Re: [Foundation-l] The People’s Encyclopedia Under the Gaze of the Sages: A Sys tematic Review of Scholarly Research on Wikipedia

They have a wiki: http://wikilit.referata.com/wiki/Main_Page Fred > Abstract: > Wikipedia has become one of the ten most visited sites on the Web, and > the world’s leading source of Web reference information. Its rapid > success has inspired hundreds of scholars from various disciplines to > st

[Foundation-l] The People’s Encyclopedia Under the Gaze of the Sages: A Sys tematic Review of Scholarly Research on Wikipedia

Abstract: Wikipedia has become one of the ten most visited sites on the Web, and the world’s leading source of Web reference information. Its rapid success has inspired hundreds of scholars from various disciplines to study its content, communication and community dynamics from various perspective

Re: [Foundation-l] Does google favour WIkipedia?

> Fred Bauder wrote: >>> Perhaps they honestly believe that their keyword-primed advertorial >>> page is actually more useful than a Wikipedia page and are astounded >>> that Google might have the temerity to disagree. ;-) >> >> We can't c

Re: [Foundation-l] Does google favour WIkipedia?

> > Perhaps they honestly believe that their keyword-primed advertorial > page is actually more useful than a Wikipedia page and are astounded > that Google might have the temerity to disagree. ;-) > > -- > Tom Morris > We can't create a new page based on a press release o

Re: [Foundation-l] Does google favour WIkipedia?

> The answer, evidently, is "not as much as Bing" - > http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2161910/Bing-Not-Google-Favors-Wikipedia-More-Often-in-Search-Results-Study > > Thought people might find it interesting :) No question that we are a center of attention for Google. I've noticed that when I

Re: [Foundation-l] Why is Arbcom is actively promoting Wikipedia Review?

> Can anyone explain why Arbcom members are not required to refrain from > posting and responding to requests on Wikipedia Review while they are on > Arbcom? It seems a basic conflict of interest to be actively promoting > the > opinions and drawing unnecessary attention to attack posts against > W

Re: [Foundation-l] Subject: Re: The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia, (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions

> On 24 February 2012 09:34, Ray Saintonge wrote: > >> On 02/22/12 6:04 PM, David Goodman wrote: >> >>> There are many subjects in which there would be multiple schools of >>> thought with little agreement; anyone following book reviews in the >>> humanities or social sciences or even some of the

Re: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions

> > And this is what I meant about misunderstanding policies. Because nothing > in our policies precludes the use of primary sources. What you can't do > is > use them for interpretation or analysis. So to make up an example; if you > have an oral citation from someone who was arrested under an op

Re: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions

> This idea of "published" can (and is) relaxed though. Indeed it is my > perception that in many topic areas we rely far too heavily on online > sources - there can be a distinct prejudice against offline source > material. > Tom Journals pose a particular problem as they are often, as in the c

Re: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions

>> >> "What *was* at issue here is how we treat new users; the discussion was >> approached (on the part of our editors) either as a battleground/fight, >> or >> in a quite patronising way. The issue here was that someone was put off >> from raising the issues." >> >> The "expertise" that is most v

Re: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions

> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Mike Godwin wrote: > >> Apart from the question of whether this particular article -- on the >> Haymarket bombing -- has been hurt by editors' ill-considered >> application of UNDUE, there's the larger question of what it means for >> our credibility when a very

Re: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions

I have initiated a discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#The_.27Undue_Weight.27_of_Truth_on_Wikipedia It is there that any refinement of the policy and how it is properly applied can possibly be resolved. I note that the article in question still does not

Re: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions

> Fred Bauder writes: > >> I think it probably seems to climate change deniers that excluding >> political opinions from science-based articles on global warming is a >> violation of neutral point of view, and of basic fairness. That is just >> one example, but ther

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Right to be Forgotten

> On 19 February 2012 18:06, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen > wrote: >> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) >> wrote: >>> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, 19/02/2012 08:12: >>> Do the people at MeatballWiki know? >>> >>> >>> Why should they care? >>> >> >> This is where it all started, >> >>

