In a message dated 11/29/2009 12:55:01 PM Pacific Standard Time,
fredb...@fairpoint.net writes:
The media, in the United States at least, has a constitutionally
guaranteed right to not be fair.
My use of the word fair was to be applied to ourselves, not to the media.
It is not fair for us
In a message dated 11/26/2009 11:37:12 PM Pacific Standard Time,
george.herb...@gmail.com writes:
We have the Mediators, arbcom, and experienced non-admin editors
around too. Anyone who thinks admins can run roughshod over users
should watch ANI for a while. We aren't great about
I already pointed out that you cannot impose friendliness. Our current
state is one in which any particular admin may sit on any particular editor
with or without adequate cause and that editor has nearly no power to affect a
hearing. There is no advocate for the editors who are not admins.
In a message dated 11/26/2009 3:39:23 AM Pacific Standard Time,
valde...@gmail.com writes:
The final solution is that only people who are already expert in the
processes can impose their point of view and in fact en.wikipedia
don't assure a neutral point of view but the point of view of
In a message dated 11/22/2009 10:48:52 PM Pacific Standard Time,
smole...@eunet.rs writes:
Digitize them and publish them on the Internet, but
insure them, so that if heirs ever appear a reasonable royalty may be
paid to them.
Heirs do not necessarily get any benefit from copyrighted
In a message dated 11/7/2009 11:28:13 PM Pacific Standard Time,
gerard.meijs...@gmail.com writes:
Please read it as an appeal to reply to foundation-l in moderation.
Please
read it as an appeal to post liberally to this list as we do not have an
alternative.
---
In a message dated 11/8/2009 12:12:51 AM Pacific Standard Time,
phoebe.w...@gmail.com writes:
Many of these emails have a bit
of a hostile tone (my original post included, mea culpa), and include
sentences like Anyone that says otherwise is wrong, That statement
is false and Get over it.
In a message dated 11/8/2009 12:30:05 AM Pacific Standard Time,
gerard.meijs...@gmail.com writes:
Now if you think that you need to
pass judgement on this, you have a self centred world. That is very much
part of the issue. The issue is that the context of the issue IS clear
from
my
I will in the next few days, create a list which shows who, each month, has
posted the most messages to the list. Or perhaps the top few. I was
surprised, seeing the statistics page, at how few active participants there
are.
Really just a handful, and it's been that way, for quite a long
In a message dated 11/8/2009 2:06:47 AM Pacific Standard Time,
gerard.meijs...@gmail.com writes:
When you learn from your research that we have a problem, you only
confirm
what is already known. The only question I have is, will this make a
difference to you?
No personal attacks Gerard.
In a message dated 11/8/2009 2:06:47 AM Pacific Standard Time,
gerard.meijs...@gmail.com writes:
Your notion that you deserve at least as much room to experiment as the
worst of us is a fallacy. You have been made aware that there is an issue
and that relevant people refuse to post on the
Isn't it however Michael true that a plain text message conveys little to no
tone
I could say the above sentence with anger, with sarcasm, with hope and without
emotion at all.
You cannot tell how I'm inflecting it, simply by the words.
Sometimes or even most-times people will add the tone.
What I'm suggesting is not more bureaucracy. Let me put it this way.
Right now we have a system where you are either a worker or a policeman.
There is no group who are advocates for the workers against the policemen.
That is, there are no defense lawyers, there are no judges.
The police patrol
In a message dated 11/7/2009 10:56:27 AM Pacific Standard Time,
andreeng...@gmail.com writes:
We tried that on nl: (although with 1 week rather than 24 hours
minimum). The effect of this is that _each and every block_ will get
the whole wiki in flames for a week.
I would submit that this
In a message dated 11/7/2009 12:44:42 PM Pacific Standard Time,
andreeng...@gmail.com writes:
No, we don't. We need forces to help the encyclopedia get further. We
don't need a force of people who stop people who are helping creating
it, and we don't need a force of people who support people
In a message dated 11/7/2009 8:54:55 PM Pacific Standard Time,
will...@scissor.com writes:
But as far as I know, they aren't actually imposing anything, in
that nobody is actually stopping the posts in question. So if there's
actual imposing going on, it's on the part of the posters.
