[Wikimedia-l] Re: About raising money

> > > > So now we're left with how we raise money, and the common complaints about > the size, frequency, and tone of fundraising banners. The argument is that > fundraising messages use unduly alarmist language, and that donors are > therefore misled into thinking that Wikimedia is facing imminent

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

I have no dog in this race, but facts are not eligible for copyright protection. On Wed, Jul 4, 2018, 17:11 Andreas Kolbe wrote: > On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 1:54 AM, Denny Vrandečić > wrote: > > > Gnom1 on Phabricator has offered to actually answer legal questions, but > we > > need to come up wi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

Phillipe, Can you imagine a hypothetical situation where it would have been appropriate for this WMF office action to exist though - that is to say, not serious enough to ban a user from any other wiki than en. and serious enough to take direct action outside of the community? I sure can't, yet h

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

I would like to reserve the right to say "fuck arbcom", "fuck the WMF", or "fuck the admins", just like I deserve the right to say "fuck the police" or "fuck the judiciary system". Regardless whether you think so or not, I dont think that's within WMFs remit to police and enforce. On Wed, Jun 12,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fram en.wp office yearlock block

if Fram was not an admin, all these discussions would not have been done) [citation needed] why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening to > stop it. > > > Camelia > > > -- > *Camelia Boban* > > *| Java EE Developer |* > > *Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia *Found

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation management of volunteers

I disagree that Wikipedia not considering Wikipedia as an admissible source is indicative of Wikipedia being a failure. On Sun, Jun 16, 2019, 14:18 Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear all, > The discussion triggered by recent WMF T&S actions has tended to focus o

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation management of volunteers

Wikipedia itself can never be more reliable than the sources it cites. If it's allowed to cite itself, then there is no "bottom" to lean on, and its quality would quickly drop. That you conclude from that that wikipedia is unreliable and therefore failed is IMO such a silly proposition, that I don

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation management of volunteers

would like > to believe that this is somehow silly or sophistry, is to look the facts in > the face and accept that some form of editorial policy, content workflow > management and supervision of the volunteer effort is necessary to make > Wikipedia what aspires to be, but is n

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation management of volunteers

-learning-uncover-wikipedias-missing-citation-needed-tags/ > -- > is that evidence of success? The thousands of articles in > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Unreferenced_BLPs -- is that > evidence of success? > > Thrapostibongles > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 1:44 PM Mar

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Foundation management of volunteers

On Fri, Jun 21, 2019, 07:43 Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibong...@gmail.com> wrote: > Martin > > > > No, I'm saying that it's ridiculous to judge wikipedia on its policy that > > citing itself is disallowed. > > > > Perhaps, then, rather than telling us what it is that you don't agree with, >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Treatment of newbies with mild CoI

As a quick/rough data point I don't frequently edit wikipedia anymore, and when I do I never log in. About 2/3 edits no further interactions happen. About 10% gets reverted, about 10% of the time I get a warning and the last 10% I get a welcome template. On Thu, Feb 27, 2020, 15:52 Marshall Mi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's fix templates

On Sep 3, 2014 4:46 AM, "MZMcBride" wrote: > > Hi Martijn. Thanks for starting this thread. > > Martijn Hoekstra [roughly] wrote: > >* Catalog the problems with [dev issue]. Make a comprehensive list that > > enumerates the problems with [dev issue] we have

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's fix templates

On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Wil Sinclair wrote: > > tl;dr: We've been collectively whining about templates for long enough. > Who > > wants to help with fixing them? > > I want to help fix them. > Great to hear. Getting my ass in to gear is one of my greatest weaknesses, and from what I kno

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's fix templates

7;s clear that there are several people who are interested in talking > templates. I'm getting my hands dirty with them on another project I'm > working on. I don't mean to rush you; just tell me what to set up for > this discussion and where, and I'll make sure it ge

Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow or not to Flow

On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 6:49 AM, Erik Moeller wrote: > Hi all, > > > > Sincerely, > Erik > > [1] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2003-July/011069.html > [2] > https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=LiquidThreads&oldid=100760 > [3] https://translatewiki.net/wiki/Support >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow or not to Flow