Re: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions

> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 3:57 AM, Mike Christie > wrote: > >> Perhaps the policies can be improved, but they are written to stop bad >> editing rather than to encourage good editing.  I don't think that can >> be >> changed.  It's impossible to legislate good judgement, and it's >> judgement >> t

Re: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions

> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 4:44 AM, Mike Godwin wrote: > >> I think the article in The Chronicle of Higher Education is a >> must-read. Here you have a researcher who actually took pains to learn >> what the rules to editing Wikipedia are (including No Original >> Research), and who, instead of try

Re: [Foundation-l] The 'Undue Weight' of Truth on Wikipedia (from the Chronicle) + some citation discussions

> The key problem here is that WP:UNDUE was expressly written to address > the problem of genuine ongoing controversies, and fringe views. In > this case there is no ongoing controversy, but the use of the policy > has for long been used to remove new research no-one has even refuted, > much less t

[Foundation-l] Wikipedia Articles In Uzbek Blocked

http://www.rferl.org/content/uzbek_wikipedia_blocked/24486460.html ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Right to be Forgotten

> On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 11:25:56 -0700 (MST), "Fred Bauder" > wrote: >> I think the biggest problems might involve users who have been trashed >> for one reason or another, justified or not. >> >> Fred >> > > My understanding is that the legi

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: Right to be Forgotten

I think the biggest problems might involve users who have been trashed for one reason or another, justified or not. Fred > Is the worry primarily around article-space, or around Wikipedia users? > There's already > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Courtesy_vanishing, though it > would have

Re: [Foundation-l] "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" English Wikipedia's featured article today

> On 7 February 2012 17:03, Thomas Dalton wrote: > >> He's been doing it for years and has never screwed up badly enough for >> the >> community to take the job away from him. It's as simple as that. The >> Wikipedia community can be uncharacteristically pragmatic at times! > > > I note that even

Re: [Foundation-l] "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe" English Wikipedia's featured article today

> Some FAs should never be shown on the main page. > > Nothing in the FA criteria says anything about the subject of the > article: such as whether the subject is of broad interest or has > educational merit. Such criteria should be considered for choosing > articles to show on the main page. The

Re: [Foundation-l] Fw: Strike against the collection of personal data through edit links

> To list! > Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device > > -Original Message- > From: dger...@gmail.com > Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 16:46:58 > To: Béria Lima > Reply-To: dger...@gmail.com > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Strike against the collection of personal > data through edit links > > 3 mon

Re: [Foundation-l] Strike against the collection of personal data through edit links

mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. <http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos>* > > > On 4 February 2012 13:46, Fred Bauder wrote: > >> > Strike against the collection of

Re: [Foundation-l] Strike against the collection of personal data through edit links

> FWIW, I know our devs are not at all keen to keep personal data even > sitting around - even checkuser data is cleared after six months, I > think. What is the current policy? > > > - d. About right. Keeping personal data creates disclosure problems with children under 13. Fred __

Re: [Foundation-l] Strike against the collection of personal data through edit links

> Strike against the collection of personal data through edit links See http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10448060-38.html ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundati

Re: [Foundation-l] Journal Boycott

Another article: http://chronicle.com/article/Who-Gets-to-See-Published/130403/ > "Elsevier has supported a proposed federal law, the Research Works Act > (HR 3699), that could prevent agencies like the National Institutes of > Health from making all articles written by grant recipients freely >

[Foundation-l] Journal Boycott

"Elsevier is emblematic of an abusive publishing industry. "The government pays me and other scientists to produce work, and we give it away to private entities," says Brett S. Abrahams, an assistant professor of genetics at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine. "Then they charge us to read it."

Re: [Foundation-l] Research assistance

> I am applying for a summer student to do a Wikipedia Medicine research > project through my department at UBC. One potentially project I am > looking > it is having them review all the edits made to Wikiproject Medicine > articles. The student will go through each edit and a) determine if the > e

Re: [Foundation-l] Subject: Re: Vendetta?

> In other words, Wikipedia does not have space for what you find > interesting. Sorry. A summary of generally accepted knowledge is a foundation for creative new information. Wikipedia is a tool, a tool meant to be used and transcended. Fred ___ fo

Re: [Foundation-l] Subject: Re: Vendetta?

> It isn't so much about having my stuff edited as it is that there seems > to be a mindset among en.wp editors that stuff needs to be deleted > unless they personally think it is important. We have a virtually > infinite space in which to write and add to the body of knowledge, so > why act as tho

Re: [Foundation-l] Vendetta?

> Hmmm... do some of the editors have such a problem with entries that are > in progress that they decide to propose them for deletion rather than > attempt to support the efforts of the original author by adding to the > content or make any effort to improve the article rather than remove it? > >

Re: [Foundation-l] "Terms of use" : Anglo-saxon copyright law and Anglo-saxon lawyers : a disgrace for Continental Europeans

> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 8:14 AM, Teofilo wrote: > >> Perhaps the WMF should not have relied on a US lawyer alone. Perhaps a >> team associating a US lawyer with a continental Europe lawyer would >> have been better. >> > > Your notion that we just had some American lawyer with no international >

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Account Creation

> Yes, I got the same idea as Mateus when reading this thread: As you type > in > a user name (or tab to the next box), the form should tell you if that > username is taken or not. That will save you a lot of trouble going back > to > try a new user name. We also have spoofing checks coding in the

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Account Creation

>>> > >>> > Hello, >>> > Last month I was in Qatar and introduced some people to Wikipedia. >>> While >>> > they were creating their accounts, some of them had their initial >>> > suggested username taken, so they had to repeat it a couple of times >>> > until they finally found an available userna

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Account Creation

>> > >> > Hello, >> > Last month I was in Qatar and introduced some people to Wikipedia. >> While >> > they were creating their accounts, some of them had their initial >> > suggested username taken, so they had to repeat it a couple of times >> > until they finally found an available username. One

Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia Account Creation

> > Hello, > Last month I was in Qatar and introduced some people to Wikipedia. While > they were creating their accounts, some of them had their initial > suggested username taken, so they had to repeat it a couple of times > until they finally found an available username. One of them had repeated

Re: [Foundation-l] Image permission

> There seems to be a great hurry to delete images even when permission > has been obtained from the author in question. Having uploaded many > hundreds of images you think people would assume good faith and give a > guy a couple of weeks while he is on vacations... > > -- > James Heilman > MD, CCF

[Foundation-l] The News Hole

There has been some discussion in journalism circles that newspapers, who after all, provide the raw material for many of our topical articles might copy our system of organizing material under a subject heading, at least for their online sites. Even our most aggressive deletionists have never tri

[Foundation-l] For Job Hunters, Digital Merit Badges

Should we be in on this: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/business/digital-badges-may-highlight-job-seekers-skills.html Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/fo

[Foundation-l] Internet Workers of the World

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Internet-Workers-of-the-World/224417737626665?sk=wall Our union Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

[Foundation-l] Message to Fae

Does anyone feel that the Wikiquette is too weak to enforce the respect aspect of the five pillars? I wonder if we should make RFC/U a lot easier for cases where administrators show a pattern of not handling new editors very well. If [[WP:WQA]] had some teeth, say 3 reports against an admin and yo

Re: [Foundation-l] On certain shallow, American-centered, foolish software initiatives backed by WMF

No good, the Grinch already stole Christmas. A juggernaut of foolishness and play is bearing down on you... Fred > The WMF has been recently backing softwares that are a breach of > "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" (1). Recently a totally stupid pink > heart was added to user talk pages, making

Re: [Foundation-l] just wondering, are we going to take down en.wikipedia.org?

> Hi! > > we recently did some practice on italian wikipedia, are we going to > protest IP legislation in US by taking down English Wikipedia? > > https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/10/disastrous-ip-legislation-back-%E2%80%93-and-it%E2%80%99s-worse-ever > > Domas Maybe when Occupy Wall Street call

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

> Since no one has explicitly come out and said exactly what the issue is > here, I'll ask: > > *What exactly is harmful about an opt-in filter? *If it's opt-in, then > you have the choice to not even enable it if you so choose. You don't > have to use it; it'd just be an option in the preferences

Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial Content

> On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Kim Bruning > wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 06:32:31PM +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote: >>> >>> I don't think the community really can avoid it, since it isn't a >>> coherent body. An individual member of the community can't really >>> achieve anything. The WMF has

Re: [Foundation-l] Blanking a Wikipedia, a very bad idea

> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 23:08, Jalo wrote: > >> You're right, 2-3% of it.wikip users live outside of Italy, but this >> new law >> will affect every page in which a user that live in Italy save a single >> page >> version (that is 100% of articles). > > Then can you specify the threshold for the

Re: [Foundation-l] Blanking a Wikipedia, a very bad idea

> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 22:55, M. Williamson wrote: >> Another important point here is that Wikipedia is an international >> project; > > No, this is not another important point, this is exactly my point. Is > the Kiribati based community (or a part of it) of Wikipedians allowed > to block en.wik

Re: [Foundation-l] Blanking a Wikipedia, a very bad idea

> Hi all; > > The events regarding Italian Wikipedia blanking[1][2] of all its content > are > a serious precedent IMHO. They can make a lot of noise using other > procedures, like a big blinking site notice, but giving no choice to read > the content is against the main goal of Wikipedia.[3] > > I

Re: [Foundation-l] Blog from Sue about censorship, editorial judgement, and image filters

> It makes some sense. If you come to the conclusion that your > constituency for a particularly important decision is a huge and > diverse array of people (i.e. the readers), and then further conclude > that opposition to your decision is coming from a very narrow and > homogenous slice of that a

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

> Zitat von Tobias Oelgarte : > >> The second problem will be the categorization progress. We would >> categorize the images for others, not our selfs, and we also have no >> sources for argumentation. But there is another problem. We already >> discuss about the inclusion of images inside related

Re: [Foundation-l] 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter

> 2011/9/18 Oliver Koslowski : >> Am 18.09.2011 13:56, schrieb Andre Engels: >>> On itself the one who tags the image, but we happen to have a system >>> for >>> that in Wikimedia. It is called discussion and trying to reach >>> consent. Who >>> decides whether a page is in a category? Who decides

Re: [Foundation-l] Technical aspects of forking (was: 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter)

> On 17 September 2011 15:50, Kim Bruning wrote: > >> My first instincts for de.wikipedia would be to note down >> de.wikipedia's usage statistics, get a bunch of techies together, and >> all go have a nice chat with say hetzner.de, to figure out roughly what >> things will cost. You can always st

Re: [Foundation-l] Technical aspects of forking (was: 86% of german users disagree with the introduction of the personal image filter)

> the foundation's "secret sauce", i.e. the configuration > files that are not made public, if such thing exists. Then would come > the whole traffic balancing/caching/optimization settings, which would > greatly depend on the actual traffic a fork would have. > > Strainu If you control your own s

Re: [Foundation-l] On Wikinews

> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Milos Rancic wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 16:46, Andrew Lih wrote: > >>> In my book I described Nupedia, and how that system of having a paid >>> head >>> didn't work out (namely, Larry Sanger as editor in chief). >> >> While I don't like Sanger, it shouldn

Re: [Foundation-l] Black market science

> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Ray Saintonge > wrote: >> On 07/21/11 8:19 AM, David Gerard wrote: >>> On the subject of organisations that attempt to enclose the public >>> domain: Do we have the proceedings of the Royal Society 1600-1923 on >>> Wikimedia servers, as we quite definitely shoul

Re: [Foundation-l] On Wikinews

> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 6:52 AM, Milos Rancic wrote: > >> >> >> And, as Andrew Lih mentioned, Wikipedia *had* payed editor at the >> beginning. >> >> > Did I say this? I don't remember saying so. > > In my book I described Nupedia, and how that system of having a paid head > didn't work out (nam

Re: [Foundation-l] Minor projects withering and dying? Really?

