[Wikipedia-l] Re: Neutral Point of View Has Been Compromised in Favor of Verifiability and Claims of Consensus.

Are you talking about anything concrete or specific? Otherwise, it seems like you are recognizing openly known tensions that all editors of good faith (which is pretty much all editors) try to negotiate with a spirit of openness and collegiality. Though sometimes we don't live up to that ideal. (I

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Osama and Ziyad

Frankly, that's implausible. On Mon, Sep 25, 2023, 3:37 PM DerHexer via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote: > I do think that posting any kind of response to these questions *on a > public mailing list* would do more harm than good. Thank you. > > Best, > DerHexer > *Wikimedia

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Sharing an update on the Wikimedia Foundation Knowledge Equity Fund’s grantees

This is all extremely helpful information. I am grateful for the with you have done and I think this is an excellent project. On Fri, Aug 18, 2023, 6:41 AM Biyanto wrote: > Hi all, > > My name is Biyanto Rebin, and I am one of the community members who is > part of the Knowledge Equity Fund

[Wiki-research-l] Re: Generation gap widens between admins and other editors on the English Wikipedia.

IMHO: The amount of jargon and legalistic booby traps to navigate now to become an admin is gargantuan, and there isn't a strong investment in a development ladder. And this even though the majority of admin work that needs doing hasn't changed significantly from 2003-2004. This is not a

[Wikimedia-l] Re: ChatGPT as a reliable source

Again at no point should even an improved version be considered a source; at best it would be a research or editing tool. On Wed, May 17, 2023, 4:40 AM Lane Chance wrote: > Keep in mind how fast these tools change. ChatGPT, Bard and > competitors understand well the issues with lack of sources,

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation launches Open the Knowledge Journalism Awards on World Press Freedom Day

I am personally fully in support of Wikimedia supporting journalism, fwiw. On Sat, May 6, 2023, 9:08 AM Bobby Shabangu wrote: > These are interesting viewpoints indeed. > > I think the connection between these awards and Wikipedia (especially in > the African continent) is clearly stated in the

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Foundation launches Open the Knowledge Journalism Awards on World Press Freedom Day

While I share the concerns expressed, I'm personally enthusiastic about the thoughtfulness and initiative of the Working Group. It might help to explicitly mention the awareness of these language issues in the public presentation of this effort. On Fri, May 5, 2023, 10:45 AM Andreas Kolbe wrote:

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

I honestly think the WMF has better things to do than worry about engagement on what is clearly a grossly mismanaged website. On Tue, May 2, 2023, 3:53 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < galder...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Dear Justice, > Yes, it works that way, because we are not measuring the total

[Wikimedia-l] Re: [Wikitech-l] Re: Reflecting on my listening tour

I think one of the key lessons of software development is that infinite money doesn't necessarily lead to good software development. I think the work the new leadership is showing to address the structural flaws will go a long way. There's certainly nothing immoral about a global non-profit having

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Bing-ChatGPT

I really feel like we're getting into pretty aggressive corporate abuse of the Wikipedia copyleft. On Fri, Mar 17, 2023, 4:45 PM Adam Sobieski wrote: > Hello, > > I would like to indicate "Copilot" in the Edge browser as being > potentially relevant to Wikipedia [1][2]. > > It is foreseeable

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Bing-ChatGPT

This is an important development for editors to be aware of - we're going to have to be increasingly on the lookout for sources using ML-generated bullshit. Here are two instances I'm aware of this week: https://www.thenation.com/article/culture/internet-archive-publishers-lawsuit-chatbot/ > In

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Chat GPT

This is almost definitely the case. On Mon, Feb 6, 2023, 2:39 AM Ilario Valdelli wrote: > And this is a problem. > > If ChatGPT uses open content, there is an infringement of license. > > Specifically the CC-by-sa if it uses Wikipedia. In this case the > attribution must be present. > > Kind

[Wikipedia-l] Re: Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust

Some of us are here! On Fri, Feb 10, 2023, 4:32 AM michael west wrote: > On Fri, 10 Feb 2023, 9:21 am , wrote: > > > Dear All, > > > > I would like to bring this scholarly article to your urgent attention: > > Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust ( > >

[Wikimedia-l] Re: One Year Update

Thank you so much; I'm impressed by the work you are doing and your approach. One part of the Wikimedia mission that I hope returns to the fore in the coming year is defense of copyleft; ensuring that users of Wikimedia copyrighted content respect the license and share alike. On Tue, Jan 31,

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again

Thank you!! On Fri, Jan 27, 2023, 5:55 PM Christophe Henner wrote: > Thanks Caitlin!!! > > Sounds like that answers perfectly the original questions and things are > going the way we were told, it just takes times :) > > Thanks again and have a good day! > > Christophe > > Sent from my iPhone >

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again

In this case, it does. On Fri, Jan 27, 2023, 3:34 AM Peter Southwood wrote: > Yes, but sometimes a yes/no answer does not reasonably represent reality. > > Cheers, Peter > > > > *From:* The Cunctator [mailto:cuncta...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* 25 January 2023 17:26 > *

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again

It looks like what Wikimedia is saying is they gave a (typically) confusing response to the Italian journalists which they (in good faith) misreported. Wikimedia communications would benefit from a willingness to answer yes/no questions with a yes or no, imho. On Wed, Jan 25, 2023, 7:24 AM

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Endowment, again

I hope the always-welcome discussion here about non-profit logistics and online civility doesn't derail an answer to Andreas's question, which is important and remains unanswered. On Fri, Jan 20, 2023, 5:36 PM Samuel Klein wrote: > The statements are not mutually exclusive. They are likely both

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

The reasonable account to compared the official @wikipedia account to is Depths of Wikipedia, on Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok. On Twitter it was 715K followers has about 10-20 posts a day, and monster engagement. On Wed, Jan 18, 2023, 7:47 PM Andreas Kolbe wrote: > Dear all, > > The obvious

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Recent press around December Office Action

Thank you for speaking out. You've articulated many of my vague concerns with the Foundation's communications. On Sun, Jan 8, 2023, 1:47 PM Amir Sarabadani wrote: > (putting my long-term volunteer of Persian Wikipedia hat on) > > I first want to mention that out of 16 users banned by the office

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Mozilla's social media pledge

ni...@gmail.com>> wrote: > ... > > It has: > > > > https://diff.wikimedia.org/ <https://diff.wikimedia.org/> > > ... > Le 03/01/2023 à 15:32, The Cunctator a écrit : > > Pretty amusing that it's incredible opaque who edits it. > > > >

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Mozilla's social media pledge

Group accounts already there include: https://wikis.world/@WikiSignpost https://wikis.world/@wikisusdev https://wikis.world/@Wikimedia_Fr https://wikis.world/@WikiEducation https://wikis.world/@govdirectory https://wikis.world/@wikidata On Tue, Jan 3, 2023 at 9:34 AM The Cunctator wrote

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Mozilla's social media pledge

The wikipedia community doesn't need WMF permission to act on behalf of the community, imho. There are already a bunch of great wikipedians at the wikis.world instance - it would be a good place to set up some "official" accounts on behalf of the various wikipedia/wikimedia communities. On Sat,

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Mozilla's social media pledge

Pretty amusing that it's incredible opaque who edits it. On Mon, Jan 2, 2023 at 9:06 PM geni wrote: > On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 at 22:31, Erik Moeller wrote: > > These events, and Musk's capricious leadership, should be sufficient > > to make _any_ civil society organization begin to establish a

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Luis Bitencourt-Emilio Joins Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

He tweeted in praise of BAYC but has recently taken his tweets private without explanation. On Sun, Dec 11, 2022, 10:40 AM effe iets anders wrote: > I'm probably missing some context. I've seen earlier references to this > NFT in light of his appointment. What I somehow missed (sorry if I >

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Luis Bitencourt-Emilio Joins Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

I would like to submit that I personally found SJ's characterizations of other contributors' legitimate concerns and critiques as "light hazing" to be offensively dismissive, but if SJ helps facilitate an honest and respectful attempt by Luis and the board to answer those concerns I will happily