On Sep 10, 2014 5:11 AM, "Keegan Peterzell" wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 10:04 AM, Wil Sinclair wrote: > > > > > FWIW, I signed my first comment by hand. I missed the comments about > > sigs in the wikitext editor interface. If it weren't for my family > > situation, I'm pretty sure I would

Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow or not to Flow

huge text areas really sucks (the scrolling and positioning the cursor is a huge pain). This is not limited to talk pages by the way, but is identical for mainspace pages. A reply button that inserts an isolated comment at the correct indentation level would fix that. Am I overlooking stuff? > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow or not to Flow

obile is caused by them being long, branching and intricate, not due to any software or rendering issues. > > On 10 September 2014 09:47, Martijn Hoekstra > wrote: > > > On Sep 10, 2014 9:35 AM, "Gerard Meijssen" > > wrote: > > > > > > H

Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow or not to Flow

opinion of any individual and/or organisation is purely coincidental. (am I doing this right?) On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Keegan Peterzell wrote: > In case it's not clear enough in my sig, this is my personal opinion: > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:20 AM, Martijn Hoekstra <

Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow or not to Flow

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Risker wrote: > On 10 September 2014 07:54, Andrew Gray wrote: > > > On 8 September 2014 08:22, David Gerard wrote: > > > > > > > > > * potential to work with Notifications ("tell me when anyone replies > > to this discussion") without needing individual pings

Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow or not to Flow

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Diego Moya wrote: > On 10 September 2014 17:47, Martijn Hoekstra > > I think this is something of an oops, and not really something we should > > judge the product on. Currently the broken mess is "notify on all posts > on > > al

Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow or not to Flow

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 7:54 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > Asap stands for "as soon as possible". It is obvious that there I do not > like the talk pages at all. That does not mean that it makes sense to > replace them tomorrow. > > I want us to cut the crap. Absolutely get rid of talk page

Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow or not to Flow

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:42 PM, Diego Moya wrote: > On 10 September 2014 19:49, Martijn Hoekstra > wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Diego Moya wrote: > >> The feature shouldn't be "notify on all posts on the subscribed > >> thread" eit

Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow or not to Flow

On Thursday, September 11, 2014, John Mark Vandenberg wrote: > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Wil Sinclair > wrote: > > Tim, do you think that this list of all the useful stuff that talk > > pages can currently includes things that aren't being done because > > they are too advanced for newbie

Re: [Wikimedia-l] To Flow: on featured article discussions

On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Danny Horn wrote: > Figuring out how Flow integrates with the watchlist and Echo is one of the > toughest and most important parts of the project. I think that may be an overstatement. I'm not saying it isn't tough, but exploring in what ways wikipages are curre

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Wikipedia needs an IDE, not a WYSIWYG editor"

On Oct 25, 2014 6:17 PM, "Amir E. Aharoni" wrote: > > Thank goodness this wasn't written five years ago, otherwise somebody could > get the awful idea to implement it. Having a side by side really time wikitext - display doesn't sound like an aweful idea at all to me. I'm quite surprised anyone w

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Wikipedia needs an IDE, not a WYSIWYG editor"

representation of the Wikimedia Foundation's > opinion.) > בתאריך 25 באוק 2014 19:40, "Martijn Hoekstra" > כתב: > > > On Oct 25, 2014 6:17 PM, "Amir E. Aharoni" > > wrote: > > > > > > Thank goodness this wasn't written five y

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Wikipedia needs an IDE, not a WYSIWYG editor"

elp improve them, and help people ease in to using them. Your wonton dismissiveness is worrysome to me. > בתאריך 25 באוק 2014 20:51, "Martijn Hoekstra" > כתב: > > > On Oct 25, 2014 7:20 PM, "Amir E. Aharoni" > > wrote: > > > > > > Because, e

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

On Nov 26, 2014 11:21 PM, "Kim Bruning" wrote: > > > Washington post article > http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/ > > sincerely, > Kim > This is obviously not the first time this comes up, and it's probably