> Wiktionary is useful; perhaps you're referring to my comments, which were > not about Wiktionary at all. Wikiquote definitely does not belong as a > sister project. Maybe it is a "shining beacon" in the cesspool of > internet > quote sites; well, there are lots of things the rest of the Internet

Re: [Foundation-l] Minor projects withering and dying? Really?

> In the discussion of the Wikinews fork (may they thrive), I picked up > some comments predicting the death of Wiktionary and Wikiquote, > referring to the low numbers of regular contributors. > > I don't think that means the projects are dying: I'm an infrequent > contributor to both of those pro

Re: [Foundation-l] Forkability, its problems and our problems

> 2011/8/17 David Richfield : >> You say that we exclude significant material on the basis of >> notability? > > Notability is not an absolute criteria. > There are thousands of subjects/articles which could be notable with > different criterias. > > Regards, > > Yann What is happening is not one

Re: [Foundation-l] Hypothetical project rebranding Wikimedia

> 2011/9/8 Fajro : >> 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! >> > > Hello, you can make Wikimedia as famous as Wikipedia, but it will cost > you many millions of dollars.

Re: [Foundation-l] PG rating

editorial self-control. Always appropriate. Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] PG rating

> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:56 AM, Risker wrote: >> Many countries have different rating schemes for movies, television, >> video >> games, and other media. > > Which rating systems would apply to our content? > > i.e. does the Australian regulatory body have jurisdiction over > Wikipedia? > > htt

Re: [Foundation-l] PG rating

> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Marc A. Pelletier > wrote: >>.. >> Reality is PG. > > ;-) > > By rating, I mean external standardised classification systems. > What individual parents do with those ratings is a different matter. > > Does English Wikipedia have content which an external regulato

Re: [Foundation-l] PG rating

> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Marc A. Pelletier > wrote: >> On 07/09/2011 11:17 AM, Bod Notbod wrote: >>> [...] but I'm even less keen on parents telling their >>> children they can't use Wikipedia [...] >>> >> >> It's not the first time I see this meme expressed. >> >> Is there a reliable sou

Re: [Foundation-l] A reminder about mission statements and vision statements.

> > However, I am beginning to think that Commons might have to change it's > scope since "educational media" has evolved to encompass what everyone > believes is every free image on earth. > > -Sarah Not a problem if the global community wishes to support such a mission. Frankly, I think all ou

Re: [Foundation-l] Learning about cultural diversity from US diplomacy

> On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 08:32:59AM +0200, Milos Rancic wrote: >> So, to understand the circumstances around building community or >> chapter in particular country, I strongly suggest reading relevant >> cables. > > <3 > Lots of work. > >> >> And, BTW, Wikipedia articles could be improved thanks t

Re: [Foundation-l] Mediawiki and a standard template library

> On wikimedia projects that are not Wikipedia (Wikia in specific comes > to mind) I often find myself using templates that have not been > defined on that installation. The English Wikipedia (which I am most > familiar with) has many very usefull templates, especially the > {{citeFoo}} templates,

Re: [Foundation-l] SAGE Open

e these journals bad in some way? Fred > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 9:47 PM, Fred Bauder > wrote: >> A breakthrough from an unexpected source: >> >> http://sgo.sagepub.com/ >> >> Fred >> >> >> ___

[Foundation-l] SAGE Open

A breakthrough from an unexpected source: http://sgo.sagepub.com/ Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Genuine, Generous, and Grateful

> On 18 August 2011 17:39, Tom Morris wrote: >> More useful for smaller wikis. Tweeting new pages or recent changes >> for enwiki would probably destroy Twitter very quickly. >> >> When I was more involved with Citizendium, I wrote a script to pipe >> new pages into Twitter. It's still running: >>

Re: [Foundation-l] Genuine, Generous, and Grateful

> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 13:54, Fred Bauder > wrote: >> I wonder if we could tweet recent changes... Well, after a short delay. >> > > More useful for smaller wikis. Tweeting new pages or recent changes > for enwiki would probably destroy Twitter very quickly. > &

