Hello,
>From what I have seen about Greg Kohs is that he does have some
interesting points to make, but I do see that he is jumping to
conclusions and does seem to have a biased viewpoint.
People want to make their own decisions and have enough information to
do that. We don't want to have import
Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
> This is obvious to someone who has been using Wikipedia for some time,
> but not so for newbies. I propose changing the "new messages" notice
> to something like: "You have new messages on your public talk page
> (last change)."
I think this is obvious to most people. Perh
In the five or so years that i spent on Wikipedia it never bothered me
and i never heard complaints about it until today, but come to think
of it, there is something odd in the way users are notified about new
messages on their user talk pages.
The famous orange message in English says: "You have
Brigitte,
I agree with you. You raised some very good points.
Sincerely,
Virgilio A. P. Machado
At 03:47 20-10-2010, you wrote:
> From: Austin
>Hair To: Wikimedia Foundation
>Mailing List
>Sent: Tue, October 19, 2010 12:35:07 PM Subject:
>Re: [Foundation-l
> A longer piece about this:
>
> http://www.mn.ru/society/20101019/188137566.html
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
And it contains the conflation of Wikipedia with WikiLeaks, to boot.
Fred
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@l
A longer piece about this:
http://www.mn.ru/society/20101019/188137566.html
--
John Vandenberg
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
From: Austin Hair
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Tue, October 19, 2010 12:35:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Nathan wrote:
> If it pleases the moderators, might we know on what basis
Sue Gardner wrote:
> Is Mike leaving the Wikimedia Foundation because he did something egregious?
>
> Not at all. The Wikimedia Foundation believes Mike has always acted in
> what he believes to be the Wikimedia Foundation's best interests.
This is an odd answer.
MZMcBride
___
> Given that the person making these
> criticisms is aware of this distinction (I could be wrong. Perhaps his
> whole argument premises on the point that the WMF should be a content
> provider, rather than a host), his continual attacks on the content don't
> appear to consistent and give the appe
> Nice summary/overview...
>
>> 10% news/events/media coverage
>> 10% pointless digressions
>> 10% snarky comments
>> 10% trolling
>> 10% uncritical discussion of WMF
>> 50% sharp criticism
>
> I wonder what percentage of the sharp criticism gets dealt with?
> Would it make sense to keep track of t
Nice summary/overview...
> 10% news/events/media coverage
> 10% pointless digressions
> 10% snarky comments
> 10% trolling
> 10% uncritical discussion of WMF
> 50% sharp criticism
I wonder what percentage of the sharp criticism gets dealt with?
Would it make sense to keep track of that statistic?
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 7:07 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
> > Just to point out...saying "it's a content issue, not a Foundation issue"
> > means absolutely *nothing* to the vast majority of people out there.
> >
> > -Chad
>
> Yes, definitely Inside Baseball:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_bas
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Ryan Kaldari
> wrote:
>> And that's just one of many sections erroneously blaming the WMF for
>> content issues. For example, "A WikiProject of topic lists has existed
>> since November 2007, but it is still half unfinished" and "the 100
>> articles about the hun
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
> And that's just one of many sections erroneously blaming the WMF for
> content issues. For example, "A WikiProject of topic lists has existed
> since November 2007, but it is still half unfinished" and "the 100
> articles about the hundred Uni
That page is so full of misinformation, it hardly warrants commentary,
but just to point out some more annoying examples:
The part about how "Your non-profit donation will ultimately line the
for-profit pockets of Jimmy Wales, Amazon, Google" is absurd and very
misleading. Sure, Wikipedia exter
On 19 Oct 2010, at 19:06, Mike Dupont wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Michael Peel wrote:
>>
>> On 19 Oct 2010, at 18:44, Mike Dupont wrote:
>>
I don't think we gain anything by providing a platform for Kohs campaign,
as illustrated at
http://www.mywikibiz.com/Top_10_R
Hoi,
It is always sad to learn that someone who is appreciated as much as Mike
is, is leaving. I hope he will be happy in his future activities.
I want to thank Mike for the work that he has done. My contacts with Mike
have always been positive so I feel it as a loss.
Thanks,
Gerard
On 19
2010/10/19 James Alexander :
> The blog post from Danese talks about it launchign a Mediawiki extension
> project, I'm not sure what the time table is on that however.
They've committed code for an extension:
http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/extensions/WikiBhasha/
I haven't tested
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
> It could be added as a Mediawiki extension. Not sure if anyone is
> thinking about that.
>
> Fred
>
> The blog post from Danese talks about it launchign a Mediawiki extension
project, I'm not sure what the time table is on that however.
Jam
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Michael Peel wrote:
>
> On 19 Oct 2010, at 18:44, Mike Dupont wrote:
>
>>> I don't think we gain anything by providing a platform for Kohs campaign,
>>> as illustrated at
>>> http://www.mywikibiz.com/Top_10_Reasons_Not_to_Donate_to_Wikipedia
>>> against Wikipedia.
On 19 Oct 2010, at 18:44, Mike Dupont wrote:
>> I don't think we gain anything by providing a platform for Kohs campaign,
>> as illustrated at
>> http://www.mywikibiz.com/Top_10_Reasons_Not_to_Donate_to_Wikipedia
>> against Wikipedia.
>
> Wow, this is very well written and interesting! please sh
> I don't think we gain anything by providing a platform for Kohs campaign,
> as illustrated at
> http://www.mywikibiz.com/Top_10_Reasons_Not_to_Donate_to_Wikipedia
> against Wikipedia.
Wow, this is very well written and interesting! please share more such
information.
___
Just a test. It seems I have been put on moderation simply for making the
earlier posts about plagiarism on Wikipedia. Free culture!
- Original Message -
From:
To:
Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2010 10:17 PM
Subject: Your message to foundation-l awaits moderator approval
> Your mail to
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Nathan wrote:
> If it pleases the moderators, might we know on what basis Greg was
> banned and Peter indefinitely muzzled?
Greg Kohs was banned for the same reason that he's been on moderation
for the better part of the past year—namely, that he was completely
un
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
> I don't think we're in danger of outlawing sharp criticism on
> Foundation-l. If I had to give a guesstimate of the content breakdown of
> Foundation-l traffic, it would look something like:
>
> 10% news/events/media coverage
> 10% pointless d
On reflection, I guess I (I, not the Foundation), envision our public
mailing lists as being for all who are involved and interested, casually
or intensely, as well as for observers are simply monitoring our on-going
discussions, and who may, from time to time, wish to comment or initiate
topics.
> This isn't why Peter was moderated, is it?
>
> Frank
>
The folks who control the list:
foundation-l list run by adhair at gmail.com, wiki.ral315 at gmail.com,
alexandrdmitriromanov at gmail.com
didn't say much. Kohs has a big anti campaign in progress, but all I can
find about Peter Damain is b
> This time from Microsoft Research:
>
> http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2010/10/18/wikibhasha/
>
> Has anyone used this one? How is it?
>
> Did Google ever commit to releasing the translation pairs? If so, we
> should certainly ask Microsoft for the same.
>
>
> - d.
I'm trying to make it work as a
Hello David,
See my experiences in
http://zikoblog.wordpress.com/
I do not recall exactly how the GoogleTK worked, but it is more or
less the same.
Kind regards
Ziko
2010/10/18 David Gerard :
> This time from Microsoft Research:
>
> http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2010/10/18/wikibhasha/
>
> Has
At its meeting on 9 October, the Movement Roles working group
presented an update on its current work and an outline for the coming
year. Thanks to everybody who participated in the preparation of the
proposal. The Board approved the direction of the group, and
encouraged all interested parties, pa
On 10/19/2010 02:24 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BA_%D1%8D%D0%BA%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D1%81%D
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BA_%D1%8D%D0%BA%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%85_%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%
John Vandenberg, 19/10/2010 12:43:
> And there is still a lot of discussion on the Russian Wikisource village pump.
>
> http://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/Викитека:Форум
>
> They have created a template to put on works that are on the Russian
> Federal List of Extremist Materials.
>
> http://ru.wikis
2010/10/19 Виктория :
> Stanislav Kozlovskiy is a vice-president of Wikimedia Russia.
>>
>> It is still not clear whether this is hoax or somebody really filed a
>> lawsuit.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Yaroslav
>>
>>
> As I understand it he didn't file the lawsuit, he just complained to the
> police. The polic
Stanislav Kozlovskiy is a vice-president of Wikimedia Russia.
>
> It is still not clear whether this is hoax or somebody really filed a
> lawsuit.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
>
As I understand it he didn't file the lawsuit, he just complained to the
police. The police was obliged to tick the box contac
This time from Microsoft Research:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2010/10/18/wikibhasha/
Has anyone used this one? How is it?
Did Google ever commit to releasing the translation pairs? If so, we
should certainly ask Microsoft for the same.
- d.
___
> AFAIK, president of Wikimedia Russia is Vladimir Medeyko, not
> Stanislav Kozlovskiy. And "wikipedia.ru" seems to be squatted.
>
> I have to admit that cyber-squatters have become more inventive. They
> are making NPOs for squatting domains of other NPOs.
>
Stanislav Kozlovskiy is a vice-pre
I would like to raise your attention on a topic related to movement roles.
It seems that activities of movement roles working group has not raised high
interest at meta probably because it is a one year term job.
One week ago I wrote a list of comments and proposals at talk page:
http://me
38 matches
Mail list logo