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again)

On Dec 3, 2014 3:46 AM, "Ryan Lane" wrote: > > Megan Hernandez writes: > > > > > > > As Lila’s email said, we launched our end of year English fundraising > > campaign on Tuesday. I wanted to share a little more background on the > > mechanics of the English Wikipedia campaign, and where we are o

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again)

On Dec 3, 2014 12:00 PM, "Federico Leva (Nemo)" wrote: > > Martijn Hoekstra, 03/12/2014 10:13: > >> I will automate this message for the first Tuesday of December, around >> 10:00 a.m. UTC. If others could automate their messages to not exactly >> coinc

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia France] WikiCheese crowdfunding - Let's photograph 'em all

On Dec 4, 2014 2:46 PM, "Jean-Frédéric" wrote: > > > Thanks again, I tried to remain brie-f > > > 2014-12-03 18:06 GMT+00:00 Christophe Henner : > > > 110% !!! We bleu our first goal. > > > > Christophe, whether you are posting out of love for this awesome project or > just for the sake of making

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again)

On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 9:26 PM, MZMcBride wrote: > I checked my inbox today to find a note from a friend asking if > Wikipedia was okay. My reply was essentially "Wikipedia is fine, if you > want to donate, make an edit or two." > > I wonder how many Wikimedians are getting the same notes of conc

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banners (again)

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 7:11 PM, phoebe ayers wrote: > Hello all, > > I just re-read this whole thread (!) this morning and here are the > themes of points raised that I'm seeing ... I'll add this to the talk > of https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_principles too. > > Anything else I miss

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikitech-l] Reasonator use in Wikipedias

On Jan 23, 2014 6:42 PM, "Gerard Meijssen" wrote: > > Hoi, > Having Reasonator generated content in a "draft" namespace is *NOT* a bad > idea. > >- I do not know enough about the draft namespace.. Is there a way to >discover that an article exists in Draft ?? >- My personal target for

Re: [Wikimedia-l] My choice for ED

I understand your reasoning, but we already have an extremely difficult time finding a suitable candidate. While such community vetting would definitely weed out the people we don't want, it will also slim down the pool we do want, which currently sits around a cool 0. I don't think we can afford

Re: [Wikimedia-l] My choice for ED

Rory is the Legal mascot, and is indeed a tiger (though some say it is stuffed, I wouldn't bank on it). See http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Rory and http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Staff_and_contractors under legal On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Tony Souter wrote: > Oh what on earth a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMIL Board & members withdraw from international activities

On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Itzik Edri wrote: > Hi Nathan, > > Allow me to correct - WMIL is not withdrawing from international > activities. For example, WMIL will probably going to be one of the leading > chapters supporting WLE, and many others international projects with others > chapters

Re: [Wikimedia-l] draft revised volunteer community survey

robably more effective to make your point directly - I for me am rather lost at what point you are trying to make. Maybe something with that you think the WMF is spending too much money and effort in copyright lobbying? If this is actually a s

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Update on search for the WMF Executive Director

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 1:56 PM, MZMcBride wrote: > Steve Zhang wrote: > >It probably means nothing, but the other day I noticed that the Executive > >Director post had been removed from the Job Openings page on the WMF wiki > >and was curious. Has there been an update on the search for the new E

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Timothy Sandole and (apparently) $53, 690 of WMF funding

op a simple, robust process: we aim to have it done by 1 May 2014" is a step in the right direction. Providing an effective escalation path can rectify mistakes quickly after they happen. What none of these do however, is provide a means how such mistakes can in the future be avoided. The central

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares

t have to explain this to you. > I call no real Scotsman. --Martijn Hoekstra > What a shameful comment, Chris. > > Tomasz > > > ___ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fuck the community, who cares

On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > From where I stand ie Wikidata, the license we use is CC-0. When a GLAM > wants to share data it has to be CC-0. When it is CC-by or CC-by-sa, we > cannot use it. We do not retrieve it from their database we will find the > same data

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF FDC Proposal: we invite your participation