[Foundation-l] Genuine, Generous, and Grateful

Some professional advice: Need a Social Media Strategy? Start with These Three-Pronged Approaches https://www2.guidestar.org/rxa/news/articles/2011/three-pronged-social-media-strategy.aspx I wonder if we could tweet recent changes... Well, after a short delay. I think there is probably other ob

Re: [Foundation-l] Astonished by the so-called principle of least astonishment

> B) Is there a philosopher aboard the plane ? Did-it not occur to > anybody in the board that astonishment and knowledge are synonymous ? > If you are against astonishment, you are against knowledge. Learning > is about being astonished. I do not have to personally view "santorum", mixed lubrica

Re: [Foundation-l] Forkability, its problems and our problems

> Furthermore, offering trustworthy text and image dumps is not seductive. > Making forks easy is not seductive. That means re-using content but also > losing contributors which go to other communities. Don't expect much > effort > in that. Forking is hard nasty work. I'd much rather the Wikimedi

Re: [Foundation-l] Forkability, its problems and our problems

> Our competitors > are not millions of MediaWiki installations; our competitor is Hudong > (note the features [1]), but also Google and Facebook. I am not saying > that they are against us, but that we have to catch their > technological development if we want to survive. > > [1] http://en.wikiped

Re: [Foundation-l] We need to make it easy to fork and leave

> On 15/08/11 18:14, Fred Bauder wrote: >>> I'm just trying to evaluate the scale of the risk here. The amount of >>> resources that we need to spend on this should be proportional to the >>> risk. >>> >>> -- Tim Starling >> >> That

Re: [Foundation-l] To make it easy to fork and leave

Both and > Fred: easy to fork vs hard to understand other cultures. Think a minute. > ¿Are we making an Encyclopedia? Must we struggle to split or to get > togeather? > > 2011/8/15 Fred Bauder > >> > Oh...well. Diversity is also a problem to think about whe

Re: [Foundation-l] To make it easy to fork and leave

> Oh...well. Diversity is also a problem to think about when whe are making > an > encyclopedia. But any way... Let's think in how to split everything why > not? > its easy! This is just a game, isn' it? > > 2011/8/15 Gustavo Carrancio https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] To make it easy to fork and leave

> Yes, leave and forking is our main problem. Sure. I think that to make > easy > to fork will be something like to show the exit way to some people > well, > let me think one minuteYes! excelent! > > 2011/8/15 Tom Morris Oh, but we leave, and stay. Fred ___

Re: [Foundation-l] We need to make it easy to fork and leave

> I'm sure I > could easily fork enwp with just one machine, and handle a few hundred > visitors a day, or even in an hour. I believe Fred Bauder have made a > fork of a kind (yes I know it used a different method) and I guess he > do see the traffic stats and resource req

Re: [Foundation-l] We need to make it easy to fork and leave

treating Group POV as Neutral POV. > Ray Bingo Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] We need to make it easy to fork and leave

of > resources that we need to spend on this should be proportional to the > risk. > > -- Tim Starling That technical staff have effective power to decide whether a fork is justified is reason enough. Fred Bauder ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

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

rupted discussions about the Wikimedia Foundation, the purpose of the list. Fred > > -Original Message- > From: Fred Bauder > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > Sent: Sun, Jul 24, 2011 2:00 pm > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Greg Kohs and Peter Damian > > >> &

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

> > > > Although he reneged on his offer to buy > > http://knol.google.com/k/bose-201-series-ii-direct-reflecting-bookshelf-speakers# > The Speakers Which Almost Destroyed Knol > > I as well as others support welcoming Kohs back to this list by unbanning > him. > > I agree with the sentiment that t

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

> As someone said previously, the mailing software truncates stuff after > the > word "From", if it begins a sentence, probably because it thinks that's > part > of the mail header. No conspiracy or cloak and dagger stuff, just a bug > that probably ought to be looked at. > > I'd take this opportu

