you think your
proposal should be accepted over others.
I must admit that requirement gives me pause, James. I've
On 03/25/2014 07:45 PM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
If nothing else, the existing community quality rating system (i.e. FA, GA,
etc.) should be used.
That idea needs to be tempered with a strong caveat: at least for
enwiki, those processes tend to be highly politized as they are already.
On 03/31/2014 08:23 AM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
That seems niether all that surprising nor all that costly
Oh, D'oh! Wrong conference!
Ignore me, and move along. :-)
-- Marc
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
On 04/01/2014 07:43 AM, Fæ wrote:
I find it disappointing that when difficult governance questions like
this are raised in public, that some leading members of our community
default to treating the concerned whistle-blower as a troll
I think, Fæ, that you will find that it's not the subject
On 04/01/2014 09:34 AM, Fæ wrote:
I am sure than the viewpoint is different for employees within the WMF
like yourself, compared to unpaid volunteers outside, like me. This
may be part of the reason we see this governance failure in a
different light.
That's actually amusingly wrong, though I
On 04/01/2014 02:10 PM, Russavia wrote:
Really, Marc? Really?
Yes, Really. I can't recall having ever said that I never misbehave
myself, nor that I ever reacted in anger before. Anyone who claims to
is deluded or lying.
With, perhaps, the pointed difference that this cannot be said to be my
On 04/15/2014 05:12 PM, David Gerard wrote:
Yeah, one of the first things to do is to talk to these partner
organisations (because they are partner organisations) and ask what
would actually be helpful, rather than helpy
One thing that Erik has not mentionned (probably because it simply
On 04/21/2014 09:16 AM, Nathan wrote:
Do WMF accounts still get the staff usergroup?
Most accounts of staff and contractors do not get that usergroup: it is
a very highly privileged group that includes pretty much every
permission on every wiki, and access to it is on a strictly-needed basis.
On 05/23/2014 07:06 PM, Wil Sinclair wrote:
I participate on WO because I think every voice deserves to be heard.
I'm going to give you a serious piece of advice here as someone who has
held one of the most public position of authority on the English
Wikipedia (the scare quotes are quite on
Hello again, Wil.
It's obvious that I'm not going to change your mind - nor is it my place
to do so. But there /is/ one question of you that I would be remiss to
not answer:
On 05/23/2014 11:49 PM, Wil Sinclair wrote:
If they are exposing serious problems
that desperately need fixing, then
On 05/24/2014 11:13 AM, edward wrote:
Also this complaint
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sue_Gardner#Child_protection
from a sitting arbitrator suggests the issue is a serious one.
There are issues indeed about who is supposed to handle what aspect of
the matter; with opinions
On 05/24/2014 11:26 AM, edward wrote:
You mean selectively quoting? I was not aware of misquoting you. I
used your very words.
Fair enough; I do enjoy the occasional semantic game now an then. I
could make a cogent argument how selectively quoting sentence fragments
is, necessarily,
On 05/27/2014 09:44 AM, Stevie Benton wrote:
American Osteopathic Association
I'm not an expert on the latest woo-woo, but isn't Osteopathy one of the
numerous faith-based 'medecine'?
-- Marc
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
On 05/27/2014 10:18 AM, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
From what I remember from it is that
what is called Osteopathy in the UK isn't the same thing that's called
Osteopathy in the US
Ah, that explains it. :-)
Regardless, Don't diagnose yourself with Wikipedia seems to be
infinitely good advice,
On 05/28/2014 08:59 AM, Fæ wrote:
A curiosity that only manifested
itself shortly after the public announcement of your employment by the
Foundation board.
In all fairness, Fæ, if my spouse had been hired as the leader of a very
visible and significant business or nonprofit, I too would find
On 05/29/2014 03:21 PM, Tilman Bayer wrote:
*Airtel Offers Nigerians Free Access to Wikipedia*
Yeay! Grats Zero team for yet another victory bringing Free knowledge
to all people!
-- Marc
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
On 05/29/2014 04:55 PM, rupert THURNER wrote:
another sad day, wikimedia foundation as the vicarious servant of the
telecom industry on its way destroying net neutrality.
I would *really* like to hear your reasoning on this, given that there
is absolutely nothing that prevents any telco
On 05/29/2014 05:24 PM, Jens Best wrote:
A noble cause
doesn't necessarily make breaking an important principle unproblematic.
In my opinion, if the definition of the principle makes the obviously
perverse conclusion that a beneficial thing like giving access to
educational resources for free
On 05/29/2014 08:57 PM, James Salsman wrote:
but it was misplaced because being able to figure out wikitext
is an excellent attribute in new editors
I think that statement fails on two aspects: for one, saying that the
enthusiasm 'was misplaced' is rather premature as VE itself is rather
On 05/29/2014 09:25 PM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
If not, the Telcos are making a loss.
Why?
I should expect because they expect the goodwill they earn doing so will
turn people into paying customers. Indeed, some of them have been
rather explicit in their expectation that as their customers
On 05/31/2014 08:27 PM, James Salsman wrote:
Individual editors' skill with wikitext should be independent of
almost all of the systemic biases from which we suffer [...]
Seriously?
I have (non-CS) engineer friends that, upon hitting that edit button,
basically went Gak! No way!
Wikitext
On 06/01/2014 07:13 AM, edward wrote:
Which explains the gender bias, yes?
At least in large part; Risker explained it more eloquently than I.
There is a bias against women because the skillsets currently useful to
be able to edit wikitext (programming, heavy markup languages) are more
common in
1 - 100 of 175 matches
Mail list logo