On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 12:46 AM, James Salsman wrote: > Pete Forsyth wrote: > > > >... there are very good reasons to be cautious about how much > > and what kind of advocacy the Wikimedia Foundation engages > > in, but by and large, the reasons are not *legal* ones. They're > > related to our vi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Funding of decentralized organizational structure

tructure, but also programmatic work)? Should we give the donors the choice who they want to fund, WMDE or WMF (or some thorg, or a different chapter)? Isn't this massively confusing? I have no answers to any of these questions, but I'm happy it's on the agenda. --Martijn Hoekstra

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sponsorship/donations to other organizations

On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Erik Moeller wrote: > Hi folks, > > I'd be interested in hearing broader community opinions about the > extent to which WMF should sponsor non-profits purely to support work > that Wikimedia benefits from, even if it's not directed towards a > specific goal establ

Re: [Wikimedia-l] I'm back

On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote: > On 18 April 2014 14:20, Milos Rancic wrote: > > > Rakija is the right Serbian product. Do you remember drinking it > > in Pristina? Or not? :P > > Unfortunately, I remember both drinking the lovely Rakija, and the > morning after... > If you

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Howdy from Wil

On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 8:30 PM, Wil Sinclair wrote: > I'm Wil Sinclair, Lila Tretikov's significant other. > > I've always wanted a good excuse to get involved in the Wikipedia > project and the Wikipedia community. Lila's appointment would be about > as good as it gets. :) > Conflict of interes

Re: [Wikimedia-l] How to Criticize with Kindness

On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote: > On 14 May 2014 14:26, Everton Zanella Alvarenga > wrote: > > > "How to compose a successful critical commentary [...]" > > That strikes me as very long winded, and so not conducive to a > succinct email exchange. > This style of communicati

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection Policy

On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 8:23 PM, Wil Sinclair wrote: > This is really helpful. > > To clarify: > > Is it correct that each project/subdomain of Wikipedia and Wikimedia > has its own, potentially unique Child Protection Policy? > How many of those policies are marked as "Proposed"? > Are the "Prop

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection Policy

On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 10:04 PM, Wil Sinclair wrote: > > Then stick to > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk > > > > Straight "What is the policy on X" questions aren't really the purpose of > > this mailing list. > > > > -- > > geni > > Thanks for the advice; that's exactly

Re: [Wikimedia-l] About Wikipedia medical entries

On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote: > 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 > > That issue was discussed

Re: [Wikimedia-l] About Wikipedia medical entries

On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 4:27 PM, geni wrote: > On 27 May 2014 15:22, Marc A. Pelletier wrote: > > > > > Ah, that explains it. :-) > > > > Regardless, "Don't diagnose yourself with Wikipedia" seems to be > > infinitely good advice, regardless of any hyperbole about article > accuracy! > > > > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

On May 28, 2014 7:09 PM, "Wil Sinclair" wrote: > > Thanks, I wasn't aware I could do this. I'm assuming that it would be > obvious who was an employee at Wikimedia in the log, too. I posted the > following to Wikipediocracy a few minutes ago: > > " > I may have misread which page the rev was on, o

Re: [Wikimedia-l] About Wikipedia medical entries

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Jane Darnell wrote: > What I think is funny about this whole article and this email thread > is that the quality of Wikipedia is not brought into relation with > anything else. For example, I know that one of the main causes of > death in the Netherlands today has

Re: [Wikimedia-l] A personal note.

> > > We are all interested in hearing all sides of every story here, aren't > we? I'm starting to get the feeling that there are things that some > people on this list don't want *anyone* to discuss. Which things, and which people are you aiming at, particularly? --Martijn > After all, you >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Child Protection and Harassment Policy

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Wil Sinclair wrote: > Martijn asked me which things I thought that some people on this list > don't want anyone to discuss, so here are the two examples that I'm > most interested in: > > Child Protection- I'd like to hear about ways that policy might be > change

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] [PRESS RELEASE] Airtel Offers Nigerians Free Access to Wikipedia

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Jens Best wrote: > Hi Marc, > > zero-rating a special service or a certain website on you mobile contract > is a clever way to undermine net neutrality, even when it comes as such a > noble service to give free knowledge to the people. > > Free knowledge of the l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Court decision in Jones v. Dirty World Recording Entertainment LLC

On Jun 17, 2014 3:55 AM, "Kevin Godfrey" wrote: > > > > On 17 Jun 2014, at 4:17 am, edward wrote: > > > >> On 16/06/2014 21:07, Newyorkbrad wrote: > >> In its decision, the Sixth Circuit takes a broad view of Section 230 and > >> holds that Section 230 protection is not lost even where the websit

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Interest in a community strategic planning meeting?

