Re: [Foundation-l] Facebook Group re pornography on Wikipedia

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 10:57 PM, M. Williamson wrote: > So yes, lots of people think what we're doing is wrong, but so what? You > can never please anybody. That is why you need to choose a set of > principles and stick with them. At least that way, when people don't like > what you're doing, you

Re: [Foundation-l] Politico: "Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa"

On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Theo10011 wrote: > If you read I said "according to recent rulings" And as far as I can tell, what you claim those recent rulings said, is not what the recent rulings said. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-

Re: [Foundation-l] Politico: "Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa"

On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Theo10011 wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Anthony wrote: > >> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Theo10011 wrote: >> > Well, that was my point, according to recent rulings, money is speech and >> > corporations are peop

Re: [Foundation-l] Politico: "Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa"

On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Theo10011 wrote: > Well, that was my point, according to recent rulings, money is speech and > corporations are people Really? That's weird. What recent ruling said that? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@li

Re: [Foundation-l] Politico: "Wikimedia foundation hires lobbyists on sopa, pipa"

On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Gregory Varnum wrote: > Basically a charity in the USA can spend up to 20% of its expenses on "direct > lobbying" of related issues. 20% of the first $500,000, 15% of the next $500,000, 10% of the next $500,000, and 5% of the rest, with a cap of $1 million. The

Re: [Foundation-l] Public domain Mickey Mouse. At last.

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Robin McCain wrote: > On 10/25/2011 2:57 PM, foundation-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org wrote: >> You've made quite a few incorrect assumptions there. >> >> Of course Commons editors should be deciding which images are PD.  But >> when there is a dispute, it makes no

Re: [Foundation-l] Public domain Mickey Mouse. At last.

>> ...a deletion discussion among >> non-professionals is not the proper way to determine the law. > > Neither is the opinion of a legal expert: That's the job of the courts. Courts are the proper way to determine the law after the fact. But this is a question of determining the law before the fa

Re: [Foundation-l] Public domain Mickey Mouse. At last.

gt; consult an expert? > On Oct 23, 2011 2:01 AM, "Anthony" wrote: > >> On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Anthony wrote: >> > On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:29 PM, David Gerard wrote: >> >> On 23 October 2011 01:21, Anthony wrote: >> >> >> >

Re: [Foundation-l] Public domain Mickey Mouse. At last.

On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:35 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:29 PM, David Gerard wrote: >> On 23 October 2011 01:21, Anthony wrote: >> >>> On what grounds is it out of copyright?  Doesn't a derivative work >>> carry (at least) two copyrights,

Re: [Foundation-l] Public domain Mickey Mouse. At last.

On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:29 PM, David Gerard wrote: > On 23 October 2011 01:21, Anthony wrote: > >> On what grounds is it out of copyright?  Doesn't a derivative work >> carry (at least) two copyrights, the one on the original work, and the >> one on the derivativ

Re: [Foundation-l] Public domain Mickey Mouse. At last.

On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 8:13 PM, David Gerard wrote: > On 23 October 2011 00:19, David Gerard wrote: > >> I am *amazed* that it took a whole month for someone to mention it on >> [[:en:Talk:Mickey Mouse]], and another half an hour before someone >> (me) replaced the image in the article itself ..

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote: > On 10/4/11 8:16 AM, Anthony wrote: >> If WMF wants to copy *the text* of the scrolls, I don't think anyone >> is going to have a problem with that.  The copyright notice claims >> copyright "in the digital ima

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Anthony wrote: > On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote: >> None of the >> discussions of the Qimron case seem to mention the issue of date of >> publication. The argument seems to have hinged almost entirely on the >> is

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote: > On 10/3/11 4:36 PM, John Vandenberg wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 5:34 AM, Ryan Kaldari  wrote: >>> I think we are fairly safe hosting the images of the original fragments, >>> even by Israeli law. Israel does not recognize "sweat of the bro

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 4:55 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote: > On 10/01/11 5:36 AM, Anthony wrote: >> On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva >>  wrote: >>> In practical terms, what they can do? Wikipedia is hosted in US. >>> Therefore, for a suc

