In a message dated 11/28/2010 8:09:28 PM Pacific Standard Time,
nawr...@gmail.com writes:
There's a joke in here somewhere, maybe about applying en.wp talkpage
style argumentation to real life, but maybe we can just call this a
dead issue and move on rather than argue in circles forever with
In a message dated 11/28/2010 9:06:36 PM Pacific Standard Time,
russnel...@gmail.com writes:
The policy is very explicit. It says that logs may be kept. If you know
anything about operational requirements, you will understand that that
means
that logs are not routinely kept, but may be
In a message dated 11/27/2010 7:05:39 AM Pacific Standard Time,
russnel...@gmail.com writes:
Nothing in their experience base can be used
unless it's already in print somewhere ... so how is their experience
useful? I'm not calling into question the [[citation needed]] policy, but
instead
In a message dated 11/25/2010 9:14:20 AM Pacific Standard Time,
wing.phil...@gmx.de writes:
I think it is very important for us to understand the difficulties
academics face if they want to join the Wikimedian community. And maybe
we should rethink about our strategy and approach on
In a message dated 11/25/2010 10:57:11 AM Pacific Standard Time,
jayen...@yahoo.com writes:
It's a headache for the copyright team on en:WP because they have to
figure out which came first.
First there should be a presumption that established editors (I've been
in-project for seven
In a message dated 11/25/2010 3:31:07 PM Pacific Standard Time,
geni...@gmail.com writes:
On 25 November 2010 22:15, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
We have Geni, many ways to determine if someone is an established
editor.
Name one that doesn't boil down to editcountitis
We have flags
Would this project answer the question I am trying to address today?
Which American actors died in 1970?
There does not appear to me, to be any obvious way of using the built-in
search engine to answer this question. Searching for Actor 1970 generates a
lot of false positives, an overwhelming
In a message dated 11/24/2010 3:29:12 PM Pacific Standard Time,
michaeldavi...@comcast.net writes:
Could it de done with a Category: 1970 Deaths - Actors, or some such
thing?
Marc
Evidently the phrase Category: 1970 Deaths is not indexed. Try it, and
see if you get anything. I got
In a message dated 11/24/2010 3:56:52 PM Pacific Standard Time,
phn...@blueyonder.co.uk writes:
Try http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/CategoryIntersect.php
plug in values en, Deaths in 1970 and American Actors.
Articles that are under American Actors and under Deaths in 1970:
In a message dated 11/24/2010 4:11:03 PM Pacific Standard Time,
michaeldavi...@comcast.net writes:
I just pulled up the Articles on two actors who I know died in 1970. One
was
in the Category English Film Actors and the other in American Film
Actors.
The category intersect PHP is very
In a message dated 11/22/2010 10:33:53 AM Pacific Standard Time,
rkald...@wikimedia.org writes:
* I believe Salary and other compensation includes payment to
contractors, of which we currently have about 20-30 (which aren't
counted as employees).
Why so many, and contractors generally
In a message dated 11/22/2010 2:10:05 PM Pacific Standard Time,
wikipe...@frontier.com writes:
They aren't - as a
member of the audit committee, I have full confidence that the Wikimedia
Foundation's tax reports are using the appropriate categories for
expenses.
So auditing is now
Salaries and wages accounted for 3.5 million in the last fiscal year
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/c/cc/FINAL_09_10From_KPMG.p
df
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
In a message dated 11/19/2010 4:17:16 PM Pacific Standard Time,
swatjes...@gmail.com writes:
http://www.wikimediafoundation.org
Form 990 for the past fiscal year is not posted there.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
In a message dated 11/18/2010 9:14:37 AM Pacific Standard Time,
mill...@gmail.com writes:
As it is pointed to me privately, I have one corrections and one
clarifications:
* First, my impression wasn't that Obama was raised inside of the
African American culture (first meaning). However, it
And my Knols are also not read in Africa
evidence
http://statcounter.com/project/standard/visitor_map.php?project_id=4543053
Although there is apparently one person in Pakistan who is interested.
The point of this message is that the reach in Africa doesn't seem limited
to a Wikipedia issue.
Is there a technical help forum (peer to peer) for the Wikimedia software?
I find myself spending a few hours of digging through PHP code to try to
make a small extension / correction. And also at times, I make what I think
is a brilliant change and would like to share it with other
In a message dated 11/17/2010 1:23:04 PM Pacific Standard Time,
steven.wall...@gmail.com writes:
Also, point of quibbling as an American: not looking to argue about it,
but
Obama is generally thought of as African American, as it says in the
second
sentence of his en.wiki article. It
In a message dated 11/13/2010 6:44:18 AM Pacific Standard Time,
magnusman...@googlemail.com writes:
And if you can find some other publishing entity (printing, DVDs,
etc.) that could be used interchangeably for the PediaPress button,
and this entity is denied a button next to the PediaPress
In a message dated 11/13/2010 11:08:33 AM Pacific Standard Time,
magnusman...@googlemail.com writes:
1. Given the limited of number services (one, plus Robert's which I
missed in the thread, if it still exists), it probably seemed
pointless
2. Any service would have to develop the
In a message dated 11/12/2010 2:13:03 AM Pacific Standard Time,
jay...@gmail.com writes:
I agree with everything except whether or not they are in line with
our basic values. They may not align with Wikipedia's values, but as
a separate project they dont need to be; instead they need to fit
In a message dated 11/12/2010 2:06:13 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jay...@gmail.com writes:
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
In a message dated 11/10/2010 10:32:00 PM Pacific Standard Time,
sgard...@wikimedia.org writes:
(Donors often send us stories like that, and I am often
looking for stories to tell people about the projects. So I've asked
her to send good ones to me.)
I would be interested in seeing
In a message dated 11/11/2010 6:23:45 PM Pacific Standard Time,
z...@mzmcbride.com writes:
I think focusing energy and efforts on creating print versions of
Wikipedia
articles is antithetical to the idea of creating an online encyclopedia.
The
benefits of the Internet (and more
In a message dated 11/11/2010 10:08:33 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
liamwy...@gmail.com writes:
If there is another organisation out there that offers a
printing-and-binding service that is comparable to what PediaPress offers
then we could/should add it to the list but I don't believe
In a message dated 11/7/2010 8:12:40 AM Pacific Standard Time,
thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes:
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
revenue and not actually buying, which advertisers stopped
In a message dated 11/7/2010 2:03:27 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jay...@gmail.com writes:
I'm also skeptical that any sort of tab that is just a click here to
see
ads will be very productive. I'm also skeptical that manually placed
and
manually monitored, internet advertising even
In a message dated 11/7/2010 3:19:19 PM Pacific Standard Time,
wikim...@inbox.org writes:
Doesn't Google lets the advertiser pick which searches they want to
appear on? Is that manual, or automagic? Would letting the
advertiser pick which articles they want to appear on be manual, or
Billions is not the appropate word here.
Extrapolating from my own personal Adsense experience, I would suggest that
with a single ad per article, the project would only earn perhaps 1 to 5
million a year.
That's being generous.
W
___
foundation-l
In a message dated 11/1/2010 11:50:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
cimonav...@gmail.com writes:
Another thing that might shut this stuff down, or atleast make people
more
savvy in judging what quality they are getting, would be if we finally got
some
dead tree stuff out there with the WMF
In a message dated 10/31/2010 9:38:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jay...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 1:37 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 10/31/2010 7:10:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
risker...@gmail.com writes:
My point still stands. The drug company
In a message dated 11/1/2010 7:52:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 10/31/2010 9:38:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jay...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 1:37 PM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a
In a message dated 11/1/2010 6:57:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
geni...@gmail.com writes:
Sure. Find an article with a french author and bring moral rights into
play.
That isn't enough, because *you* would have no standing.
You'd be thrown out, and the WMF isn't likely to want to be the
In a message dated 11/1/2010 6:16:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jay...@gmail.com writes:
The PLOS Medicine article is based on a dataset of 78 interventional
studies, 81 observational studies, and only 47 scientific reviews.
Also, they do not dissect the data based on the reputability of the
In a message dated 10/31/2010 10:04:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
dgoodma...@gmail.com writes:
Those who advocate this, though well meaning, go way beyond our scope.
This is a matter for professional journals, not an unauthoritative
reader-edited encyclopedia
Yes, giving our readers the
In a message dated 10/31/2010 7:10:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
risker...@gmail.com writes:
My point still stands. The drug company *always* pays for the research.
Mentioning it is irrelevant to the quality of the article itself.
This is false. The drug company does not always pay for
In a message dated 10/26/2010 1:14:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
slimvir...@gmail.com writes:
This is the kind of test of our accuracy we really don't want. :)
There you go using that A word again.
W
___
foundation-l mailing list
In a message dated 10/24/2010 10:58:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
dgoodma...@gmail.com writes:
This is not a mechanical
process. It is editing in the true sense of the word: it takes
judgement, it takes takes research-- things we have been claiming are
against our basic principles.
In a message dated 10/25/2010 2:12:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
Superb. I was wondering when someone would actually say this. It is the
point I made right at the beginning of all of this. That the drug pages
should not be reflecting some controversy.
In a message dated 10/24/2010 8:53:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
Secondly an assessment on what constitutes encyclopaedic information.
Does an article absolutely have to mention each and every rumour,
half-truth, or crackpot opinion? Encyclopaedic
If anyone is relying on Wikipedia, then they have a fundamental
disconnect from what we were and still are trying to do.
The entire point of Wikipedia today, is to make people think, not to stop
them from thinking.
That is why we now, for the first time in history, have a method, if it's
not
In a message dated 10/24/2010 5:15:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
Perhaps you aren't listening? Although I do notice moments where you
tend to make the same points. Still what I'm trying to do is to at least
get some here to think as to how one might
In a message dated 10/23/2010 3:40:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
OK this is going to be controversial but have you ever considered taht
maybe you shouldn't have anything on Atorvastatin other than what comes
as the medical advice in the packaging? One
But it does have authoritative perspective. That is exactly my point and the
point at which you railed at, from a position that was extreme. Your
contention is that we should not report *any* thing in our work on a drug
except what the manufacturer puts on the label. And that you don't
In a message dated 10/23/2010 2:43:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
If at any moment it can be stood on its head then the information
contained in the articles can never be authoritative. Suppose I have a
calculator that every once in a while, and quite
In a message dated 10/21/2010 6:52:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
m...@marcusbuck.org writes:
I think your proposal is a good idea and that that wiki could develop
into a very useful resource. However it does not fit into Wikimedia.
Wikimedia is strictly about educational content and neutral
In a message dated 10/20/2010 11:30:49 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
op.leona...@gmail.com writes:
Electrodomestics, Autos, Houses, Clothes and Shoes, Kitchen accesories,
etc.
Can I suggest that Electrodomestics doesn't mean anything to U.S. English
speakers ?
In a message dated 10/16/2010 10:47:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
peter.dam...@btinternet.com writes:
Unfortunately we don't have a better word to describe the effortless and
thoughtless copying of something from something else, so I will use that
word. Note 'incorporates' suggests that
I stumbled upon a link on the Talk Page of Henry Fonda (which I removed)
which directs the reader to a page that contains a PHP script.
That idea disturbs me, I think it should be, but I'm not sure it is,
against policy.
Do we have a policy that forbids or at least discourages the use of links
In a message dated 10/5/2010 6:01:14 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
jayen...@yahoo.com writes:
You're right there. It's a bloody headache finding the words of the
article in amongst all the citation templates when you're trying to edit.
That however really isn't a fault that can be laid at
In a message dated 10/3/2010 5:04:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
michaeldavi...@comcast.net writes:
Much of what you say here is true, David. However, the task becomes an
arduous one when the students rule the classroom. The prevailing culture
in
Wikipedia, whose dogma seems to be, this is
In a message dated 10/3/2010 8:14:18 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
peter.dam...@btinternet.com writes:
Will, can you try and focus on the three questions and keep this
on-topic.
1. Is there a quality problem in certain areas. Yes or no?
2. If there is a problem, are there any underlying
In a message dated 10/3/2010 9:59:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
dger...@gmail.com writes:
No, built by the masses was not the intent. The goal was to build an
encyclopedia. It turns out the masses are fantastically useful in
this, but claiming that was a goal is simply factually inaccurate.
In a message dated 10/2/2010 3:01:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
slimvir...@gmail.com writes:
Academics don't have the time or patience to explain basic points for
years on end to people who feel that reading books or papers about the
subject is unnecessary. I'm sure the biology experts would
In a message dated 10/2/2010 10:04:16 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
peter.dam...@btinternet.com writes:
You missed the point again. Sarah is not saying that the *readers* need
to
understand the basics. She is saying that the problem is with *editors*.
And you've missed the point.
The
In a message dated 10/2/2010 10:21:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
peter.dam...@btinternet.com writes:
You can't spell, you can't write, you shift ground constantly, you fail
to
understand even the most basic point. Your understanding of the subject
is
in inverse proportion to you
In a message dated 9/27/2010 7:17:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
nawr...@gmail.com writes:
1. No one is accountable, nor does anyone feel responsible, for the
accuracy of Wikipedia articles, since they are unsigned and have no
official authors.
--
The authors can be viewed in the
In a message dated 9/25/2010 12:10:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
fredb...@fairpoint.net writes:
Yes, it's hard to collaborate; that's why Wikipedia is considered
impossible by experts.
==
Hmm broad brush. I would say collaboration is considered hopeless to those
who think
In a message dated 9/21/2010 12:11:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
peter.dam...@btinternet.com writes:
I brought it up because Johnson was insisting that someone
without formal training in the humanities could write an article just as
well as someone with formal training.
Peter I'm finding it
In a message dated 9/20/2010 12:02:43 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
peter.dam...@btinternet.com writes:
In my experience
the problem of humanities in Wikipedia is that the methods and training of
the 'experts' is so fundamentally different from that of 'Wikipedians'
(who
by and large
In a message dated 9/20/2010 12:41:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
peter.dam...@btinternet.com writes:
I can read a book on the History of the Fourth Crusade, and adds quotes
to
our articles on the persons and events, just as well as an expert in
that
specific field.
If this
In a message dated 9/19/2010 9:38:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
peter.dam...@btinternet.com writes:
I would strongly urge you to leave the editing of articles
concerning philosophy and/or philosophers to genuine experts. You simply
lack the understanding and expertise required to assess
In a message dated 9/19/2010 10:47:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
peter.dam...@btinternet.com writes:
You have made your view very clear. I've tried to be polite, and to
avoid
any talking-down, and I am sorry if it has appeared that way. You use the
collective 'we', meaning you speak
Your position is flawed. What is enduring is not the same as what will
be interesting to future generations. Enduring to me means, yet
existing. Some sex toys will be yet existing in 100 years, but I'm sure they
will
all be interesting especially to researchers of the use of sex toys which
In a message dated 9/18/2010 10:10:56 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
peter.dam...@btinternet.com writes:
I think you misunderstand the meaning of 'enduring'.
I think you misunderstand the purpose of an 'argument'.
Your one-line remarks do not propel your purpose forward, they make it look
like
How would locking Wikipedia down fulfill the mission to collect all the
educational information known. Information changes constantly, new information
becomes available constantly, and new material gets added to old articles
constantly. I myself just added some new detail to an article within
Anyone who is interested in supporting a specialist work should give money to
that work. Wikipedia is a general work however. There are those who would
rather support a general work, which has one set of rules, navigation and
procedures across the project, rather than fifteen specialized
I'm hoping I'm not understanding this criticism:
' that it is unduly oriented to topics of interest to
the masses,'
Are you stating that Peter is stating that a general encyclopedia should not be
oriented to topics of interest to the masses?
Who exactly is the audience if not the masses?
Can you give an example of what appeal to the popular means in the context of
our project and how those appeals as you say are not educational? For
example just today, at work, a question came up about exactly what a certain
divorce proceeding said about a certain politician and why that
I dont understand how information about pornography, computer games, tv
shows... is not educational.
If I want to know whether Berle Ives was ever a guest star on Bewitched, why
wouldn't we fulfill a request like that in project ?
-Original Message-
From: Peter Damian
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thu, Sep 16, 2010 1:41 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has Wikipedia changed since 2005?
- Original Message -
rom: Wjhonson wjhon...@aol.com
o: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
ent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 9:34 PM
ubject: Re: [Foundation-l] Has
For wiki-style collaboration I usually use either PBWiki (or pbworks,
whatever, it's all the sme company) or sites.google.com
Both allow for FREE, private, multi-user, instant, online collaboration
using a free online smart editing engine. Same as Wikipedia.
And the results of that
An audit of what exactly? You mean a financial audit of monies passing
through the hands of the WMF ?
That kind of audit?
Will
-Original Message-
From: Milos Rancic mill...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wed, Jul
In a message dated 6/30/2010 5:36:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
If a way of halting the gross infringements can't be done. Then go back
to hitting the seeders with $22,000 fines per infringed work. The
economic costs of simply walking away and not
In a message dated 6/29/2010 11:21:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
There needs to be a deterrent to infringement. If all that happens if
you get caught riding the bus without paying fare, is that you have to
pay the fare, who would pay the fare upfront?
In a message dated 6/27/2010 12:45:55 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes:
On 27 June 2010 20:42, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote:
Given that this is recurring drama-creating behavior, perhaps we can
move on to the ignore stage of WP:RBI.
On enwiki, we did
In a message dated 6/26/2010 2:33:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
When service providers are lobbying to promote copyleft they are doing
so in order muddy the copyright waters. The amount of copyleft material
in the music world is, with the exception of
In a message dated 6/25/2010 3:55:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu writes:
Do I have to request your termination for abuse of this list?
Why do I envision the Red Queen and the White Queen when I read that
remark?
David Gerard cut off your own head! Do it
In a message dated 6/25/2010 6:58:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu writes:
If you want to know my fair use credentials and my involvement, I was one
of
the people involved in the fringe of one of the most important internet
fair
use court cases of the modern
I hope you don't think that an individual contacting a company is going to do
anything to change their minds about what is perceived about their frivolous
claim.
You didn't address my extension of that notice which would read something like
If you believe this material IS in the public
-Original Message-
From: Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wed, Jun 2, 2010 4:54 pm
Subject: [Foundation-l] Office action
It is a shame that WMF hasn't a policy of TRANSPARENCY regarding
office actions. The right of the community to
In a message dated 5/22/2010 11:41:53 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
The foundation or the site admins do moderate. The foundation or they
DO
have the power, to delete submissions that are considered non
encyclopedic, trolling, libelous and etc. There is
Your over-broad reading of this law would effectively gut
that other law which states that a host company is not responsible for what
people are hosting.
Wouldn't it? Unless you're going to support what appears to be an
unsupportable platform that child porn (or whatever you want to call
You are missing the key point. The pivot upon which the issue turns is not
whether or not a site is non-commercial or educational. The pivot is whether
the site itself creates the content, or whether it merely hosts the content.
Wikimedia Commons is more likely to be viewed as a host agent
If there is enough of a perceived need for content filtering, someone will fill
that void. That someone does not need to be us. Google does this job with
their image browser already without the need for any providers to actively
tag any images. How do they do that? I have no idea, but they
The Fox article helpfully describes how to find those cartoon illustrations
depicting child sex acts
Would anyone be interested in seeing how many times those pictures were viewed
prior to Fox's article, and after the article came out? Dirty hands is an
effective legal counter-claim is it
In a message dated 4/1/2010 12:24:31 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes:
As I said, the selection of these coordinates is a work, and if you
dont have any image available you cannot do so.
What is the contract between you and google to use this data? Are you
In a message dated 4/1/2010 5:28:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes:
Guys,
Lets get back to one point : terms of service.
We are talking about copyright here the whole time, but the contract
agreement in the terms of service are much more binding, they
In a message dated 3/31/2010 12:21:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes:
In openstreetmap we are not allowed to import the positions of items
based on the locations in wikipedia because they are derived from
geoeye/googlemaps for the most part. So there is a
In a message dated 3/31/2010 1:30:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes:
(e) use the Products in a manner that gives you or any other person
access to mass downloads or bulk feeds of any Content, including but
not limited to numerical latitude or longitude
In a message dated 3/31/2010 1:56:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com writes:
The issue is the location of things that are only visible using high
quality sat images from googlemaps and co. We don't have those
positions for many of the locations and they are only
In a message dated 3/31/2010 2:08:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
pbeaude...@wikimedia.org writes:
I don't have to own your camera to use it, and claim copyright. :)
--
You are *taking* the picture however, with a mechanical device while you
are excersizing creativity over it's
Top posting is not what *creates* the crap.
Copying the entire email is a standard setting in some clients (toggleable)
and an optional setting in others (toggleable) and probably there are some
which don't let you select to do that, or undo it either!
Personally I don't want to scroll down
In a message dated 3/30/2010 6:50:58 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mgod...@wikimedia.org writes:
I keep pointing out, of course, that there's lots of material in Swedish
Wikipedia that's not freely licensed -- for example, the names of Living
Persons or the true names of contributors who choose
In a message dated 3/30/2010 8:37:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
mnemo...@gmail.com writes:
Which free license is being used here with regard to the right to use
true
names? GFDL? CC-BY-SA?
What I'm suggesting is that regardless of which license we decide to use as
a project, an editor
That's extreme. We already use reliable sources in the project. The key is
reasonable effort, not Herculean effort, not absurd effort, just a reasonable
effort.
-Original Message-
From: geni geni...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
This is my impression of the question, using my psychic ability.
There is no Japanese policy on X, someone took the English language policy and
used that instead.
Is that applicable to the Japanese edition? Or should the Japanese make their
own policy and guidelines, not copy the English
But Dan your reply allows any illegitimate claim of copyright infringement to
be acted upon as an office action.
It's possible that we could say that the office cannot know whether a claim is
legitimate or not, but if the office is informed through a reliable source that
a claim is
In a message dated 11/29/2009 5:45:02 AM Pacific Standard Time,
fredb...@fairpoint.net writes:
But then, if Ryan could do it, anyone, including an
investigative journalist could have done it.
But you're assuming that they could then apply guilt by association which
would throw egg on our
In a message dated 11/29/2009 11:43:01 AM Pacific Standard Time,
fredb...@fairpoint.net writes:
We don't block incarcerated prisoners. Prisons do that, to protect
themselves and the public. Prisoners know how to do online fraud, and are
good at it.
*Some* prisons do it, some do the exact
101 - 200 of 239 matches
Mail list logo