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Luis Bitencourt-Emilio Joins Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

I am sincerely interested in your views on the open source movement, the for-profit exploitation of Wikinedia, the role of the Foundation in protecting the intellectual property interests of Wikimedia contributors, and the role of influential technologists in promoting financially and

[Wikimedia-l] Re: ChatGPT and Wikipedia

It's trained on Wikipedia. Here's a 2020 paper from the authors. I would argue it's violating the copyright but I'm aware the foundation isn't very interested in defending it. https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.14165 On Sat, Dec 10, 2022, 10:42 AM Anders Wennersten wrote: > Is this Ai software using

[Wikimedia-l] Re: WMF financial statements for 2021-2022 published

Did WMF sell bonds at a loss? On Wed, Nov 9, 2022, 4:08 PM Ad Huikeshoven wrote: > The WMF does not invest in stocks, only in bonds. > > Op wo 9 nov. 2022 21:51 schreef Andreas Kolbe : > >> Dear Steven, >> >> Thank you for your explanation. I had naively assumed the investment >> income in the

[Wikimedia-l] Re: WMF financial statements for 2021-2022 published

That's negative investment value, not investment income. On Wed, Nov 9, 2022, 2:36 PM Steven Walling wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 10:37 AM Andreas Kolbe wrote: > >> Dear WMF Finance staff, >> >> I inquired over a week ago on Meta-Wiki why the WMF is reporting a >> negative investment

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Decentralized fundraising, centralized distribution

This is a very excellent report. Thanks to all for the work put into it. On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 10:47 AM Gnangarra wrote: > I see one of the key things in the the movement and the WMF has developed > is thats leaving behind the volunteers and contributors. There is focus on > top down,

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Is GoogleTV violating Wikipedia's license?

I think the official WMF stance that it is functionally powerless is the wrong one to take. WMF should be much more aggressive, even if Google is a major donor to WMF. On Tue, Aug 30, 2022, 11:16 AM Nicholas Perry wrote: > As others mentioned in the thread, WMF can't enforce this directly as it

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Seven Wikimedia chapters rejected as permanent observers to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)

Having read the Foundation press release, I have to say that if it were a Wikipedia page, I would have edited it since it is quite misleading as written. I understand the reticence to mention other countries since I expect you want to portray China as a rogue actor here and I'm sympathetic to that

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

I'm glad this conversation is moving over to meta-wiki. I hope the communications staff will recognize their job should be to facilitate the volunteers to do the work when it comes to anything other than speaking for the Foundation. On Mon, Jul 18, 2022, 2:22 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <

[Wikimedia-l] Re: 2020 Form 990 published

Thank you for this summary. The rate of turnover at Wikipedia is surprising to me. On Sun, May 22, 2022, 9:00 AM Andreas Kolbe wrote: > Hi all, > > The WMF published its Form 990 for the 2020 calendar year a week ago[1], > along with an FAQ on Meta[2]. > > Some salient points: > > 1. In 2020,

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Next steps: Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) and UCoC Enforcement Guidelines

Respectfully, the inclusion of the second part does not seem to make much sense. On Tue, Apr 19, 2022, 8:02 PM Stella Ng wrote: > Hello Andreas and Todd, > > I am not Rosie, but I believe I can field this. > > First, as a reminder to all, the UCoC was created to establish a minimum > set of

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Form 990 clarification request (for the attention of WMF accounts staff)

Frankly, I think we should all be thanking Andreas for not backing down. On Tue, Feb 1, 2022, 12:08 PM Samuel Klein wrote: > Andreas, > > Are you ... sealioning WMF staff? Please don't.  > > You've been posting a lot >

[Wikimedia-l] Re: The Wikipedia Library: Accessing free reliable sources is now easier than ever

This is really well done. One suggestion that's probably already been made and may have various reasons for not including would be to add some of the non-paywalled libraries (like HathiTrust and the Federal Register) as searchable options. On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 12:10 PM Sam Walton wrote: > Hi

[Wikimedia-l] Re: (How) can I see the early revision history?