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva wrote: > In practical terms, what they can do? Wikipedia is hosted in US. > Therefore, for a successful takedown, the museum must sue in US. Well, for one thing, they could sue reusers. WMF using the work is one thing. WMF telling th

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Nikola Smolenski wrote: > On 29/09/11 04:12, Anthony wrote: >> You need to reread what I said.  I was not making a pro-copyright argument. > > You need to rewrite what you wrote so that it reflects what you meant. > You were making a pro-copyri

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Nikola Smolenski wrote: > On 29/09/11 04:12, Anthony wrote: >> Why not?  What constitutes an original photograph, as opposed to >> whatever this photograph is? > > An original photograph is a photograph that fixes an original image. You&

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Nikola Smolenski wrote: > On 28/09/11 13:44, Anthony wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Nikola Smolenski  wrote: >>> The photograph does not constitute an origin or beginning. >> >> Sure it does.  Is there any such th

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Nikola Smolenski wrote: > The photograph does not constitute an origin or beginning. Sure it does. Is there any such thing as an "original photograph"? > The photograph is secondary, derivative and imitative. Yes. > The photograph is not the first instance.

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Ryan Kaldari wrote: > As far as law outside the U.S. is concerned, the Feist decision has had > more of an impact than Bridgeman (probably because it was a Supreme > Court decision). Since Feist (1991), many common > law cou

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Anthony wrote: > By the common meaning of the word "original", I'd say the photograph > *is* original.  OTOH, under US precedent it *probably* isn't within > the US legal meaning of the term. I should add that, in my US analysis, I w

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 6:57 PM, emijrp wrote: > OMG ISRAEL IS OUT OF USA? REALLY? > > Come on. The point here is that originality is a common requirement for > claiming copyright. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_of_the_brow ___ foundation-l mailing

Re: [Foundation-l] Dead Sea Scrolls

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote: > On 09/26/11 12:27 PM, emijrp wrote: >> If originals don't have copyright, how can The Israel Museum claim any >> copyright for scans which lack originality?[1] >> >> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp. > > Th

Re: [Foundation-l] On Wikinews

On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Andrea Zanni wrote: > I think Wikinews could work well on some topics, news that don't last > a single day, but instead > needs a history and a timetable. On those topics, Wikinews could fill > an informative gap, > because even newspapers archives are just aggrega

Re: [Foundation-l] [Fwd: Re: Do WMF want enwp.org?]

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 1:33 AM, Brian J Mingus wrote: > It seems that giving w.net/com/org to the WMF would be in line with his > vision of no corporation controlling a letter. Last I checked, WMF was a corporation. ___ foundation-l mailing list found

[Foundation-l] Fwd: Foundation vs. charity

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 10:50 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Fred Bauder >> wrote: >>> Foundation is not a legal term >> >> "Private foundation" is one, though, and it is one that is contrasted >> with "public charity". >> >> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usco

Re: [Foundation-l] Foundation vs. charity

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: > Foundation is not a legal term "Private foundation" is one, though, and it is one that is contrasted with "public charity". http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_0509000-.html http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitab

Re: [Foundation-l] Future donation drive suggestion

> "Has it occurred to the people running Wikipedia that some people might > think Wikipedia is affiliated with Wikileaks? > It would be an easy mistake to make, and even I balked because I am totally > anti-Wikileaks. The bigger question is whether or not it has occurred to Julian Assange. Since

Re: [Foundation-l] fundraiser suggestion

On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 9:14 PM, Erik Moeller wrote: > 2011/1/1 Stephen Bain : >> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Erik Moeller wrote: >>> >>> But to suggest that the choice of such >>> shorthand is tantamount to "lying to and misleading our donors" is, >>> indeed, irresponsible hyperbole. It's cl

Re: [Foundation-l] Wiki[p/m]edia

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Philippe Beaudette 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 > institution of Wikimed

Re: [Foundation-l] should not web server logs (of requests) be published?

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 11:21 AM, MZMcBride wrote: > This list has mailing list moderators, but they don't seem to do any actual > moderating (in the social or technical sense). That seems to be a large part > of the problem with nearly every thread like this. > > Is there some sort of unspoken ru

Re: [Foundation-l] should not web server logs (of requests) be published?

