On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:58 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
wrote:
> Am 21.09.2011 22:37, schrieb David Gerard:
>> On 21 September 2011 21:20, Kanzlei wrote:
>>
>>> This poll was not representative for wikipedia readers, but only for some
>>> German wikipedia editors. Scientifically research found that G
On 09/21/11 2:37 AM, Craig Franklin wrote:
> I'd caution against putting too much faith in those raw numbers without a
> clear understanding of what they mean. They can make sense comparing
> different language editions of the same project, but comparing different
> projects is apples and oranges.
Look, the committed core editors that would be necessary to keep any
filtering scheme from being two Titanics heading for each other, just
hate the whole idea, so it isn't going to fly, folks!
--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
___
fo
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 7:37 PM, Craig Franklin wrote:
> .. For instance, some months ago I was doing
> some research and I found that for Wikisource it doesn't count the "Page"
> and "Index" namespaces as "articles", even though that's where the bulk of
> the content generation is taking place th
2011/9/22 John Vandenberg
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 2:25 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Mike Dupont
> > wrote:
> >> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 11:57 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> >>
> >>> From Wikimedia's perspective, I think this is "one down, several
> hundred to go."
>
On 22/09/11 10:12, Andrea Zanni wrote:
> when Sue presented us the Strategic Plan and Wikipedia was all over the
> pages,
> but none of the sister projects.
I have to say, whenever I make a presentation of Wikimedia and mention
sister projects, all I get is blank stares. It really makes sense to
On Wednesday, September 21, 2011, Sage Ross wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 6:35 PM, MZMcBride >
> wrote:
> >
> > Sage Ross once discussed with me the idea of having Wikinews be foremost
> a
> > source of news about the Internet. It could report on news and goings-on
> on
> > various Web sites.
2011/9/22 Nikola Smolenski
> On 22/09/11 10:12, Andrea Zanni wrote:
> > when Sue presented us the Strategic Plan and Wikipedia was all over the
> > pages, but none of the sister projects.
>
> I have to say, whenever I make a presentation of Wikimedia and mention
> sister projects, all I get is bl
Am 22.09.2011 05:15, schrieb Bjoern Hoehrmann:
> * David Gerard wrote:
>> 233 would be a *large* turnout on en:wp. What is a large turnout on de:wp?
> Most Meinungsbilder have between 100 and 300 editors participating and
> the 300s are seen regularily. Participation maxes out at around 500 so
> "l
Am 22.09.2011 08:07, schrieb Kanzlei:
> Am 21.09.2011 um 22:37 schrieb David Gerard:
>
>> On 21 September 2011 21:20, Kanzlei wrote:
>>
>>> This poll was not representative for wikipedia readers, but only for some
>>> German wikipedia editors. Scientifically research found that Germa editors
>>
I'm not subscribed there. Please, forward the message.
2011/9/21 Steven Walling
> On Sep 21, 2011 12:52 AM, "emijrp" wrote:
> >
> > Hi all;
> >
> > Who lives in San Francisco? Who works there (WMF staff ; )) ?
> >
> > This may be a good choice to get involved with Internet Archive.
> >
> >
>
>
Clearly some editors hate this. on DE 86% oppose it. Though there are also
some "committed core editors" amongst those who think that such a system is
both workable and possible to harmonise with our core values.
One of the objections is that we don't want a Flickr style system which
involves imag
On 22 September 2011 12:19, WereSpielChequers
wrote:
> So is there a simpler way to do this, is there some flaw in this that would
> prevent it working, or is this the flying unicorn option?
I believe it was envisioned as working for anonymous casual readers as well.
There *should* be some way
WSC, looks to me like most of your suggested functionality could be
offered as a relatively short userscript rather than a WMF funded
change sweeping across all the projects and wasting years of volunteer
effort in pointless debate.
Estimated development cost, 2 biscuits and a cup of coffee. WMF
i
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 1:19 PM, WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One of my objections that I hope some others share is that an IP based
> system inevitably means one person deciding what others may see - which to
> my mind is the point where an image filter becomes a cen
* WereSpielChequers wrote:
>For obvious reasons we don't want a system that creates a publicly available
>set of filters that net nannies of various descriptions could use to stop
>other people from seeing things that they deemed inappropriate.
This cannot be prevented. You just need a bot that em
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 4:19 AM, WereSpielChequers
wrote:
> For obvious reasons we don't want a system that creates a publicly available
> set of filters that net nannies of various descriptions could use to stop
> other people from seeing things that they deemed inappropriate.
