On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:41 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/8/28 Anthony :
> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Thomas Dalton >wrote:
> >
> >> 2009/8/28 Anthony :
> >> >> He means what would you measure in order to draw conclusions
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/8/28 Anthony :
> >> He means what would you measure in order to draw conclusions about the
> >> severity of vandalism.
> >>
> >
> > Umm...you would count the number of instances of vandalism?
&
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/8/28 Anthony :
> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Stephen Bain >wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:58 AM, Anthony wrote:
> >> >
> >> > It seems to me to be begging the questio
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Stephen Bain wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 4:58 AM, Anthony wrote:
> >
> > It seems to me to be begging the question. You don't answer the question
> > "how bad is vandalism" by assuming that vandalism is generally reverted.
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 4:30 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/8/27 Anthony :
> > I agree that companies often misuse the term "partner" for people who
> aren't
> > actually "partners" (although I can't think of an example, can you?).
>
> Bi
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Chad wrote:
>
> /rvv?|revert(ing)?[ ]*(vandal(ism)?)?/
>
> Might give you a slightly wider sample.
I'll wait for Robert to release a random sample of edits he actually
identified as "reverts" and/or the actual scripts and data dump he used.
__
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> "Partner" has different meanings. A partner in a partnership is as you
> describe. A partner is a large (often public) company like a bank is
> just a title for a high ranking employee. I think we are talking at
> cross purposes. If Matt is
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> I would put money on a significant majority of reverts being
>> reverts of vandalism rather than BRD reverts, it may not be an
>> overwhelming majority, though.
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/8/27 Anthony :
> > Why do you assume that number of reverts has any correlation with amount
> of
> > vandalism? Has this been studied?
>
> It seems to be a sensible assumption, although checking it would be
>
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> I've just read two different news stories on Flagged Revisions that
> described vandalism as a "growing problem" for Wikipedia.
>
> With that in mind, I would like to highlight one specific point in the
> analysis I just did.
>
> The frequenc
1:00 edit1:02 revert
1:06 revert
1:14 revert
1:30 revert
2:02 revert
How many instances of "vandalism" does your program count there, and what is
the mean and median time to revert?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscri
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> 2009/8/27 Anthony :
>> > I'm not convinced Halprin is even employed by the Omidyar Network.
>> > According to the website, he is a partner. Partn
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/8/27 Anthony :
> > I'm not convinced Halprin is even employed by the Omidyar Network.
> > According to the website, he is a partner. Partners aren't employees.
>
> I think partners usually are employees
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/8/27 Joshua Gay :
> > When Matt Halprin is on the board of Wikimedia, he is doing his job for
> > Omidyar Network. So, when we read, a statement like:
>
> I'm not familiar with the relevant US law, but in the UK that would be
> illegal.
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 6:35 AM, Ting Chen wrote:
>
> There are a lot of differences between a board member and an advisory
> board member. The most important difference is the dedication. As a
> board member you MUST attend board meeting, you MUST take part in
> discussion. As an advisory board m
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> When I read that people with a seat on the board aren't supposed to be
>> paid,
>> I hope you mean that they
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
>
> When I read that people with a seat on the board aren't supposed to be
> paid,
> I hope you mean that they are not paid by the Wikimedia Foundation.
No, what I mean is they aren't supposed to be paid *for being board
members*. At least
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 3:23 AM, Joshua Gay wrote:
> When Matt Halprin is on the board of Wikimedia, he is doing his job for
> Omidyar Network.
That's quite an accusation. WMF board members aren't supposed to be paid.
If they're paid by a third party, is that okay?
> So, yes, I think ON has
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 3:48 PM, Guillaume Paumier wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Gregory Kohs wrote:> A
> board member (or volunteer, or anyone who goes around and asks
> > someone to donate money to a cause) has some leverage if they can
> > answer: « I donated $2 million because I t
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 11:20 AM, Svip wrote:
> 2009/8/26 Anthony :
> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Tim Starling >wrote:
> >
> >> Let me say for the record that I'm not at all happy with this data
> >> being released, since it allows vote-buying.
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
> Let me say for the record that I'm not at all happy with this data
> being released, since it allows vote-buying.
What's wrong with vote-buying? It's no worse than seat-buying.