This bug is a real problem for the protection of editors' copyright. A proper edit history is critical for that. On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 2:48 PM Andy Mabbett wrote: > On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 01:57, Denny Vrandečić > wrote: > > > > I wanted to see the beginning of the article about Jupiter. > > >

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Endowment reaches initial $100 million goal and welcomes new board members

model > citizens and contribute to the Wikimedia Foundation. We now provide paid > for services to them making their bot activity less of a strain to our > services and provide them a (paid for) service. > Thanks, >GerardM > > On Sun, 26 Sept 2021 at 04:32, The Cu

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Endowment reaches initial $100 million goal and welcomes new board members

at 5:40 PM Andy Mabbett wrote: > On Thu, 23 Sept 2021 at 19:27, The Cunctator wrote: > > > It's really disappointing to me that the Structured Data work has been > used to blow up Wikipedia's copyleft. > > 1. Your message has nothing to do with the endowment > &g

[Wikimedia-l] NYT Interview with incoming Wikimedia ED Maryana Iskander

Unfortunately (but not surprisingly) not a very in-depth interview, US-centric. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/23/technology/wikipedia-misinformation.html *Give us a sense of your direction and vision for Wikimedia, especially in such a fraught information landscape and in this polarized world.*

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Wikimedia Endowment reaches initial $100 million goal and welcomes new board members

It's really disappointing to me that the Structured Data work has been used to blow up Wikipedia's copyleft. On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 1:20 PM Lisa Gruwell wrote: > Thank you, Christophe and SJ. You both were great supporters of this > effort when you were on the WMF board and it wouldn't have

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Welcoming María Sefidari as a Foundation consultant. :)

It's pretty embarrassing that regional Wikimedias have better governance standards than the (extraordinarily wealthy) international Foundation. I don't understand how the Tides/Wikimedia general counsel believes that the conflict of interest of Maria has moved directly from being Board chair to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The thousand millionth edit on the English Language Wikipedia

Pedants and old codgers :) congrats everyone. On Wed, Jan 13, 2021, 3:57 AM WereSpielChequers wrote: > The English Language Wikipedia passed an interesting milestone a few hours > ago. > > The thousand millionth edit was at 1:03 AM this morning >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board of Trustees participation in the Movement Strategy Process

That's a good find. Hopefully every working group will be tasked with making their work explicitly consistent with the actual mission of Wikimedia. On Thu, Jul 19, 2018, 11:48 AM Craig Newmark wrote: > Maria, thanks, much appreciated! > > Which group focuses on information quality and accuracy?

Re: [Wikipedia-l] How is Wikidata CC0?

Is there a coherent explanation of what content Wikidata is extracting from CC-BY-SA projects? On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:55 AM, The Cunctator wrote: > Your claims that the abusive destruction of copyleft by the Wikidata > project have nothing to do with copyright and nothing

Re: [Wikipedia-l] How is Wikidata CC0?

t; In addition, this has nothing to do with Wikidata. > Thanks, > GerardM > > On 18 June 2018 at 15:18, The Cunctator wrote: > > > It looks from that discussion that the violations of cc-by-sa in order to > > help google's profits have not been in any way resolved.

Re: [Wikipedia-l] How is Wikidata CC0?

It looks from that discussion that the violations of cc-by-sa in order to help google's profits have not been in any way resolved. On Mon, Jun 18, 2018, 1:56 AM Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote: > Ave Cunctator. > > The Cunctator, 18/06/2018 04:46: > > If it's pulling from Wiki

[Wikipedia-l] How is Wikidata CC0?

If it's pulling from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA) what is the justification for converting the license to CC0? ___ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Ask Amazon, Apple, Google, and Microsoft to state wiki article source dates in voice?

Large corporations should not be allowed to violate copyleft. If they are creating derivative products from Wikipedia -- which they are -- those derivative products should be released under CC-BY-SA. Google Knowledge Graph seems to be somewhat close, in that there is an API

Re: [Wikipedia-l] Is this List alive or Dead ?

Agreed. On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 12:21 PM, FRED BAUDER wrote: > This was THE list in the early days. The archive should definitely be > saved and accessible and the best way to do that is just keep it. > > Fred > > - Original Message - > From: Kim Bruning

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Amazon Echo' use of Wikipedia; CC license compliance?

Would love for an update. Wikipedia license doesn't just call for attribution, but for copyleft to be preserved. On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 2:50 AM, Anthony Cole wrote: > Thank you Adele and Yongmin. I'll ask Barbara to clarify next time we chat. > > On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 at

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright enforcement?

e such claims & requests. > > On Jan 29, 2018 10:19 AM, "The Cunctator" <cuncta...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Related, has there ever been any copyright enforcement for Wikipedia, or > is > > its copyleft a joke and it's functionally purely public domain?

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright enforcement?

Foundation doesn't make attribution or at least article date a > > requirement, then they are actively opposing editor recruitment. > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 27, 2018 at 7:34 PM, The Cunctator <cuncta...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > The copyright requirement isn't at

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright enforcement?

ion in a lot of their results. > > J > > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 1:03 PM, geni <geni...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 5 June 2017 at 18:32, The Cunctator <cuncta...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Both Google and Graphiq are using pretty much the entire Wikipedia > corpus &g

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Copyright enforcement?

cated that the content is under an open > license. > > J > > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:32 AM, The Cunctator <cuncta...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I've been a bit out of the loop on this for a while, so please be kind to > > the oldbie - what's current Wikimedia

[Wikimedia-l] Copyright enforcement?

I've been a bit out of the loop on this for a while, so please be kind to the oldbie - what's current Wikimedia policy on adaptive reuse of Wikipedia content into non-free publications? E.g. Graphiq https://www.graphiq.com/terms-and-conditions

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Account of the events leading to James Heilman's removal

One very serious element of this decision-making really should be the fact that Google is blatantly violating the CCA-SA by reusing Wikipedia content without making their derivative work open. - *Share Alike*—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the

[WikiEN-l] Atlantic on Wikipedia and PR

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/08/wikipedia-editors-for-pay/393926/ The Covert World of People Trying to Edit Wikipedia—for Pay On January 11, 2013, James Heilman, an emergency-room physician and one of Wikipedia’s most prolific medical editors, was standing watch over the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] COI editing by WMF staff

I can't think of a better justification for IAR than this thread. On Apr 17, 2014 8:04 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: On 17 April 2014 12:49, Erlend Bjørtvedt erl...@wikimedia.no wrote: Same practice here, through spontneous reflection independent of wmfr. Seemes that this is at least

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

Given that allowing mp4 would be an act of commercial expedience at the expense of core Wikipedia principles, let me make the modest suggestion of introducing mp4 in concert with a name change to Encarta. On Jan 16, 2014 5:15 AM, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote: Great post Manuel, and I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

He wasn't assuming bad faith; he was accurately describing the situation without ascribing intent. On Jan 16, 2014 7:36 AM, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote: There aren't two principles in conflict here. This

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

Also, vandalism had always been a red herring, kind of like the terrorism that justifies the TSA security theater and NBA surveillance or the Red Scare. It's a wrong-headed obsession that weakens community. On Nov 22, 2013 2:06 PM, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 21,

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

Yes, let's keep on pushing for policies that drive away editors! On Nov 20, 2013 2:10 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 November 2013 20:44, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: Aside @Fae: the tineye crew are curious quite pro-freeculture, I bet they would be glad to help design a bot

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

There's also been discussion of automatically deleting content from contributors contributor from their own writing. On Nov 20, 2013 8:31 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: On 11/20/2013 07:13 AM, The Cunctator wrote: Yes, let's keep on pushing for policies that drive away editors

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

Yes, it should be made clear that opt out will always be an acceptable user preference. On Aug 6, 2013 7:26 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:35 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Todd Allen wrote: [comments about VisualEditor] Hi Todd. Thank

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

This perspective is not a productive one for building and maintaining a community. You need to have a better way of granting legitimacy to people's concerns while being able to discern histrionics. Generally the optimal easy is to have there be a pathway by which the complainants have to fix the

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

I love it when individuals decide that they know what is important and worthy of inclusion, as opposed to the mindless masses. Because that's such a healthy way to ensure an open, neutral, and comprehensive encyclopedia. On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Tarc Meridian t...@hotmail.com wrote: I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] crazy deletionists!