Funny, I thought
On 22 September 2011 12:50, Robert Rohde wrote:
> Teachers are wary of Wikipedia, and one of the reasons (justifiable or
> not) is that our content is too adult. I recall hearing anecdotes of
> Wikipedia reading being blocked in some schools because of this.
> Having a "safe" version for schools
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 9:19 PM, WereSpielChequers
wrote:
>
> One of the objections is that we don't want a Flickr style system which
> involves images being deleted, accounts being suspended and the burden of
> filtering being put on the uploader.
When have any of those things been part of the p
On 22 September 2011 12:23, David Gerard wrote:
> On 22 September 2011 12:19, WereSpielChequers
> wrote:
>
>> So is there a simpler way to do this, is there some flaw in this that would
>> prevent it working, or is this the flying unicorn option?
>
> I believe it was envisioned as working for ano
On 22 September 2011 12:19, WereSpielChequers
wrote:
> One of the objections is that we don't want a Flickr style system which
> involves images being deleted, accounts being suspended and the burden of
> filtering being put on the uploader.
The objection to a flickr-style concept was to the "on
> From: Nikola Smolenski
> On 22/09/11 10:12, Andrea Zanni wrote:
>> when Sue presented us the Strategic Plan and Wikipedia was all over the
>> pages,
>> but none of the sister projects.
>
> I have to say, whenever I make a presentation of Wikimedia and mention
> sister projects, all I get is b
On 22/09/11 14:53, Michael Peel wrote:
>
>> From: Nikola Smolenski
>> On 22/09/11 10:12, Andrea Zanni wrote:
>>> when Sue presented us the Strategic Plan and Wikipedia was all over the
>>> pages,
>>> but none of the sister projects.
>>
>> I have to say, whenever I make a presentation of Wikimedia a
Bjoern has pointed out a flaw in that some filterers might get trigger
happy, but that can be resolved by giving people the option when they decide
to click on an image A not to filter that image in future and B to disregard
everything else filtered out by the person who thought that image
problema
Hi all;
I have written an essay (my first one)[1] about the idea "There is a
deadline". It is opposite to the old essay (from 2006) which holds that
there is no deadline.
I hope my redaction is good enough to explain my opinion about this topic.
Please, if you find errors, fix them, I'm not very
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 5:02 AM, Tom Morris wrote:
> I'm not sure this analysis is correct. A lot of people now don't get news by
> going directly to the site but on social media platforms like Twitter and
> Facebook. Of course, for that to work, we need to publish stories quickly.
>
> When stori
On 22 September 2011 15:43, emijrp wrote:
> I hope my redaction is good enough to explain my opinion about this topic.
> Please, if you find errors, fix them, I'm not very fluent in English.
> Thanks.
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:There_is_a_deadline
Slightly copyedited, per your
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 4:43 PM, emijrp wrote:
> Hi all;
>
> I have written an essay (my first one)[1] about the idea "There is a
> deadline". It is opposite to the old essay (from 2006) which holds that
> there is no deadline.
>
> I hope my redaction is good enough to explain my opinion about thi
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 5:04 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> I'm having a hard time remembering when a WMF led a project that had a
> primary stated objective to meet a need of a sister project. It would
> be good to compile a list of any WMF projects of this kind. maybe the
> WMF can have _one_ "
If there's along list, then it can get longer. :-)
And I'm not sure ar: is a parallel - ar: is generally MSA its relation
to arz: is more like Received English's relation to other dialects a
member of the same family, rather than the language family as a whole
which kur: is. The situation is
On 22 September 2011 02:21, Tobias Oelgarte
wrote:
> You must be an asshole to claim that we have many sock puppets inside
> this votes. It's an open attack against the community.
Please let's try not to demonize and insult each other.
These are hot issues, and I know it's tempting to believe th
On 16/09/2011 18:13, Milos Rancic wrote:
> I would repeat the best possible solution to end this: Implement it on
> English Wikipedia -- you (those who want that filter) have some
> numbers which would support that action -- and leave the rest of the
> projects alone. ___
Thanks for your kind words and fixes : )
2011/9/22 Delphine Ménard
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 4:43 PM, emijrp wrote:
> > Hi all;
> >
> > I have written an essay (my first one)[1] about the idea "There is a
> > deadline". It is opposite to the old essay (from 2006) which holds that
> > there is n
emijrp, 22/09/2011 16:43:
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:There_is_a_deadline
So this combined with
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Digital_Archaeology means
that those 4560AD excavations will provide material for philologists who
will study interpolations to reconstruc
On 16/09/2011 23:55, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
> Am 16.09.2011 22:53, schrieb Stephen Bain:
>> Indeed. I think some of the problems some people are predicting have
>> been drastically exaggerated.
>>
>> As long as the option to hide all images is also implemented, we can
>> quite simply add a disclaim
On 22 September 2011 14:46, WereSpielChequers
wrote:
> I'm uncomfortable about a session cookie based system for IP readers, many
> of our readers are in Internet Cafes and I'm not sure if PCs in those sorts
> of environments get rebooted and the session cookies wiped between
> customers.
It var
On 21 September 2011 19:05, Andre Engels wrote:
>
>> I still can't the a rational difference between images included in
>> articles by the will of the community and text passages included by the
>> will of the community.
>
> It's much easier to note offensive text fragments before reading them tha
> I've almost never seen complaints about specific fragments of text in
> five years of handing OTRS mails, other than vandalism or the sort of
> bad writing that we discourage anyway. I assume the sort of thing that
> provokes this is taboo vocabulary - swearing, etc - but we tend to
> keep that t
On 22 September 2011 22:28, Fae wrote:
>> I've almost never seen complaints about specific fragments of text in
>> five years of handing OTRS mails, other than vandalism or the sort of
>> bad writing that we discourage anyway. I assume the sort of thing that
>> provokes this is taboo vocabulary -
On 21 September 2011 14:14, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> The real problem here is that if there was a real market for stupid
> sites like that, they would already be there. And they are not, which
> does seem to point to the conclusion that there isn't a real market
> for such sites. Doesn't it
On 21 September 2011 18:20, Tobias Oelgarte
wrote:
> Truthfully, i see not different approach to include images and text
> passages. Both are added, discussed, removed, re-added the same way as
> text is. Now i heard some say that text is written by multiple authors
> and images are only created
Am 22.09.2011 23:55, schrieb Andrew Gray:
> On 21 September 2011 14:14, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> wrote:
>
>> The real problem here is that if there was a real market for stupid
>> sites like that, they would already be there. And they are not, which
>> does seem to point to the conclusion that the
Am 22.09.2011 23:49, schrieb Andrew Gray:
> On 21 September 2011 18:20, Tobias Oelgarte
> wrote:
>
>> Truthfully, i see not different approach to include images and text
>> passages. Both are added, discussed, removed, re-added the same way as
>> text is. Now i heard some say that text is written
--- On Thu, 22/9/11, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
From: Tobias Oelgarte
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Possible solution for image filter
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Thursday, 22 September, 2011, 23:06
Am 22.09.2011 23:55, schrieb Andrew Gray:
> On 21 September 2011 14:14, Jussi-Ville Hei
Am 23.09.2011 01:21, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
> And where would the problem be? If a user prefers to go to a Bowdlerised site
> like that,
> rather than wikipedia.org, where they will see the pictures unless they
> specifically ask not
> to see them, then that is their choice, and no skin off our n
Are you aware of any "providers" that use other sites' category systems in that
way? E.g. to disable Google searches with "safe search off" for all of their
subscribers, disable access to adult Flickr material, etc.?
A.
--- On Fri, 23/9/11, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
From: Tobias Oelgarte
Subjec
Steven Walling wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 5:04 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
>> I'm having a hard time remembering when a WMF led a project that had a
>> primary stated objective to meet a need of a sister project. It would
>> be good to compile a list of any WMF projects of this kind. maybe
On Sep 22, 2011 8:48 PM, "MZMcBride" wrote:
>
> Steven Walling wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 5:04 PM, John Vandenberg
wrote:
> >> I'm having a hard time remembering when a WMF led a project that had a
> >> primary stated objective to meet a need of a sister project. It would
> >> be good to
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 8:47 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> Is there a single staffer who's even thinking about any of them as
> part of their work? I don't know of any. And, back to the original thought:
> are there any Wikimedia initiatives to specifically (or "primarily")
> improve
> any of these sist
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Steven Walling
wrote:
>..
> Bah. My mistake. Sorry if that sounded confused, I was just reacting to the
> idea that there are any staff dedicated solely to English Wikipedia, which
> isn't true.
replace 'solely' with 'predominately' and, afaics, it becomes true.
T
Philippe Beaudette wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 8:47 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
>
>> Is there a single staffer who's even thinking about any of them as
>> part of their work? I don't know of any. And, back to the original thought:
>> are there any Wikimedia initiatives to specifically (or "primaril
51 matches
Mail list logo
