--- On Fri, 10/12/10, Mariano Cecowski marianocecow...@yahoo.com.ar wrote:
Problem is, Controlled Viewing is an option to deletionism,
but is not being seen as it. The current poll is to set a
criteria for the exclusion of material from commons, whereas
content hiding is [generally speaking]
Delphine Ménard, 10/12/2010 08:51:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 1:16 AM, Zack Exley zex...@wikimedia.org wrote:
OK, everyone -- I learned my lesson! Thanks for teaching it.
They say you are not really part of the tech team until you have
broken the site. I guess you are not really part of the
jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Fri, 10/12/10, Mariano Cecowski marianocecow...@yahoo.com.ar wrote:
Problem is, Controlled Viewing is an option to deletionism,
but is not being seen as it. The current poll is to set a
criteria for the exclusion of material from commons, whereas
content
This is because the campaign is centred on Wikipedia only and
specifically on Jimbo (who is famous thanks to Wikipedia).
Hopefully the contributors appeals will also say something about
Wikimedia and other Wikimedia projects and provide some banners which
won't look out of place on sister
Hello,
I used to think that Peter adds an interesting point of view to
Commons, but he went too far.
I think that he should be blocked now once and for all.
Regards,
Yann
2010/12/7 Adam Cuerden cuer...@gmail.com:
It concerns me greatly that Commons seems unable to deal with a user who, at
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 5:46 AM, Zack Exley zex...@wikimedia.org wrote:
OK, everyone -- I learned my lesson! Thanks for teaching it.
I was looking at it from the perspective of the reader who has never heard
the word Wikimedia. There are millions and millions of them. Luckily they
simply
2010/12/10 KIZU Naoko aph...@gmail.com:
And thank you for noticing me/us it's somehow weird. Without the
entity amp it works - so we might find two things to fix. I'll
later file the bug on the entity related thing, it seems a pure
technical thing and need to dig up further here.
The issue
On 10 December 2010 00:20, Philippe Beaudette pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi everyone -
First, let me thank you all for your concern about the recent banners.
Michael Snow is right - we tested some things, thinking that we could manage
to raise the yield slightly by deliberately
Like you say, though, it's definitely a technical issue to be taken up
elsewhere.
Where you will be told that this is 'working as intended'. amp; is usually
sent in URLs by broken clients, so we block them as early as possible.
Domas
___
Calling Sue Gardner the Wikipedia Executive Director is simply wrong
(factually and morally) and doing so is entirely unacceptable. Wikimedia
ought to hold itself above lying to readers in order to solicit donations.
These banners and landing pages are a violation of what Wikimedians strive
Sorry for keeping an off-topic (now) for a while; it won't continue so
long and I'd love to make the below clear before going to buzgilla.
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Domas Mituzas midom.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Like you say, though, it's definitely a technical issue to be taken up
On 10 December 2010 12:33, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
With that said, the banners are being changed right now - they'll say
Wikimedia.
That's progress, but it is still wrong. Sue is not the ED of
Wikimedia. She is the ED of the Wikimedia Foundation. I am part of
Wikimedia,
On 10 December 2010 11:20, Anirudh Bhati anirudh...@gmail.com wrote:
Let us add another line to the end of the appeal explaining that the
Wikimedia
Foundation is a non-profit organization that hosts {{{SITENAME}}} and
other sister-projects.
We had something like this in the 2008 and 2009
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Domas Mituzas midom.li...@gmail.com wrote:
Like you say, though, it's definitely a technical issue to be taken up
elsewhere.
Where you will be told that this is 'working as intended'. amp; is usually
sent in URLs by broken clients, so we block them as early
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Philippe Beaudette
pbeaude...@wikimedia.org wrote:
When we get letters saying things like I'd donate, but only to Wikipedia,
not to Wikimedia, it spells
out for us that it's possible we could attract more people with the
institution of Wikipedia than the
Dear friends,
There should be nobody offended, and no apoligize is necessary. We try
to deal with a complicated situation that would not exist if Wikipedia
would be simply the product of Wikipedia Publishing House.
Whether the names amplify the problem, whether Wikimedia was a good
name choice -
I was about to write a suggestion similar to the one indicated by Ziko
van Dijk. I second it and recommend that the following be given serious
consideration:
Change as soon as practically possible the naming of the Foundation to
the Wikipedia Foundation and the naming of the projects to
At first thought, this proposal seemed like a branding suicide, but
considering the enormous difference in awareness between Wikipedia and
the other brands, it could be a subject worth discussing. It would
also help avoid composed word that sometimes sound strange or are just
plain weird in
I also think that it is worth considering and that it's not a suicide,
although other opinions are welcome.
I am mostly active in Wikipedia, but i am also quite active in
Wikisource and Commons. I wouldn't be offended if Wikisource's name
would change. When i talk about my biggest Wikisource
Strainu, 10/12/2010 17:31:
At first thought, this proposal seemed like a branding suicide, but
considering the enormous difference in awareness between Wikipedia and
the other brands, it could be a subject worth discussing.
It's been discussed at length:
In a message dated 12/10/2010 12:45:46 AM Pacific Standard Time,
jayen...@yahoo.com writes:
Apart from summarising COM:PORN*, all that the draft sexual content
policy
was meant to do, actually, was to address two cases:
* Material that is illegal to host for the Foundation under Florida
In a message dated 12/10/2010 6:52:05 AM Pacific Standard Time,
zvand...@googlemail.com writes:
It is difficult to say how many people refuse to donate to Wikimedia
because they want to donate to Wikipedia. People should know that you
can't donate to a website itself but only to the
In a message dated 12/9/2010 11:06:30 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes:
Google does it, archive.org (wayback machine) does it, we can copy
them for caching and searching i assume. we are not changing the
license, but just preventing the information from
i mean google has copies, caches of items for searching.
How can google cache this?
Archive.org has copyrighted materials as well.
We should be able to save backups of this material as well.
mike
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 5:16 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/9/2010 11:06:30 PM
--- On Fri, 10/12/10, wjhon...@aol.com wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
From: wjhon...@aol.com wjhon...@aol.com
Apart from summarising COM:PORN*, all that the draft
sexual content
policy
was meant to do, actually, was to address two cases:
* Material that is illegal to host for the
I am not talking about books, just webpages.
lets take ladygaga.com as example
Wayback engine :
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.ladygaga.com
Google cache:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1720lEPHkysJ:www.ladygaga.com/+lady+gagacd=1hl=dect=clnkgl=declient=firefox-a
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:54 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/10/2010 12:48:31 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes:
I am not talking about books, just webpages.
lets take ladygaga.com as example
Wayback engine :
I know all about the aspects of programming and copyright, I thought I
answered the questions.
Of course I can program this myself, and we can use open source
indexing tools for that. the translations of course are a separate
issue, they would be under the same restrictions as the source page.
If
Absolutely worth re-reading this message from 2007 on brand unification:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-May/029991.html
(thanks Nemo)
Ziko
2010/12/10 wjhon...@aol.com:
In a message dated 12/10/2010 6:52:05 AM Pacific Standard Time,
zvand...@googlemail.com writes:
It
Well, lets backtrack.
The original question was, how can we exclude wikipedia clones from the search.
my idea was to create a search engine that includes only refs from
wikipedia in it.
then the idea was to make our own engine instead of only using google.
lets agree that we need first a list of
Nonsense.
Wikimedia is a Great Brand, the problem is that it was never promoted properly.
In fact, the brand / logo is hidden at the bottom of the footer in every page!!
No wonder why people don't know what Wikimedia is!
See the login page of Wikipedia:
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:16 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/10/2010 2:12:44 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes:
Well, lets backtrack.
The original question was, how can we exclude wikipedia clones from the
search.
my idea was to create a
Hi all,
I'm analyzing the OSM license change [0] and the effects it will have
on data interchange between Wikipedia and OSM. At [1] they say that
there should be no change for maps, but I'm not clarified on how (and
if) will I be able to import batches of OSM data in Wikipedia after
the license
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:02 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 12/10/2010 2:58:08 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes:
my idea was that you will want to search pages that are referenced by
wikipedia already, in my work on kosovo, it would be very
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Virgilio A. P. Machado v...@fct.unl.ptwrote:
I forgot at least one of the rules (probably more) of this list, and
(almost) always addressed my comments to the person who made the
comment. The exchange went well, was mostly good humored, but that's
not how
I'm In the process of creating a cleanup tool that checks archive.org and
webcitation.org if a URL is not archived it checks to see if it is live and
if it is I request that webcitation archive it on demand, and fills in the
archiveurl parameter of cite templates.
John
In a message dated 12/10/2010 12:08:37 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jayen...@yahoo.com writes:
Suggest you read the draft policy, rather than the votes.
You're suggesting that all the no votes are simply trolls then?
That's a lot of no votes to just cast them off as people who didn't read
the
On 10 December 2010 08:45, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
Apart from summarising COM:PORN*, all that the draft sexual content policy
was meant to do, actually, was to address two cases:
* Material that is illegal to host for the Foundation under Florida law
* Sexual images of people
In a message dated 12/10/2010 2:12:44 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes:
Well, lets backtrack.
The original question was, how can we exclude wikipedia clones from the
search.
my idea was to create a search engine that includes only refs from
wikipedia in it.
In a message dated 12/10/2010 1:31:20 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes:
If we prefer pages that can be cached and translated, and mark the
others that cannot, then by natural selection we will in long term
replaces the pages that are not allowed to be cached
In a message dated 12/10/2010 1:10:26 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes:
My point is we should index them ourselves. We should have the pages
used as references first listed in an easy to use manner and if
possible we should cache them. If they are not cacheable
In a message dated 12/10/2010 2:58:08 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes:
my idea was that you will want to search pages that are referenced by
wikipedia already, in my work on kosovo, it would be very helpful
because there are lots of bad results on google, and
- Original Message
From: wjhon...@aol.com wjhon...@aol.com
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Fri, December 10, 2010 10:35:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wiki[p/m]edia
In a message dated 12/10/2010 6:52:05 AM Pacific Standard Time,
zvand...@googlemail.com writes:
See, we need to increase the visibility and role of the foundation.
Instead of calling it a Wikipedia account, call it a Wikimedia ID
Promotion is key
mono
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Birgitte SB birgitte...@yahoo.com wrote:
- Original Message
From: wjhon...@aol.com
I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.
You're Invited to Gmail!
Mono mium has invited you to open a Gmail account.
Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun.
I suggest that use of Paypal is contraindicated due to their deliberate
efforts to inhibit the spread of information by closing their account with
Wikileaks. It is inappropriate for Wiki to be associated with Paypal or
Amazon.com. These corporations are the opposite of what Wikipedia and
It was a matter of time before someone brought this subject up ;)
The refusal of paypal, mastercard and visa to process payments to wikileaks
is something i have watched with concern. Effectively, the victim has been
denied the acceptance of gifts and payments without any court involvement.
What
Lets take a look at this really quick from a business side. Paypal might
think there is legal risk in supporting Wikileaks. More importantly for
them, they might get screwed monetarily (governments seize funds, etc). As
for Amazon, the Wikileaks website was getting DDOS'd and was a thorn in
48 matches
Mail list logo
