I've been involved with hr.wiki case as a steward. I suggested to take a
series of quite bold actions but there were reasonable concerns in terms of
legitimacy among stewards, there were the ability of smart dudes in the
cabal to hijack discussions, there was the reluctance of meta people due to
available for evidence focused rational
> consideration?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> *From:* Mike Godwin [mailto:mnemo...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 30 August 2021 02:30
> *To:* Andreas Kolbe
> *Cc:* Wikimedia Mailing List
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikipedia
Are these “facts of the matter” available for evidence focused rational
consideration?
Cheers,
Peter
From: Mike Godwin [mailto:mnemo...@gmail.com]
Sent: 30 August 2021 02:30
To: Andreas Kolbe
Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikipedia issues in UNDARK.org #Opinion
Andreas writes
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 11:12 AM Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> But unless I am totally misreading you, your attitude sounds a lot like
> "Why should anyone care (or have cared) about Croatian and all these other
> languages spoken in some countries at the other end of the world?" If
I believe this is for the first time I see a person who is active in the
Wikimedia movement and does not know who Mike Godwin is.
Best
Yaroslav
On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 7:09 PM wrote:
> >Mike is not an employee nor a spokesperson for the
> Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> Oh, thanks.
>
> I don't know
Hoi,
Please use Google when you do not know who you are talking to.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 at 19:09, wrote:
> >Mike is not an employee nor a spokesperson for the
> Wikimedia Foundation.
>
> Oh, thanks.
>
> I don't know who he is. His manner led me to believe he represented
>Mike is not an employee nor a spokesperson for the
Wikimedia Foundation.
Oh, thanks.
I don't know who he is. His manner led me to believe he represented the WMF in
some capacity.
Someone who downplays the danger of far-right activism within education is
either ignorant or some kind of nazi
Hillbillyholiday,
For my doctoral thesis, I would be interested to know more about these
wikipedia articles "completely controlled by terrorist groups". Is it
possible to have references? Some links to the Wikipedia articles in
question or to press articles as scientific ones for example.
Hoi,
Get your facts straight. Mike is not an employee nor a spokesperson for the
Wikimedia Foundation. Andreas has a set of hobby horses. That is fine but
it does not follow that we have to be grateful for them. Yes, there are
plenty of issues with all of our projects and at that, English sets a
Mike,
I am appalled by your sneering condescension of Andreas.
This is a researcher and journalist who has worked diligently for a decade to
identify, examine and expose the systematic failings which beset Wikipedia. He
generously offers practical soultions to problems the WMF is unaware of.
Mike,
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 1:42 PM Mike Godwin wrote:
> While it is generally true that what happens in Croatian Wikipedia
> normally affects the whole world instantaneously (constrained only by the
> speed of light!), this may have been one of the rare instances in which
> Croatian
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 11:09 AM Chris Keating
wrote:
> And when you were working for the Wikimedia Foundation those years, or
>> serving on the WMF board, how did your own exercise of moral courage
>> persuade people to adopt your point of view? I'm certain, given your
>> convictions, that you
>
>
>
>> The costs of doing this now will hardly have been prohibitive.
>> Commissioning a report like this would have been well within the WMF's
>> means in 2013 as well. (The WMF reported a budget surplus of $13 million in
>> 2013.) So I stand by my assertion: the WMF could have done then what
On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 8:22 AM Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Mike,
>
> The corruption of the Croatian Wikipedia began in 2009 and became front
> page news in Croatia in September 2013. The term "fake news" hadn't been
> invented yet, but the Croatian Education Minister issued a public warning
> to the
This question reflects a common misunderstanding of the legal framework
that protects the Wikimedia Foundation. The Wikimedia Foundation has broad
rights to intervene in Wikipedia content (or other project content) above
and beyond what may be strictly required by law. Exercise of these rights
Mike,
The corruption of the Croatian Wikipedia began in 2009 and became front
page news in Croatia in September 2013. The term "fake news" hadn't been
invented yet, but the Croatian Education Minister issued a public warning
to the country's youth in 2013 that they should avoid the Croatian
Hi, Isn't the legal status of the foundation a web host? If it
intervenes on projects within the framework of what the law expects from
hosting companies, everything is fine. If it does more at the level of
project governance and publishing, then it runs the risk of being
recognized one day as
I think you're indulging in the common tendency of inferring that if WMF
did not do something a decade ago that it had the legal right to do, it
follows that it lacked the moral courage to do that thing (or else that it
had moral courage then but lacks it now--the moral-judgment fantasy can run
in
Hoi,
There were Wikipedias closed in the past before the recent issue at the
Croation Wikipedia because of content, language. It is not only recent, it
is more pronounced but not a shift
Thanks,
GerardM
On Sun, 22 Aug 2021 at 19:00, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> Well, that was the difference I
Well, that was the difference I was referring to. (I wasn't really thinking
of content found libellous in court, child pornography etc.)
What is new is that the WMF is expressing an interest in the actual
integrity of the *encyclopedic* content, hiring staff to address
"misleading content",
Andreas Kolbe writes:
> It's worth noting that Yumiko's article (now also on fastcompany.com)
> quotes the WMF as saying it "does *not often* get involved in issues
> related to the creation and maintenance of content on the site."
>
> That "not often" actually indicates a little publicised but
It's worth noting that Yumiko's article (now also on fastcompany.com)
quotes the WMF as saying it "does *not often* get involved in issues
related to the creation and maintenance of content on the site."
That "not often" actually indicates a little publicised but significant
departure from past
; *Sent:* 17 August 2021 09:32
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikipedia issues in UNDARK.org #Opinion
> article to check...
>
>
>
> Hoi,
>
> I beg to differ. If anything the WMF needs to focus us more on the
> imbalance that exists be
Gerard,
With whom do you beg to differ?
P
From: Gerard Meijssen [mailto:gerard.meijs...@gmail.com]
Sent: 17 August 2021 09:32
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikipedia issues in UNDARK.org #Opinion article to
check...
Hoi,
I beg to differ. If anything the WMF
We do need, among other things, the sum of all Wikipedias. :)
A shared commons, wikidata, global templates, abstract WP! are all ways to
get there. The suggestions in this article are not...
In particular, as long as reliability and verifiability and research norms
are siloed by language --
Hoi,
I beg to differ. If anything the WMF needs to focus us more on the
imbalance that exists between the fundamental bias toward English versus
all other languages. For me the easiest picking is to share in the sum of
the knowledge that is available to us. To get there simple goals like "a
nine
And it is based on a fundamental misconception of the legally mandated role of
the WMF. Everything based on this false premise, fails.
Cheers,
Peter
From: Željko Blaće [mailto:zbl...@mi2.hr]
Sent: 17 August 2021 06:18
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia issues in
27 matches
Mail list logo