Just think, in a few years we can set up the site to construct drafts for the site that constructs drafts for Wikipedia. On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: There's nothing that

Re: [Foundation-l] Blink tag jokes are now obsolete.

This isn't the kind of compromise that we should be making. On 12/31/11, Zack Exley zex...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi everyone - It's a trade off between doing things that might annoy some people in the banners vs. reducing the number of days we need to run banners at all. It's hard to find the

Re: [Foundation-l] Subject: Re: Vendetta?

In other words, Wikipedia does not have space for what you find interesting. Sorry. On 12/15/11, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: It isn't so much about having my stuff edited as it is that there seems to be a mindset among en.wp editors that stuff needs to be deleted unless they

Re: [WikiEN-l] Demi Moore BLP name

Ummm... common sense says that if someone says what their birth name is, about 50 years after they were born, when decades of documentation -- including interviews -- says something different, that someone is making up the new info. Either Demi Moore was incorrect in 1996, or she is incorrect

Re: [WikiEN-l] Demi Moore BLP name

Um, People Magazine got their information from an interview with Demi Moore. On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: The question isn't so much what her name currently it, but what it was on the day she was born. On the other hand, treating IMDB and People Magazine as

Re: [WikiEN-l] Demi Moore BLP name

Also, you can't FOIA birth certificates. On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: The question isn't so much what her name currently it, but what it was on the day she was born. On the other hand, treating IMDB and People Magazine as reliable sources is laughable. Where

Re: [WikiEN-l] Demi Moore BLP name

Another little tidbit for the common sense grist: While her mother was still alive, Demi Moore stated her birth name was Demetria. Virginia Guynes died in 1998. On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: Um, People Magazine got their information from an interview

Re: [WikiEN-l] Demi Moore BLP name

I've cleaned it up. ... and, it's been reverted back into its crufty revisionism. Good job, Tenebrae. On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Steve Summit s...@eskimo.com wrote: Ken Arromdee wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Demi_Moore Summary: Demi Moore, in a tweet but verified as being

Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia

That's stupid. On 10/4/11, Mathias Schindler mathias.schind...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 22:19, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 4:15 PM, teun spaans teun.spa...@gmail.com wrote: Isn't this premature? As I understand, the law is still being discussed, not

Re: [WikiEN-l] [[Long Dong Silver]]

Long Dong Silver is genuinely famous. On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:35 PM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.comwrote: Fred? Could you please explain why you suppressed the revisions? None of the criteria seems to apply. On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Steve Summit s...@eskimo.com wrote:

Re: [Wikitech-l] Sep11 Wiki

As the person who essentially built the September 11 wiki, I can say that permanently killing the project on the tenth anniversary of the attacks would be a telling testament to both the lost opportunities of Wikipedia itself and of human civilization, which did seem for a fleeting moment to have

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

This is a mistaken understanding of what unbalanced means with respect to Wikipedia. On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.netwrote: Again - I am not Cirt, and I find the article reasonably balanced. Having an article that associates someone with human waste be

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

You are ascribing motive to Cirt's activities. Assume Good Faith. This is starting to feel like something that should be dealt with by interested parties engaging with each other, rather than researching on wiki-en. On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 6:34 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: ---

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

Huh? On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.netwrote: Yes, let's replace our elite judgment for that of everyone else. You've got one word right, our. You are responsible for this. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

There's also this: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/5/9/4/9/p259493_index.html *Natality in the Private, Public, and Political Spheres: When Santorum Becomes

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:47 AM, George Herbert george.herb...@gmail.comwrote: On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 5:54 AM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 23/05/2011 13:35, Fred Bauder wrote: This seems to combine malice and political purpose. Really it is stuff that

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

I agree. Let's remove all content on Wikipedia about the Internet. On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: I'm skeptical that we should have an article. The reason: Wikipedia is on the Internet. If Wikipedia has an article about something whose promoter

[mapserver-users] Anyone want to work on a climate mapping web project w/me?