___
foundation-l m
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 5:09 AM, Peter Gervai wrote:
> ...still, I have to acknowledge that money is the root of Evil
Feel free to send all yours to me.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedi
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
> Occurring on the same day may imply "related" but it does not, beyond a
> reasonable doubt, equal "sold". If it did, we'd have a whole lot more
> prostitution convictions.
>
Nevermind:
http://www.reuter
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/8/25 Anthony :
> > Occurring on the same day may imply "related" but it does not, beyond a
> > reasonable doubt, equal "sold". If it did, we'd have a whole lot more
> > prostitution convict
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/8/25 Anthony :
> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Thomas Dalton >wrote:
> >
> >> 2009/8/25 Erik Moeller :
> >> > More importantly, please review the questions and answers page about
>
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/8/25 Erik Moeller :
> > More importantly, please review the questions and answers page about the
> grant.
> >
> >
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Omidyar_Network_Grant_August_2009QA
>
> How can you have a Q&A on a to
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 5:18 PM, James Forrester wrote:
>
> As you already asked me about this off-list, and didn't like my
> response, I'm happy to give it here:
Can you prove that I asked you about this off-list?
> Sure, but whether or not I believe you, my point is that it's not
> really hel
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 4:57 PM, James Forrester wrote:
> 2009/8/25 Anthony :
> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Thomas Dalton >wrote:
> >>
> >> > membership organizations. Wales was right when he said that the
> >> community
> >> > is i
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> > membership organizations. Wales was right when he said that the
> community
> > is irrelevant.
>
> When did Jimmy say that? I rather suspect you are taking something he
> said out of context...
Many years ago, but my source is confident
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/8/25 Nathan :
> > This is good news. It doesn't seem strange to me at all that a major
> donor
> > gains a limited voice on the Board, particularly when the donor can offer
> > expertise and connections in addition to funding. It also se
By the way, has Batzel v. Smith been overturned? If so, maybe I'll
reconsider. If not, bring it on. Maybe I can even get the EFF to defend
me.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> 2009/8/25 Anthony :
&g
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/8/25 Anthony :
> > On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Thomas Dalton >wrote:
> >
> >> 2009/8/25 Gregory Kohs :
> >> > I said a few things that brought the Foundation into a light of
> >> dis
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> I'm not an expe[r]t on libel law,
> but I think, at least in some jurisdictions, a publisher can be held
> responsible even for things that clearly aren't their own words.
Absolutely they can, in traditional publishing media. Over the Inte
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/8/25 Gregory Kohs :
> > I said a few things that brought the Foundation into a light of
> disrepute.
> > Is that the problem?
>
> If you said anything that could be libellous then that could be a
> problem. Whoever did the publishing wou
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/8/25 geni :
> > Omidyar Network? They were involved with a 4 million funding round for
> > wikia back in 2006 no?
> >
> >
> http://web.archive.org/web/20060422054638/http://www.americanventuremagazine.com/news.php?newsid=941
> >
> > Appo
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Gregory Kohs wrote:
>
> And here was my favorite part:
>
> *"We exclude anonymous editors from some analyses, because IPs are not
> stable: multiple edits by the same human might be recorded under different
> IPs, and multiple humans can share an IP.*"
I have to
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 9:30 PM, Mark Wagner wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 14:10, Anthony wrote:
> > "if one chooses a random page from Wikipedia right now, what is the
> > probability of receiving a vandalized revision" The best way to answer
> that
> >
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
>
> You seem to be identifying all errors with vandalism.
How so?
> Sometimes factual errors are simply unintentional mistakes.
Obviously we can't know the intent of the person for sure, but after a
mistake is found it's relatively simple
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 7:54 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/8/21 Anthony :
> > "Is this article vandalized?" is a yes/no question...
>
> True, but that isn't actually the question that this research tried to
> answer. It tried to answer "How much time ha
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/8/21 Anthony :
> > On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Thomas Dalton >wrote:
> >
> >> 2009/8/20 Anthony :
> >> > I wouldn't suggest looking at the edit history at all, just the most
> >
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 7:13 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
> > 2009/8/20 Anthony :
> >> I wouldn't suggest looking at the edit history at all, just the most
> recent
> >> revision as of whatever mome
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/8/20 Anthony :
> > I wouldn't suggest looking at the edit history at all, just the most
> recent
> > revision as of whatever moment in time is chosen. If vandalism is found,
> > then and only then wo
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 2:10 PM, Anthony wrote:
> > "if one chooses a random page from Wikipedia right now, what is the
> > probability of receiving a vandalized revision" The best way to answer
> that
> >
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Nathan wrote:
>
> My point (which might still be incorrect, of course) was that an analysis
> based on 30,000 randomly selected pages was more informative about the
> English Wikipedia than 100 articles about serving United States Senators.