On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Pine W wrote: > Hi community members, > > I'm wondering how many people might be interested in having an IRC meeting > regarding the community's relationship to WMF and potentially developing > our own strategic plan that would be independent of WMF. In the past f

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

On Aug 31, 2014 11:46 PM, "Pine W" wrote: > > Just in terms of the amount of everyone's time that MediaViewer, > Superprotect > and related issues are absorbing, this situation is a net negative for the > projects. > Also, the amount of emotional hostility that this situation involves is > dishear

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Next steps regarding WMF<->community disputes about deployments

On Sep 1, 2014 5:10 PM, "Marc A. Pelletier" wrote: > > Warning, tl;dr rant below in which live my personal opinion. Thank you for that. A heartfelt rant feels a lot better than being told my "call is important to you." (snip) > The fundamental issue is that the WMF is attempting to provide some

[Wikimedia-l] Let's fix templates

tl;dr: We've been collectively whining about templates for long enough. Who wants to help with fixing them? In the recent discussions/debacles about technical and stylistic advances, a recurring theme is that the use of some templates causes major headaches, and a commonly heard complaint from the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's fix templates

On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 1:34 PM, pi zero wrote: > On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 5:40 AM, Martijn Hoekstra < > martijnhoeks...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > tl;dr: We've been collectively whining about templates for long enough. > Who > > wants to help with fixing t

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Let's fix templates

On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) wrote: > anything official> > > On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Martijn Hoekstra < > martijnhoeks...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > If we have to resort to such magic to make templates do what we want, > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Protecting the Encylopedia vs Destroying a human

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Eddy Paine wrote: > Hello, > First of all I was asked to take a look at the following case. I found it > very strange how people behave against other people and I would like to > write about it and ask opinions. I'm sure this is not only for this user > but there

Re: [Wikimedia-l] "Somebody Will"

On Jun 3, 2013 2:17 PM, "Sumana Harihareswara" wrote: > > Cynics, skip this message! > > http://www.sassafrassmusic.com/songs/sci-fi-fantasy-fandom/somebody-will/ > > I came across this sentimental song about "a world of encouragement and > productivity, in which everyone is encouraged to create,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Blocking of HTTPS connection by China

On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Matthew Roth wrote: > We have had contact with the authors of the blog and they have said they > will publish our response to their article, though I'm not sure when or in > what format. > > This is the content of our response: > > "The Wikimedia Foundation doesn’t

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia in trouble /yet/ again

On Jul 10, 2013 8:59 AM, "David Gerard" wrote: > > On 10 July 2013 07:51, Fred Bauder wrote: > > > It is easiest to analyze if the work has never been published. > > Distributing it then is a taking of intellectual property regardless of > > whether the original is physically taken or only a copy

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Feedback for the Wikimedia Foundation

On Jul 24, 2013 9:57 AM, "Erik Moeller" wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Tom Morris wrote: > > > Should that even be a concern? I mean, if lots of newbies and > > technophobes start using the Visual Editor and a bunch of us > > dorks who love writing markup don't, would that matter? >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Progress...