Re: [Foundation-l] Re Greg Kohs

As they say, He is dead to me. Fred > If anyone thinks The Kohser is just a maverick who asks awkward > questions, and rather more relevantly did some sockpuppetry and ran a > breaching experiment doing "unhelpful" edits to unwatched articles, > please read the thread at > http://meta.wikimedia.o

Re: [Foundation-l] They do make or break reputations

There are practices which are beyond the pale, for example, linking to a pirated copy of the latest Harry Potter movie. Linking to the typical YouTube video of unknown provenance is quite another matter; although it is quite true that in both cases there may be a technical copyright violation. In t

Re: [Foundation-l] roadmap for WM affiliation ; a name for self-identified affiliation

I'm open to negotiations, on behalf of Wikinfo, for the friendliest possible cooperative relationship. However, the more relaxed editing atmosphere, the exclusion of nasty editing behavior, and exploration of alternate points of view are not negotiable. Fred Bauder > I had

Re: [Foundation-l] They do make or break reputations

Regarding external links to videos: > Perhaps an on-wiki discussion is the way to progress this. > Tom Where is that policy and discussion? Fred ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/m

Re: [Foundation-l] They do make or break reputations

>>> Most of us have agendas, and this is the only major outlet most of us >>> have access to. > > As a sort of aside-- everyone comes with agendas, and sometimes > people act neutrally, sometimes people act like advocates for their > agenda. > > I've always wondered if we couldn't "peel off' the p

Re: [Foundation-l] They do make or break reputations

or a while, and when the dust has settled, > > WRITE A FUCKING ENCYCLOPEDIA! > > Why is that a problem? Most of us have agendas, and this is the only major outlet most of us have access to. Fred > > Fred Bauder wrote: >> Speaking of the British tabloids, of course. >> &

[Foundation-l] They do make or break reputations

Speaking of the British tabloids, of course. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/world/europe/10britain.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=globasasa2 The lesson for us is to not take a leading position, be topical, but to report events which have occurred and on which there is some sort of considered opi

[Foundation-l] Lessons from Wikipedia

http://therexpedition.com/?p=59 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re: [Foundation-l] Merge wikis

> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 3:34 PM, . Courcelles > wrote: > >> I couldn't agree more, now that the date has passed, so should >> ten.wikipedia. Outreach and Strategy have a mission, but nothing so >> distinct that it would be out of scope on Meta, and combining those >> three >> projects would reduc

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: wikiEducation: The Classroom Wikipedia

> Hi, > > On 2 July 2011 23:28, Fred Bauder wrote: >> On 2 July 2011 23:16, Isabell Long wrote: >>> >>> Sorry to dampen things, but as we're proposing "what if"s, what if >>> some >>> of Wikipedia's material was copie

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: wikiEducation: The Classroom Wikipedia

> Hi, > > On Sun, Jul 03, 2011 at 12:14:39AM +0400, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: >> On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 13:49:58 -0600 (MDT), "Fred Bauder" >> wrote: >> > We should do this before some aggressive outfit like Wikinfo jumps >> in... >> > It would

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: wikiEducation: The Classroom Wikipedia

> On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 13:49:58 -0600 (MDT), "Fred Bauder" > wrote: >> We should do this before some aggressive outfit like Wikinfo jumps >> in... >> It wouldn't be an anyone can edit wiki. Only authorized student >> accounts >> could edit. It wou

Re: [Foundation-l] Fwd: wikiEducation: The Classroom Wikipedia

We should do this before some aggressive outfit like Wikinfo jumps in... It wouldn't be an anyone can edit wiki. Only authorized student accounts could edit. It would be a teaching tool. Fred > Forwarded to the list on behalf of a non-member. > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Ja

Re: [Foundation-l] Merge wikis

> One thing I find irritating and complex about our structure is the > proliferation of small wikis. Now I've no objection to the idea that > we have a wiki for every language on Earth, though where languages are > mutually intelligible such as the major dialects of English it seems > sensible to

  1   2   3   4   5   >