Any automated method o
Greg,
You were there. What is in the audio worthy of suppression?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Anthony wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 2:19 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>>
>> If someone else does the actual work, fine! It doesn't actually have
>> to be WMF doing it.
>
>
> Sure, as a volunteer, you'll say that. G
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 2:19 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>
> If someone else does the actual work, fine! It doesn't actually have
> to be WMF doing it.
Sure, as a volunteer, you'll say that. Godwin is a paid employee though,
not a volunteer.
___
foundatio
ance
for minor edit suggestions and collaborations of small well-knit teams, is
an interesting twist that could help provide useful information that
Wikipedia doesn't and in fact can't provide.
Anthony
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> ps - I am confused by the first sentence on wikimedia.org [what does
> 'Wikimedia' mean there?], and the footer of wikimediafoundation says
> "About Wikimedia Foundation" -- missing an article.
>
Well, the name of the foundation is "Wikimedi
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Andrew Gray
> wrote:
>
>> (Perhaps Britannica gets it because "Encyclopedia" is a common word -
>> we'd feel silly with the sentence "I looked it up in Encyclopedia
&
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 11:29 AM, Andrew Gray wrote:
> (Perhaps Britannica gets it because "Encyclopedia" is a common word -
> we'd feel silly with the sentence "I looked it up in Encyclopedia
> Britannica", because "I looked it up in encyclopedia" would itself be
> wrong)
I don't have a problem
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:57 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/6/24 Pedro Sanchez :
>
> > With the license move...
> > do we still accept GFDL-only material?
> > I've seen OTRSer today accepting and tagging entries released as GFDL
> only.
>
>
> Is this images for Commons? I'd personally like to de
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 3:58 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Brian wrote:
>
>> Ok Shakespeare. But in plain english you appear to be saying that
>> corporations are inherently greedy and have a tendency to be evil. Sure,
>> but
>> we expect
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Brian wrote:
> Ok Shakespeare. But in plain english you appear to be saying that
> corporations are inherently greedy and have a tendency to be evil. Sure,
> but
> we expect more out of GOOG. This is not MSFT we are talking about.
Of course they're inherently gr
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 1:09 PM, Brian wrote:
> 2009/6/23 Samuel Klein
>
> > Yes, but my understanding is that while google provided part of the mbp
> > data
> > and scans, its continued updates to ocr since then are not being shared.
> I
> > would be glad to learn this was not the case...
> >
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Platonides wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
> > (although I still haven't seen the WMF step up
> > to the plate and make it easy for people to make a full history fork, or
> > even to download all the images)
>
> You'll find full
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Anthony wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 8:35 AM, John Vandenberg wrote:
>>
>>> I suggest you take a look at a few of the DJVU files provided by
>>> Internet Archive. The
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 8:35 AM, John Vandenberg wrote:
>
>> I suggest you take a look at a few of the DJVU files provided by
>> Internet Archive. Then you can point out real faults that you see.
>
>
>
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 8:35 AM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> I suggest you take a look at a few of the DJVU files provided by
> Internet Archive. Then you can point out real faults that you see.
I will. My apologies for misunderstanding your email.
___
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:54 AM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> Whether Google is good or evil is off-topic, and irrelevant to boot.
>
Whether or not they have a right to exclude bots isn't.
Also worth noting, Project Gutenberg has digitised less than 30,000
> books since 1971. Distributed Proofread
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:17 AM, Anthony wrote:
> (*) Personally, I'm of the opinion that merely accessing a website is not
> sufficient to bind a websurfer to a TOS, and that at most a TOS which you do
> not have to even click "agree" to is a unilateral contract which ca
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Stephen Bain wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 5:27 AM, Parker Higgins
> wrote:
> >
> >> Except google isn't asserting any kind of copyright control over these
> >> books, they're just not making it convenient to download them in your
> >>
Evil I tell you. Evil!
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Anthony wrote:
> > Wow, what's Wikipedia's policy about using a bot to scrape everything?
> >
>
> I don't know about any policy, but I think it should still be
> discou
Wow, what's Wikipedia's policy about using a bot to scrape everything?
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Brian wrote:
> That is against the law. It violates Google's ToS.
>
> I'm mostly complaining that Google is being Very Evil. There is nothing we
> can do about it except complain to them. Whic
Easier than scanning, though :)
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Brian wrote:
> Not likely. I've been banned from Google's regular search at least a dozen
> times during semi-frenetic search sprees in which I was identified as a
> bot.
> There is no doubt that if you try to automate it you will
On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 7:43 AM, Ilario Valdelli wrote:
> * Commons (like repository) with sysops elected by other projects
> which will use it like repository (and in this case the policies are
> decided by these projects)
> * another project (wikialbum???) which helps Commons to improve the
> q
2009/6/16 Anthony
> 2009/6/16 Nikola Smolenski
>
>> Дана Tuesday 16 June 2009 18:39:11 Anthony написа:
>> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Nikola Smolenski > >wrote:
>> > > Дана Tuesday 16 June 2009 18:21:38 Anthony написа:
>> > > > T
2009/6/16 Nikola Smolenski
> Дана Tuesday 16 June 2009 18:39:11 Anthony написа:
> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Nikola Smolenski >wrote:
> > > Дана Tuesday 16 June 2009 18:21:38 Anthony написа:
> > > > The same way "anyone can edit" works: magic
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> "Its only point"=what is does=store images for other projects
Then your earlier statement is incorrect because that's not the only thing
Commons does. People do view Commons images directly. Moreover, many of
those "other projects" are
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Geoffrey Plourde wrote:
> Commons is an oddball project. Other projects produce work, but Commons
> stores it. Wikisource could be considered another oddball for the same
> reason. At this point in time, I would class Commons as a service project
> (and wikisource
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> Дана Tuesday 16 June 2009 18:21:38 Anthony написа:
> > The same way "anyone can edit" works: magic fairy pixie dust.
>
> Now, that was trolling. Anyone can edit, and it does work.
And this will work
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> Please don't view this as trolling, because it is a honest question. The
> new
> notice says that "you hereby agree that such credit is sufficient in any
> medium". Mere fact that this statement is there shows that, without
> contributors
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> I really don't think
> that Google, Facebook or Amazon are so stupid to sue WMF or anything
> strongly connected with WMF because their business is strongly
> connected to the perception of their behavior (by Internet users).
They think it
On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 4:59 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/6/2 George Herbert :
>
> > OLPC is focused on kids. That's important. Perhaps a sister program
> > to provide one OLPC or like device per village, with a more adult
> > development / educational / practical hands on skills data set load
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> While I can't imagine how I managed it now, I don't remember
> struggling with browsing Wikipedia on a 56K modem. In fact, I think I
> browsed it on a 36.6K modem... If it is what you are used to, it
> really doesn't seem that bad.
As long
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> While I can't imagine how I managed it now, I don't remember
> struggling with browsing Wikipedia on a 56K modem. In fact, I think I
> browsed it on a 36.6K modem... If it is what you are used to, it
> really doesn't seem that bad.
As long
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Judson Dunn wrote:
> The revocation happens if you sue someone else for patent
> infringement, it's really pretty positive, actually.
"(including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit)"... Interesting...
What if you have a patent under the same license? La
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/6/1 Anthony :
> > On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Thomas Dalton >wrote:
> >
> >> I guess I'm so used to broadband I forgot about the
> >> existence of dial up for a second! You would need to h
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> I guess I'm so used to broadband I forgot about the
> existence of dial up for a second! You would need to hand out phones,
> laptops, and network subscriptions, though - that's getting rather
> expensive just to give someone an up-to-date en
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/5/31 Anthony :
> > I just found another statistic. Mobile networks cover roughly 80-90% of
> the
> > worlds population.
> >
> > For them, using that mobile network is probably the most cost effective
>
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 6:05 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/5/31 Ray Saintonge :
> > Assuming that I were somewhere in rural Africa, and perfectly
> > functioning hardware with Wikipedia software loaded in dropped in front
> > of me from the sky like a magic Coke bottle from the Gods, how much
>
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 4:42 PM, geni wrote:
> 2009/5/31 Anthony :
> > I'm not sure we should waste everyone on this mailing list's time going
> > through the details and formulating a plan. Let's take Tagalog. We've
> got
> > 22 million native sp
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 3:20 PM, geni wrote:
> 2009/5/31 Anthony :
> > HTTP uses TCP/IP, not UDP/IP. Your comment was "If it doesn't work over
> IP
> > then it isn't the internet". If you'd like to change that to "If it
> doesn't
>
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 3:10 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/5/31 Anthony :
> > On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Thomas Dalton >wrote:
> >
> >> Edit conflicts with live editing aren't an issue, manual resolution is
> >> trivial. Edit conflicts
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 3:02 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/5/31 Anthony :
> > On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Thomas Dalton >wrote:
> >> If it doesn't work over IP then it isn't the internet, and IP is a
> >> two-way protocol.
> >
> >
>
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> Edit conflicts with live editing aren't an issue, manual resolution is
> trivial. Edit conflicts with significant delays are a much bigger
> problem and require automated merging, which isn't always possible,
> and is often very difficult.
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 2:51 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/5/31 Anthony :
> > On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Thomas Dalton >wrote:
> >
> >> There is no such thing as "one-way internet access". The internet is
> >> always 2-way.
> >
> &
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 2:34 PM, geni wrote:
>
> There are a number of existing projects to send out school text books.
> An encyclopedia however is a useful part of wider learning.
I guess, but a print copy of some subset of Wikipedia doesn't seem like the
best solution for someone who already
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> There is no such thing as "one-way internet access". The internet is
> always 2-way.
Perhaps so (depends on your definitions), but then, Wave probably isn't
dependent on internet access in the first place. I see no reason it would
be.
___
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 12:37 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/5/31 Anthony :
> > If you watched the Wave presentation you'll see that there is quite a bit
> of
> > edit conflict handling already built in (they showed three people editing
> > the same page simultaneous
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/5/31 Anthony :
> > On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Thomas Dalton >wrote:
> >
> >> Who has cable TV that can't get internet access?
> >
> >
> > I didn't say *cable* TV.
>
>
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Wave might replace parts of MediaWiki but it would not replace Wikipedia...
> To appreciate this, you have to realise what it is the WMF stands for..
It stands for the Wikimedia Foundation.
It is content first and foremost.
No, it's
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Mark Williamson wrote:
> Your idea that the fact that the statistic counts over 25% of US
> Americans as not being internet users must mean a very strict
> definition is used is not necessarily correct.
Touche. I was equating "internet user" with "someone with
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/5/31 Gerard Meijssen :
> > Hoi,
> > Much of the Wave functionality demonstrated is superior to what is
> > available in MediaWiki. Consider a LAN with OPLC systems, consider a Wave
> > server on the school server.. It would be pretty d
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> Who has cable TV that can't get internet access?
I didn't say *cable* TV.
> You mentioned TV in
> the context of a way of getting information to people without internet
> access, so I ignored the existence of cable since it doesn't apply
school server.. It would be pretty damn good to be able to
> have all kinds of activities that makes use of the functionality that is
> part of the reference implementation. Consider what a talk page would look
> like when with the Wave "back" functionality.
>
> Anthony said
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 10:14 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/5/31 Anthony :
>
> > Now my understanding is that the protocol for interserver communication
> > isn't completed, and who knows it may be vaporware. But it's an
> intriguing
> > possibility. (As
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/5/31 Anthony :
> >> Wikipedia over TV would never work. There isn't the bandwidth for it.
> >
> >
> > So only broadcast a subset.
>
> A very small subset.
>
A single channel can broadc
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 9:42 AM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> One question is how
> will resources will react when newer data becomes available, will it
> synchronise?
That seems to be part of the protocol. You'd set up a bot which makes the
updates, and add it. Someone on the LAN would have to ru
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/5/31 Anthony :
> > If Waves works anything like email, then it will be possible to use it
> when
> > not directly connected to the Internet. How's that for helping get
> > Wikipedia to people without
301 - 400 of 684 matches
Mail list logo