On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: > "As with other inventions that produced an inferior product at a much > lower price, from the printing press to the steam-driven loom to > Wikipedia, what happens now is largely in the hands of the people > experimenting with the new tools, ra

Re: [Wikimedia-l] On the gentrification of Wikipedia, by Superbass (was: Visual Editor)

On Jul 30, 2013 3:49 AM, "Marc A. Pelletier" wrote: > > 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 t

Re: [Wikimedia-l] On the gentrification of Wikipedia, by Superbass (was: Visual Editor)

On Jul 30, 2013 4:58 AM, "Marc A. Pelletier" wrote: > > 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 fixi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] On the gentrification of Wikipedia, by Superbass (was: Visual Editor)

rmally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? > ----- Original Message - From: "Martijn Hoekstra" < > martijnhoeks...@gmail.com> > To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" > > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 8:39 AM > Subject: Re: [Wi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] On the gentrification of Wikipedia, by Superbass (was: Visual Editor)

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Robert Rohde wrote: > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 1:06 AM, Martijn Hoekstra > wrote: > > > 4. Block the creation of new templates with deprecated syntax. Also block > > saving templates that were free of deprecated syntax would an edit >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] On the gentrification of Wikipedia, by Superbass (was: Visual Editor)

have this discussion long before engineering plans are drawn up. > > P.S. {{nom}} and its sister templates are an example of templates that > VE can't presently handle. > Which is why I think it is very important to have this discussion. I also think I made my points on this thread and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] On the gentrification of Wikipedia, by Superbass (was: Visual Editor)

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 1:01 PM, David Gerard wrote: > On 30 July 2013 09:06, Martijn Hoekstra wrote: > > > 6. Announce a date from where on saving a page with a transcluded legacy > > template will be blocked. Expect public outcry. > > An important consideration that

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out

On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Richard Farmbrough wrote: > Apparently important. I am aware, as probably everyone is, that this is > the first most obvious step to make article editing more accessible, and > address certain inclusiveness goals. I am also aware that there is no data > to suppor

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out

On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Kevin Wayne Williams < kwwilli...@kwwilliams.com> wrote: > Op 2013/08/05 23:44, MZMcBride schreef: > > This leaves us to consider the biggest question: opt-in vs. opt-out. Erik >> and James are both quite smart, they are true Wikimedians, and they make >> reasonabl

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Visual Editor "temporary" opt-out

On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Kevin Wayne Williams < kwwilli...@kwwilliams.com> wrote: > Op 2013/08/06 7:55, Martijn Hoekstra schreef: > >> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Kevin Wayne Williams < >> kwwilli...@kwwilliams.com> wrote: >> >>Their argum

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: [Wikimania-l] git.wikimedia.org dead due to wikimania ; )

On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Huib Laurens wrote: > Hello, > > I always believed that our servers where monitored 24/7? But nobody seems > to be arround to fix a core part in our systems? > > Huib > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: rupert THURNER > Date: Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at

[Wikimedia-l] Block evasion might be a federal offense

http://feedly.com/k/14WeLcY I wish I was grossly misrepresenting the situation here. If I am, please do set me straight. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Block evasion might be a federal offense

On Aug 21, 2013 8:56 AM, "Peter Gervai" wrote: > > I am possibly failing to see the point of this part of the discussion. > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 7:14 AM, FT2 wrote: > > >- *If the IP is "sufficiently clearly connected" to the individual > >behind the Alice account*, > > It is not an

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Block evasion might be a federal offense

On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Peter Gervai wrote: > On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Martijn Hoekstra > wrote: > > On Aug 21, 2013 8:56 AM, "Peter Gervai" wrote: > > > The account and/or underlying IP is > > blocked. That is the technical impedimen

Re: [Wikimedia-l] is wikipedia zero illegal because it violates net neutrality?

On Aug 26, 2013 6:30 PM, "JP Béland" wrote: > > "And if it is illegal or borderline according to, say, > netherlands, swiss, or german law, is it appropriate to do it in > countries where the law is less developed? " > > As said Kevin, it is impossible to respect the law of all countries in > ever

Re: [Wikimedia-l] is wikipedia zero illegal because it violates net neutrality?

On Aug 26, 2013 7:53 PM, "George William Herbert" wrote: > > > > > > On Aug 26, 2013, at 10:42 AM, JP Béland wrote: > > > 2013/8/26, Martijn Hoekstra : > >> On Aug 26, 2013 6:30 PM, "JP Béland" wrote: > >>> > >>>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] is wikipedia zero illegal because it violates net neutrality?