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 12:34 AM, Russell Nelson wrote: > Huh?? Editors are donors as well, as are people who contribute to mailing > lists, as are you. So clearly everyone contributing to this discussion has also contributed to the foundation! In any case, both you and Dumas quoted me out of co

Re: [Foundation-l] should not web server logs (of requests) be published?

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 1:56 PM, Chad wrote: > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 8:20 AM, Anthony wrote: >> Surely there are ways to publish policies which don't require a formal >> board resolution every time something changes.  Also, any emergency >> exceptions could always

Re: [Foundation-l] should not web server logs (of requests) be published?

On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 4:41 AM, Andre Engels wrote: > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 6:26 AM,   wrote: >> I know quite a lot about operational requirements, and I know that policies >> should state clearly what IS being done, not what may be done. >> It's quite practical to be more explicit.  For exampl

Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?

On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 1:16 AM, geni wrote: > On 12 November 2010 19:30, Anthony wrote: >> "Geni" mentioned "offering a level of support equivalent to our >> smaller projects", which is most definitely *not* "just providing ISP >> services". &g

Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:29 PM, John Vandenberg wrote: > So we giving another $1300 to Milton Beychok quickly, wrapped in > sufficient legalese that we know it goes towards the hosting. > Then he and others can sleep easy, and focus on more important things. I'd say for the WMF to do so, without

Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:05 PM, John Vandenberg wrote: > WMF are running a huge fundraising appeal now.  We can easily spare > $2100 in order to pay for their current hosting arrangements for the > next three months, which should give them sufficient time to get > themselves back on their feet ag

Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Anirudh Bhati wrote: >>> On 12 November 2010 17:34, Anthony wrote: >> Oh, well what's the point of that?  Might as well just give them >> money, as the WMF would just be purchasing those ISP services from >> someone else anyway. &g

Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 2:05 PM, David Gerard wrote: > On 12 November 2010 17:34, Anthony wrote: > >> These are all questions which would have to be answered before WMF >> should even consider getting involved.  To cover itself legally it >> should have the agreement of

Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Marcus Buck wrote: > If Wikimedians want to rescue them: donate money to them. "DN-PHP-6004: This organization's DonateNow service has been temporarily disabled. Please contact this organization for other donation options." (https://secure.groundspring.org/dn/ind

Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 10:12 AM, David Gerard wrote: > On 12 November 2010 14:57, Ziko van Dijk wrote: > >> I just cannot imagine that Larry Sanger could bear to see his beloved >> Citizendium on a Wikimedia server, among all that child pornography he >> is supposing there. > > It's not his any

Re: [Foundation-l] Should we offer to host citizendium?

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 2:56 AM, geni wrote: > Should we offer to host citizendium? Nah, let them go to Wikia. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: > >> An interesting idea would be a standalone static copy of >> wikipedia that really tried their utmost to make the product >> visually appealing, and used the generated money from the >> advertisements purely to fund ever more timely database d

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fa...

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 6:44 PM, wrote: > If there were a system created, where all the *effort* were off loaded to > the payer, not the pay...ed, then you'd gain that financial benefit. > The creation of such a system however, involves the effort of a much higher > level of paid employee :) > > S

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fa...

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: >> Between the >> lack of support for ads in the community and the difficult hurdles >> that would need to be navigated to not get in trouble with the IRS, I >> don't see ads ever coming to Wikimedia Foundation websites. > > Yes, revenue would hav

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fa...

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 12:07 PM, wrote: > I'm also skeptical that manually placed and > manually monitored,  internet advertising even pays for the wages of the > worker. > > This is why Google uses automagic.  And why everyone else does as well. Doesn't Google lets the advertiser pick which se

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 7 November 2010 16:40, Anthony wrote: >> It can save a step.  Also, maybe Wikipedia's ads could be better >> screened than Google's ads. > > Going to Wikipedia seems to be adding a step, not removing one.

