Robert Fernandez wrote:
> […]
> And to this I would add that these are not issues of community governance
> at all. The WMF should not interfere in matters of community governance
> like policy issues regarding article content, etc. But when we are talking
> about issues regarding off-wiki ha
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> The problem with law enforcement is that it operaties nationally. It is not
> obvious where people are and consequently it is not obvious what
> jurisdiction is appropriate.
> […]
That's easy: The victim's.
Tim
___
W
Leila Zia wrote:
> […]
> On a separate note to those of you who contribute to technical spaces and
> are not happy about how some aspects have gone:
> Matthew and a few other people have been trying /really hard/ to make
> Wikimedia's technical spaces better. You know that embarking on such a p
Robert Fernandez wrote:
>>Personally I'm much more grateful for the people who did not
>>spend their energy on this code of conduct to "accidentally"
>>exercise power over others
> If the organizers of this proposal responded in kind with even a fraction
> of the bad faith accusations that have
David Gerard 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-
>> ers by granting immunity to "n
James Forrester wrote:
>> For the last 12 years Flickr have a system where people can click on a
>> link and get the HTML or BBCODE that properly attributes the image along
>> with the link to the license and all the rest of the requirements for
>> the CC license. Why can't commons do the same?
mathieu stumpf guntz wrote:
>> I think it was important to re-explain all those points so
>> that the community, which is - again - unnecessarily taken
>> as witness, is not deceived by a scenario built from
>> scratch.
>> Again, to discredit the movement by such erroneous but
>> public accusatio
María Sefidari wrote:
> […]
> Mike, as Cristian says - the Wikimedia movement has a history of trying to
> balance the safety concerns of volunteers in not-so-free regions (to put it
> mildly...) with having them contribute to our projects and events. We
> *need* these contributions, these voice
"Amir E. Aharoni" wrote:
> […]
> Sometimes it is, but there is something much bigger: There are many
> languages that
> 1. are alive in speech (and possibly in writing)
> 2. are not in danger of extinction
> 3. have a large number of monolingual speakers (let's say 100,000+)
> If there is no su
"Amir E. Aharoni" wrote:
> […]
> On a more practical and less ideological note, I should note that even
> though I didn't run the numbers, I strongly suspect that translating 10,000
> articles to 100 languages is considerably cheaper than teaching 7 billion
> people English.
Definitely, but you
Fæ wrote:
>>> (I must admit that i tested the job a year ago, the product was fine, the
>>> shipment fast. A bit expensive for my taste.)
>> Expensive? The profit adds funds the WMF, surely.
> This is a logical fallacy that many charities fall into, and end up
> damaging their reputation in th
Ruslan Takayev wrote:
> Wikiwand states: "Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license"
> WMF projects are available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license.
> Correct me if I am wrong, but these licenses are not interchangeable and
> therefore the entire Wikiwand site is a copyright violation?
> [
Pavel Richter wrote:
> […]
>3.
>So think hard before you grant confidentiality
>If someone asks you to keep something they are going to tell you
>confidential, think hard before you agree to it. In the case of James
>Heilman (or any other board member), their obligation is to
Brill Lyle wrote:
> 1. The sound quality was fine from what I saw and heard. I was on a desktop
> computer using the Blue Jeans thing (which had the YouTube video playing)
> and IRC chat -- and etherpad
> […]
I listened in on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XazXyL-Ybjo
pointed to by Joseph Sedd
(anonymous) wrote:
> […]
> This remains contradictory, and that is why I'm trying to get some clarity
> on the role Sue played in the past two years. The tasks described by
> Patricio in his response to the Signpost sound to me (but I might be naive
> in this) to be mostly relevant to the initial
Anna Stillwell wrote:
> […]
> I also hear that the pause on the interactive work is temporary. I’ve heard
> them request time. I am comfortable granting that request, but no one is
> required to agree with me. They’ve also said that the person with the most
> information is on vacation. As someo
Nou Nouill wrote:
> [...]