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Denny Vrandečić < denny.vrande...@wikimedia.de> wrote: > 2013/8/27 Federico Leva (Nemo) > > > Denny Vrandečić, 27/08/2013 11:39: > > > > That's like saying > >> "printing out an article of Wikipedia and giving it to a student is a > >> violation of net neutrality

[Wikimedia-l] Another wiki* stackexchange proposal

Another proposal for a new site for wikis on the Q&A suite of sites stackexchange has opened up for committal. If you're interested, it's over at http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/49276/wikis ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedi

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Stack Exchange vs. Wikimedia

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Jan Kučera wrote: > Hi there, > > is anyone out here participating in any of the Stack Exchange projects? Yes, I participate in Stackoverflow mainly > Do people here still really think voting is a bad thing and wiki is the > easiest way to collaborate? > No,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Stack Exchange vs. Wikimedia

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: > Jan Kučera, 23/09/2013 18:20: > > Hi there, >> >> is anyone out here participating in any of the Stack Exchange projects? >> > > http://area51.stackexchange.**com/proposals/49276/wikis

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Office hours for VisualEditor

On Oct 31, 2013 2:11 AM, "Steve Zhang" wrote: > > I have to say, I'm amazed such a long discussion has occured over a > question about the time for an office hours sessions. I'm amazed nobody has brought up leap seconds yet, which make 23:59:59 roll over to 23:59:60 and would steal not one but tw

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright infringement - The real elephant in the room

On Nov 20, 2013 1:13 PM, "The Cunctator" wrote: > > Yes, let's keep on pushing for policies that drive away editors! I'm not sure exactly what kind of policy you are getting at here. Could you elaborate a little? > On Nov 20, 2013 2:10 AM, "Fæ" wrote: > > > On 19 November 2013 20:44, Samuel Kle

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Textbooks Which Borrow Heavily from Wikipedia

On Nov 26, 2013 12:08 PM, "Srikanth Ramakrishnan" wrote: > > The new textbooks in Tamil Nadu state in India have images from the Commons > and links to articles printed at the end. > This was discussed on the Wikimedia India mailing list in the latter half > of 2011. You can check the archives. I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid editing v. paid advocacy (editing)

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: > Arne Klempert, 10/01/2014 17:51: > >> I've heard that before from Wikipedians. However, it does not match >> with what communication professionals keep telling me. Even larger >> companies with solid communication departments are usual

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Thanking anonymous users

On Jan 13, 2014 7:25 AM, "MZMcBride" wrote: > > Steven Walling wrote: > >With my "product manager for Growth" hat on... Like Kaldari said we can't > >give people who aren't logged in Echo notifications at the moment. The > >only alternative is to post to the IP talk page. This would require us to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] speedydeletion.wika.com lauched

Thats great. We've been in need for something like this for a while, good luck with the project! Two questions: Are you planning on letting the authors know there article has been transwikid? Are you checking if the article actually gets deleted from Wikipedia or gets recreated? On Sun, Jun 10, 2

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

Two points that might help bring people on different sides of the issue closer together. 1. How about notifying people that they have been check-usered 2 months after the fact? By that time I hope all investigations are complete, and is the risk of tipping off the nefarious should be over. 2. Tho

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Stephanie Daugherty wrote: > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:52 AM, Martijn Hoekstra > wrote: > >> Two points that might help bring people on different sides of the >> issue closer together. >> >> 1. How about notifying people t

Re: [Wikimedia-l] CheckUser openness

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 9:51 PM, ENWP Pine wrote: > >>> Hi Nathan, >>> >>> For a moment, let's suppose that there is a global policy that all CU >>> checks must be disclosed to the person being checked, with the >>> information >>> disclosed in private email, and only consisting of the date of the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Who invoked "principle of least surprise" for the image filter?

Jussi, I'm not finding the post you are replying too, what's the context here? On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 3:29 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > The core problem here is that the Board is not alive and well. > The Board of Trustees is dead in their shoes. What precisely > are they *Trustees* of? >

  1   2   >