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Anthony wrote: > On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Thomas Dalton > wrote: >> They won't be people that want ads, though. They'll be people that >> want ad revenue for us. If they click, they'll be clicking to get us >>

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:12 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 7 November 2010 16:05, Anthony wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Thomas Dalton >> wrote: >>> On 7 November 2010 15:50, Fred Bauder wrote: >>>> We use a tab at the top of the article to lin

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 7 November 2010 15:50, Fred Bauder wrote: >> We use a tab at the top of the article to link to the ad page. No one has >> to click on it; but if you're looking for buying, or investigating >> products, you will. > > The click-through rate

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 10:35 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 7 November 2010 00:34, Anthony wrote: >> I'm sure they'd be willing to work out a deal where people can opt-in >> to Wikipedia ads (which wouldn't be subject to the anti-porn rules). >> I doubt

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 5 November 2010 17:02, David Gerard wrote: >> ... and compromise content, as TV Tropes found out: >> >> http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Administrivia/TheSituation?from=Main.TheGoogleIncident > > That's not a problem with adverts. It

Re: [Foundation-l] No, even a couple of Google ads on each page would be a fatally bad idea

On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Ziko van Dijk wrote: > Hello, > > Adverts do not make content wrong, but create mistrust. > Have a look what Lawrence Lessig tells about: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHma3ZQRVoA After the first few minutes it turns into a long drawn out infomercial supportin

Re: [Foundation-l] Truth in Numbers? Everything, According to Wikipedia

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 4:04 AM, Amir E. Aharoni wrote: > The appearance of Andrew Keen is the most disappointing part, because > he babbles about the exact same things he babbled about in the > otherwise good documentary "The Truth According To Wikipedia" ( > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMSiny

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Foundation switching to Google Apps?

On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 5:27 AM, Lennart Guldbrandsson wrote: > Some FLOSS solution simply take more time than proprietary ones, and I > know for a fact that the tech team have s much things to do that we > should a) give them a break if they investigate a matter properly (which > they seem to

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Foundation switching to Google Apps?

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Jon Davis wrote: > The MX records point to McHenry (WMF).  At this point mail is sorted and > sent to the correct locations (Be it OTRS, Mailing Lists or Google Apps). > > -Jon Ah, that's not so bad, then. Anything that has to be really really confidential (shoul

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Foundation switching to Google Apps?

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Jon Davis wrote: > This migration will not effect anything but Staff email.  OTRS, wiki's, > mailing lists and anything else I've forgotten to mention will continue to > work as they did previously. Are the MX records going to point to WMF, or to Google? For whic

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Foundation switching to Google Apps?

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Jon Davis wrote: > When we wanted to pursue > the Google Apps project further, we contacted a sales rep.  In the end, we > went through the process like any other group would, and we pay the standard > price. Wow. The standard price? Is the person who negotiated

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Foundation switching to Google Apps?

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 4:43 PM, David Gerard wrote: > Gmail is just ridiculously better than any other email client I've > ever used ever, having previously progressed through Pine, elm, mutt > and Thunderbird. Perhaps it's just me, but I'd guess otherwise from > the number of Wikimedians with gm

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia Foundation switching to Google Apps?

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 8:22 PM, MZMcBride wrote: > Hi. > > This morning the Wikimedia Foundation had a meeting about migrating to > Google Apps. Using Google Apps for what? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: ht

Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate

On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:31 PM, David Gerard wrote: > On 24 October 2010 20:26, Anthony wrote: > >> Put it in a fixed form, like on a CD, and then you can call it an >> encyclopedia. > > Unfortunately, you're running behind the English language. I saw your nam

Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate

On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 4:04 PM, geni wrote: > On 24 October 2010 20:47, Anthony wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:43 PM, geni wrote: >>> On 24 October 2010 20:26, Anthony wrote: >>> >>>> None of which I'd expect to say that John Seigenthaler is

Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate

On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:43 PM, geni wrote: > On 24 October 2010 20:26, Anthony wrote: > >> None of which I'd expect to say that John Seigenthaler is a murderer. >> There are mistakes of facts, and then there's malicious lies.  I'd >> definitely expect

Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate

On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Anthony wrote: > No, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" is not consistent with any rational > definitions of "Wikipedia" and "encyclopedia". Even Wikipedia's article on Wikipedia doesn't call Wikipedia an encyclopedia,

Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate

On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:10 PM, geni wrote: > Remember though Britannica is meant to be the best of the best in > terms of encyclopedias . So unless you are going to define > "encyclopedia" as "Encyclopedia Britannica" you have to accept that > works with lower levels of reliability qualify as en

Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate

On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 2:53 PM, wrote: > On 24/10/2010 19:33, Austin Hair wrote: >> You're asserting, then, that Wikipedia is less reliable than other >> encyclopedias, which the research done on the subject contradicts. > > He is probably thinking about this: > http://www.theregister.co.uk/

Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate

On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Austin Hair wrote: > You're asserting, then, that Wikipedia is less reliable than other > encyclopedias, which the research done on the subject contradicts. No, I'm asserting that Wikipedia is less reliable than other encyclopedias, which the research done on the

Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate

On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Austin Hair wrote: > On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Anthony wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Austin Hair wrote: >>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Anthony wrote: >>>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM,   wrote: &

Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate

On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Austin Hair wrote: > On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Anthony wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM,   wrote: >>> On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote: >>>> Taking this problem seriously, how can we mitigate misplaced reliance

Re: [Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and moderate

On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 11:52 AM, wrote: > On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote: >> Taking this problem seriously, how can we mitigate misplaced reliance? >> > > Well you could put a banner above every article that read "The > information contained on the page could well be nonsense". A better

Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Announcement: Mike Godwin leaves the Wikimedia Foundation

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Houston Navarro wrote: > Mike Godwin will be missed by the WMF.  It's a fact that he never lost a > case in this position with the WMF. I believe he's never lost a case in his life. Of course, I haven't either ;). ___

Re: [Foundation-l] Ban and moderate

n 22 October 2010 14:27, Anthony wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 3:54 AM, David Gerard wrote: >> > Seriously, this list is commonly referred to as "troll-l" and lots of >> > chapter people refuse to even look at it. Pulling it out of the mire >> &

Re: [Foundation-l] Ban and moderate

On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 3:54 AM, David Gerard wrote: > Seriously, this list is commonly referred to as "troll-l" and lots of > chapter people refuse to even look at it. Pulling it out of the mire > might make it even slightly useful again. Who want's a list that's slightly useful? __

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 4:01 PM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > If I thought that the community members were only there in an advisory role, > I would not have stood for election. Right, well, you should have paid more attention when the community was stripped of their membership in the WMF, then (see

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Muhammad Yahia wrote: > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Anthony wrote: > >> >> How so?  The community's vote for the board is only advisory. >> >> > Err, how come? it's pretty clear in the bylaws? Not really...th

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Guillaume Paumier wrote: > No. The Board is ultimately answerable to the community. How so? The community's vote for the board is only advisory. In the long run, the board is answerable to the donors. But even then, there are millions stashed away which could

Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian

On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: > This list is for people who support the project, not those who are > actively opposing it or criticizing in public forums in exaggerated ways. > Nothing constructive or helpful is likely to be added by thekohster Wow, I don't know. On the on

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 7:35 PM, Erik Moeller wrote: > Happy to respond to questions raised in a > constructive setting at a later time, e.g. IRC Office Hours. If someone does, and gets any answers (ha), let us know. ___ foundation-l mailing list found

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Help Beat Jimmy! (The appeal, that is....)

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 6:31 AM, Lodewijk wrote: > Hi John, > > would it perhaps be more effective to send these questions to the audit > committee, whose role it is (as far as I can tell) to control this kind of > issues? They also have the authority to give relevant advices where > necessary. I

Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I can't continue this discussion within the bounds of the rules of this mailing list. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Peter Damian wrote: > Against reliable sources (any elementary logic textbook will do) will tell > you that article is very wrong.  So it is not verifiable. Ah, but that's not what "verifiable" means according to Wikipedia:Verifiability. According to that page, "

Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Peter Damian wrote: > http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/08/argumentum-ad-baculum.html Also, what do you think of the previous example of a non-fallacious argument: "If you (drink and) drive you might get in a car accident. Therefore you should not (drink and) drive.

Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Peter Damian wrote: > I gave a list of problematic articles.  Here is > one of them again. > > http://ocham.blogspot.com/2010/08/argumentum-ad-baculum.html I really can't comment on that one without first learning more about argumentum ad baculum (I agree with you

Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Peter Damian wrote: > But in certain areas it has not succeeded at all - philosophy in particular, > and to a certain extent the humanities.  The question is why is that so. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can

Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 10:53 AM, wrote: > In the project however, we judge you, not based upon your credential, but > rather based upon your argument and presentation.  If you don't want to give > an argument, to support your view, then you eventually won't be judged well. >  Or at least that's t

Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > I have a hard time believing that it should be impossible to find a source > which states > something that "everyone knows". If it's assumed prior knowledge in journal > articles, it > should still be possible to find it in basic introductio

Re: [Foundation-l] Agenda set by Sue? (was Re: Pending Changes development update: September 27)

On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 12:35 AM, Michael Snow wrote: >  On 9/29/2010 8:47 PM, Anthony wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 2:55 AM, Erik Moeller  wrote: >>> the agenda for Board meetings is set by Sue >>> together with the chair of the Board and other Board members. &

[Foundation-l] Agenda set by Sue? (was Re: Pending Changes development update: September 27)

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 2:55 AM, Erik Moeller wrote: > the agenda for Board meetings is set by Sue > together with the chair of the Board and other Board members. It is? Isn't that really really odd? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wi

Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Peter Damian wrote: > I would appreciate it if people did not make reference to banned users Is that because you're a banned user? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://list

Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?

On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Nathan wrote: > People who donate to Wikimedia do so for a number of reasons, chief > among them (I suspect) is to support keeping the lights on. That is, > the ongoing maintenance of the project in its current form. Most > donors are probably aware that the conten

Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against "copyleft"

On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 2:34 AM, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com < jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Ray Saintonge > wrote: > > > Andre Engels wrote: > > > On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:17 PM, wrote: > > > > > > A video of an amateur singer trying to sing a s

Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against "copyleft"

On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:57 PM, wrote: > >> David Gerard wrote: >> > No, what ASCAP means by that is that they want to get a fee when >> > people distribute CC-licensed music too. >> >> Do ASAC als

Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against "copyleft"

On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 10:47 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > Online distribution doesn't favor having a lot of middle men, > certainly not a lot of _profitable_ middlemen... I've yet to see much evidence of that. Online distribution seems to love middle men as much as any other distribution, and

Re: [Foundation-l] ASCAP comes out against "copyleft"

On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 12:57 PM, wrote: > David Gerard wrote: > > No, what ASCAP means by that is that they want to get a fee when > > people distribute CC-licensed music too. > > Do ASAC also expect to get a fee when music by people represented by BMI > or SESAC gets distributed? I think not. S

Re: [Foundation-l] English language dominationism is striking again

On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Bence Damokos wrote: > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Anthony wrote: > > Don't most Internet users know enough English to be able to search for > > "pictures of a horse" in English? > > > > (According to Wi

Re: [Foundation-l] English language dominationism is striking again

On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > When you think that Commons is bad in supporting other languages, try to > find pictures of a horse on the internet in other languages like Estonian, > Nepalese ... It is not the same at all as when you are looking for images > in > English

Re: [Foundation-l] Gmail - List messages flagged as spam

On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 18 June 2010 22:16, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Thomas Dalton > wrote: > >> This will NOT get things out of spam that are already in it, though. > >> Search for "in:spam to:lists.wikimedia.org" to find the

Re: [Foundation-l] Gmail - List messages flagged as spam

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2) Type "lists.wikimedia.org" in the "To:" box > If you use "Has the words:" [quote]listid:"*.wikimedia.org"[/quote] you'll be able to catch certain messages not caught by the To: filter. ___ found

Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!

On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > Someone uploading a nude picture of their ex-girlfriend can be far more > injurious to the woman concerned than the same person uploading an image of > her making tea. > It can be. Then again, an image of her making tea might be far more i

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >