Victor Vasiliev wrote:
> Sage Ross wrote:
>
>> I think this is an excellent, long overdue idea and something
>> Wikimedia should be interested in. I was actually thinking of
>> proposing something like this at strategy.wikimedia.org (and may still
>> do so).
>>
>>
>
> I don't think that cr
People who want to write reviews of this sort generally want to
propagandize either for or against something they have strong
feelings about. The susceptibility of a project like this to
campaigning and cabalism is so great, that i doubt a community run
project could maintain objectivity. We have
Samuel Klein wrote:
> Hello Mark,
>
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 3:38 AM, Delirium wrote:
>
>> I'd personally place myself on the "objecting to WMF expansion" side, at
>> least in general sentiment. With larger organizations, you can indeed do
>> more, but also run more risks. In particular, organiz
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Benjamin Lees wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
>> I propose the foundation-announce-l mailing list be set up with the
>> following posting rules:
>> 1) One post per person per thread. That includes the initiator of the
>> thread.
>
> Tha
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Anthony wrote:
> I propose the foundation-announce-l mailing list be set up with the
> following posting rules:
> 1) One post per person per thread. That includes the initiator of the
> thread.
That's not how announcement lists work. The whole point of an ann
So, I think that such a project works well with the concept of NPOV. I think
you can break the site into two distinct parts.
Part 1: You collect opinions of various sorts in various ways.
Part 2: You organize them in terms of their relative significance to each
other and summarize them in a disint
Hello Mark,
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 3:38 AM, Delirium wrote:
> I'd personally place myself on the "objecting to WMF expansion" side, at
> least in general sentiment. With larger organizations, you can indeed do
> more, but also run more risks. In particular, organizations with large
> staffs run
Sage Ross wrote:
> I think this is an excellent, long overdue idea and something
> Wikimedia should be interested in. I was actually thinking of
> proposing something like this at strategy.wikimedia.org (and may still
> do so).
>
I don't think that creating such a project within Wikimedia would
I would say no to this,
A second list with more rules will mean more reading work, double posting
cross posting...
Rules can be good, but we need moderators and list admins to make sure the
rules are not broken, those people need to put time in this.. and all that
time we could beter place in wor
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 9:42 AM, teun spaans wrote:
>
> The only question which your statement here raises is why you limit yourself
> to reviews. Imho there might be a considerable market area for people who
> have opinions to voice on politics, religion, etc.
>
Reviews are quite different polit
There are too many emails in this thread since I last read it for me
to reply to them separately, so will just post a general monologue and
hopefully address most of the points made. Please excuse the length of
this email.
I consider this a discussion list, first and foremost. It is used for
makin
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Anthony wrote:
>
> If you want a separate list for long, well-thought-out emails, I'm fine with
> that. But we need a place for brainstorming and refining ideas. We need a
> place for back-and-forth discussion.
>
> Am I in the minority in believing that?
You wou
2009/8/29 Delirium :
> I'd personally place myself on the "objecting to WMF expansion" side, at
> least in general sentiment. With larger organizations, you can indeed do
> more, but also run more risks. In particular, organizations with large
> staffs run the risk of bureaucratization; and communi
I propose the foundation-announce-l mailing list be set up with the
following posting rules:
1) One post per person per thread. That includes the initiator of the
thread.
2) Responses in a thread must be in response to the original message. No
responding to responses.
4) A person may initiate a m
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Brianna Laugher wrote:
> 2009/8/29 Anthony :
> > If you'd like to start a moderated foundation-l, in addition to the
> regular
> > foundation-l, that might be useful. But it's considerably inappropriate
> for
> > you to sign up for a mailing list that many of us
--- On Sat, 8/29/09, Brianna Laugher wrote:
> From: Brianna Laugher
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] moderate this list
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Date: Saturday, August 29, 2009, 9:36 AM
> 2009/8/29 Anthony :
> > If you'd like to start a moderated foundation-l, in
> addition to
--- On Sat, 8/29/09, Marcus Buck wrote:
> From: Marcus Buck
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] FlaggedRevs on Hungarian Wikipedia still not
> working
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Date: Saturday, August 29, 2009, 4:36 AM
> Birgitte SB hett schreven:
> > I hope someone is able to sho
2009/8/29 Anthony :
> If you'd like to start a moderated foundation-l, in addition to the regular
> foundation-l, that might be useful. But it's considerably inappropriate for
> you to sign up for a mailing list that many of us have been enjoying for
> years and in one month decide you want to alt
This sounds like a good initiative. Wikimedia foundation favours neutral,
factual content, so the initiative is an addition in the area of open
licenses.
The only question which your statement here raises is why you limit yourself
to reviews. Imho there might be a considerable market area for peop
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 6:52 AM, Georg von
Zimmermann wrote:
>In the realm of user reviews and ratings we have
> pretty much forfeited to closed systems like Amazon or Ciao.
>
> That's why we created OpenCritics.com. The idea of OpenCritics is to
> develop an open platform for freely licensed revi
Hoi,
When you are not here to convince but only their to talk, it is not
reasonable to abuse this mailing list where people want to inform, convince,
reach consensus. The generation of noise that you apparently consider ok for
this list wastes a lot of time. With so many words you say that your
con
On 8/28/09 2:49 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 9:43 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
>
>
>> Robert, is it possible to share the source for generating the
>> revert-based stats with other folks who may be interested in pursuing
>> further work on the subject? Thanks!
>
> Not as a complet
Yes, I delete pages of messages every day, and some of the posters to
Wikipedia lists are among them. They are just not worth the time it takes
to open them. They are just never part of the solution.
Fred
> Exactly. If you write too many messages, you run the risk that the
> majority will start t
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 4:27 AM, Anders Wennersten <
anders.wenners...@bonetmail.com> wrote:
> One idea could be to introduce a rule that each user should limit
> his/her entries to maximum one/day and thread
>
> I am sure this would lead to better quality, without stopping valuable
> input, and m
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Mark Williamson wrote:
>
> Similarly, if there is a famous painter who only made 5 paintings,
> they will probably fetch a higher price than if s/he had made 500.
And what if they're not selling their paintings? What if they just like to
paint?
I'm not here to
Dear “Wikipedians”,
please allow us to introduce a project we have been working on for
about a year now:
Explaining the importance of the open-source movement for a free
internet or the importance of Wikipedia (i.e. free content in the form
of factual knowledge) here would be like carrying coals
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 11:36, Marcus Buck wrote:
> necessary steps in six weeks. Tisza/hu.wp have done what they needed to
> do: File a bug at Bugzilla. If the coordination would work properly that
> should suffice to get the job done. It didn't. He searched to directly
> contact people who can he
Birgitte SB hett schreven:
> I hope someone is able to shortly fix this issue for you.
>
> However I think you have a mistaken idea about WMF. The reason people are
> wanted to join meta-projects is to ensure that their local wikis issues are
> understood. The meta-projects *are* hu.WP's projects
I think it's a bit tricky to impose such a specific limit. I think one
post a day is quite low for what is supposed to be a venue for
discussion - we simply don't have enough people here for that.
However, I think it would be quite reasonable to ask people to try to
moderate themselves. If you are
One idea could be to introduce a rule that each user should limit
his/her entries to maximum one/day and thread
I am sure this would lead to better quality, without stopping valuable
input, and make the list much more comprehensive and useful. (With this
rule last days 80 entires would probalbl
**
____ _ __ _
/ / /\ \ (_) | _(_)___(_)_ __ ___
\ \/ \/ / | |/ / |_ / | '_ \ / _ \
\ /\ /| | <| |/ /| | | | | __/
\/ \/ |_|_|\_\_/___|_|_| |_|\___|
.org
Year: 2009 Week: 34-35 Numbe
Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> Anthony's not exactly being fair, though, when he sort of suggests that the
>> shortfall in Technology spending went instead to the Executive Director. As
>> far as I can tell, it went into the bank, to be spent in the FOLLOWING YEARS
>> on the Executive Director's need to
32 matches
Mail list logo