Hey -- I'm in the prototype stage of a new map-based climate change website, just putting out feelers for anyone with GIS chops and an interest in the alpha/brainstorm stage of things. (The essential concept is to turn these types of stories into a dynamic real-time GIS site.

Re: [Foundation-l] Message to community about community decline

A key problem is that it's difficult to find people who understand how Wikipedia works but also want to disrupt the status quo. Most currently active Wikipedians, pretty much by definition, like how Wikipedia works right now. Even if they are concerned in theory about overall community decline,

Re: [WikiEN-l] iCorrect

The real problem is that people are perfectly willing to lie about themselves. I never slept with that woman. I don't fund the Tea Party. I'm not a hypocrite. etc. etc. On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:27 PM, Sarah slimvir...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 05:38, Scott MacDonald

Re: [WikiEN-l] Koch brothers articles doctored says Think Progress

Did he say he was working for Koch's PR firm? On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: 'Being really good at it' is subversion when they aren't actually really good at it, they just disregard the rules. I wont speak for George, but yes, doing it in

Re: [WikiEN-l] Koch brothers articles doctored says Think Progress

the Wikipedia, and then other places like Wikipedia Review and eventually in the press. The more people that look at the bias, the less sustainable the position of the conspiracy becomes. On 15/03/2011, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: On Mon, 14 Mar 2011, The Cunctator wrote: Oh, certainly

Re: [WikiEN-l] Koch brothers articles doctored says Think Progress

Of course, if an interested minority party has effectively infinite money, they can start to tip the scales. On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.comwrote: On 14/03/2011, David Goodman dgge...@gmail.com wrote: It is possible to provide arguments against the

Re: [WikiEN-l] Koch brothers articles doctored says Think Progress

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: On Mon, 14 Mar 2011, David Goodman wrote: It is possible to provide arguments against the reliability of any source whatever. (And in the other direction, it is possible to take most sources and selectively quote them

Re: [WikiEN-l] Koch brothers articles doctored says Think Progress

On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote: On Mon, 14 Mar 2011, The Cunctator wrote: The Koch brothers are mostly unknown. ... ... It is Ken's assertion that there are many people highly motivated to write misrepresentations and unbalanced articles, though

Re: [WikiEN-l] Drake Bennett: Wikipedia ten years on

It was a temporary experiment that was transparently neither temporary nor an experiment. I think I got chewed out for pointing that out at the time. I sometimes wonder what Wikipedia could have become if it truly stayed experimental, instead of aspiring to the lesser goal of a better Encarta.

Re: [Foundation-l] Big problem to solve: good WYSIWYG on WMF wikis

I can promise you that the reason edit rates has gone down is not because of problems with wikitext. Though the cruft is a symptom. On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 6:50 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: [crossposted to foundation-l and wikitech-l] There has to be a vision though, of

Re: [Foundation-l] Old Wikipedia backups discovered

Larry didn't have an exaggerated role, he really did run the project in the early days. On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.orgwrote: On 15/12/10 11:17, Brian J Mingus wrote: Browsing through the earliest revisions in the revision index (

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material

Fred Bauder, so far as I know, INAL. It's pretty sad that so many prominent Wikipedians hold the truth of the world to be in such low disregard. On 12/12/10, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 5:49 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, raw data is a

Re: [Foundation-l] PediaPress

It's pretty obvious that there are some back-justifications being made for a blatantly imperfect decision. There are both real strengths and benefits to the decision (making print copies easily accessible) as well as deep flaws (promoting an exclusive relationship with a for-profit company). It

Re: [Foundation-l] Jimbo's Sexual Image Deletions

That about sums it up. On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org wrote: I try to understand what happened, but I'm not sure whether the pieces that I found so far add up. * Larry Sanger is mad about Wikimedia. [apparent] * Larry Sanger notifies the FBI and tells them

  1   2   >