> So, I want to ask if the Foundation have a plan to improve Geohack ? I have
> the impression when I see https://tools.wmflabs.org that Geohack was mainly
> maintain by volunteer, but for me Geohack is a core item of the Wikimedia
> sphere. So I don't understand that s
"Peter Southwood" wrote:
> You are quite correct, we cannot force the board to
> respond. However if they don't we are free to vote with our
> feet - or not. The fundamental rule of crowdsourcing is 'do
> not alienate your crowd'. They tread a delicate line,
> whatever they do is going to annoy
"Peter Southwood" wrote:
> I agree.
> The situation may well be metastable, in that the WMF may
> get away with alienating the crowd for a long time, until it
> reaches a tipping point, when the reaction becomes
> catastrophic and non-reversible. At which point there will
> be a large number of p
Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
>> Thanks for talking about it Dariusz.
>> Could you please make a serious declaration of interests as is being
>> discussed at [1]. This will help set a ethical model for the rest of
>> the WMF board to follow without needing a year to think about it. If
>> you want to
Yury Bulka wrote:
>> A few years ago, the Wikimedia Foundation switched over to the Google Apps
>> platform, which means that most e-mail sent on the wikimedia.org domain is
>> now hosted by Google.
> Are you sure? It doesn't look like wikimedia.org's MX point to google's
> servers:
> https://st
Dariusz Jemielniak wrote:
> […]
> The identified mistakes/shortcomings of the whole process:
> 1. In the background check performed by the HR and the legal department we
> have not had a specific PR check as an immanent part. While it sounds like
> common sense (doh! I know, although many orga
Maggie Dennis wrote:
> In the time I've worked at the Wikimedia Foundation, I have
> (unsurprisingly, given its reported prevalence) come across this kind of
> harassment in my work with Support and Safety (formerly Community
> Advocacy). There have been cases where perfectly harmless pictures of
(anonymous) wrote:
> […]
> But 'getting big' is maybe not the most important thing in the world.
> Working on our mission, is. And part of that, is security. The WMF is not
> in this world to play the odds, but rather to ensure that knowledge is
> freed, and stays free - most specifically by secu
Dan Andreescu wrote:
> […]
> The pageview API, which is now being integrated into the Graph extension,
> stats tools, iOS app, and generally making a lot of people happy, has a
> long history. Various members of the community have been requesting this
> feature with increasing fervor for over a
"Federico Leva (Nemo)" wrote:
>> while, as I said, I have no particular interest in defending WMDE and have
>> not even read their proposal, let me say that I would find that a
>> preposterous measure of success/failure. You can't just look at a time
>> series of the number of editors and say "go
Frédéric Schütz wrote:
>> Thanks for the clarification. It's surprising to me that posting a bank
>> account number could lead to fraud - the bank systems are supposed to be
>> robust enough for that.
> My understanding is this is mostly a problem in the US, from what I
> heard from Garfield. I
Michael Snow wrote:
> [...]
> Also, I'm no expert on EU regulations, but I do observe that
> according to the European Payments Council, it seems payees
> receiving SEPA credit transfers are advised to communicate
> the IBAN "only where necessary":
> http://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/index.c
Mike Godwin wrote:
> [...]
> Trying to understand Wikipedia Zero as some kind of self-interested
> organizational move is a mistake, in my view. What it is, IMHO, is a
> logical development based on the core mission statement of Wikipedia.
> And in the long term it's actually helpful to the adva
(anonymous) wrote:
> [...]
> Broadly, I don't think many people appreciate how important mailing lists
> have been and continue to be to Wikimedia. Both in terms of providing a(n)
> historical record and in terms of day-to-day workflow. It would not be a
> bad investment on the part of the Wikime
Michael Snow wrote:
>>> Even if Timothy has been highly disruptive rather than just apparently
>>> very inefficient (which he wasn't), or if it has been donors' money that
>>> had been spent (which it wasn't), or if you had /actually/ been
>>> appointed to speak for "the number one stakeholder in
Juergen Fenn wrote:
> Only after the last editor has been been driven away
> Only after the last article written by a volunteer has been published
> Only after the last vandal has been reverted by a volunteer
> Then will you find that money alone cannot write an encyclopædia.
> See: https://de.w
Hi,
WMDE's Silke wrote at
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.toolserver/5674
regarding the promotion of additional toolserver roots:
| DaB is right: WMF as the database owner accepts only paid roots.
| [...]
Is that statement correct, and what is WMF's rationale for
it?
Tim
__
33 matches
Mail list logo