In a message dated 11/7/2009 9:13:01 PM Pacific Standard Time,
thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes:
And how do you answer them? Based on your experience of what is
usually accepted on the list in question? Who should I ask that has
more experience of these lists than I do?
Ok I will begrudgingly
By failing I mean that it never achieved any sort of siginificant presence.
When Wikinews was started it was, imho, to shunt news off the main project
into its own space. News by it's nature is far more verbose then
encyclopedic material. News inundates you constantly, while encyclopedic
In a message dated 11/5/2009 11:29:32 AM Pacific Standard Time,
raro...@gmail.com writes:
In a $6 million budget, I'd honestly be disappointed if the Foundation
wasn't spending at least $100k on development projects that might some
day take off,
But that's exactly my point. Wikinews has
But Renata how do you mandate a friendlier community?
How about, on the sidebar, we have a link for Report Abuse.
Right now don't we sort of leave it up to each policeman to instruct the victim
in how to report that they're being abused? I still see the project as being
too much of The Fox
But George we do have pointers from Wikipedia to Wikisource, Wikiquote, and so
on. Wikinews is sort of the red-headed stepchild of the entire collective.
It's been going for years and yet only has 15,000 English-language articles.
That's probably smaller even than Citizendium.
The failure
How do you determine the number of views a particular Wikipedia page has
received?
-Original Message-
From: Brian J Mingus brian.min...@colorado.edu
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wed, Nov 4, 2009 3:58 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l]
In a message dated 11/2/2009 8:31:15 AM Pacific Standard Time,
effeietsand...@gmail.com writes:
Why can't people learn when a discussion is irritating other people, why
can't people learn which discussions are most useful to have, why can't
people learn that they might frustrate the very
In a message dated 11/2/2009 10:59:23 AM Pacific Standard Time,
thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes:
Why can't people use email clients that don't break threads? ;)
AOL = Satan
They are out to destroy all life and light.
Will
___
foundation-l mailing
Personally, I process about two or three hundred emails per day (yes per day),
so the small amount of noise the Foundation list creates is negligible to me.
If someone is so annoyed by a thread, that they can't even bother to DWR
(delete without reading) based merely on the subject title, I
That's a bit of an extreme remark Tim. There are millions of computer
programmers in the world, who do not know or care to try to learn how to
operate AOL. Not every programmers is a Windows programmer. Myopic view of
understanding computers. I could just as well opine, that people who
And I never said it is about *me* stop trying to make this personal.
I am not directing my remarks at *you*, so stop directing yours at *me*.
There are many people on this very list who have said essentially the exact
same thing.
You should re-read the thread again to make that apparent, if
In a message dated 10/31/2009 8:51:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes:
where sensationalised rumours get spread because of
a lack of accurate information.
I think it's a little pre-mature to say that it's a sensationalised rumour
speading because of a lack of
In a message dated 10/31/2009 12:24:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes:
As I said above, he wouldn't be working a month's notice if he had
been fired. Resigned by mutual agreement is more likely. I guess
either a) he didn't fit in in the office, b) the job turned out
In a message dated 10/31/2009 12:32:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes:
It's possible, but since that would require the WMF to intentionally
mislead the community and there is no evidence to support it, I think
it is unlikely to be the case.
That would be true
Evidently it's too late to wonder. The staff page has been updated recently
stating specifically that he is leaving on 30 Nov 2009. Are you now saying
that there's a rumor that that date has been moved up more? The change was
made in the last week on that page.
-Original Message-
From: wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wed, Sep 30, 2009 2:58 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with
the Frenc...
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wed, Sep 30, 2009 4:17 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] a heads-up on Wikimedia France's adventures with
the Frenc...
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I think everyone is probably a bit tired of this topic so this will be my last
response.
You keep positing that someone is espousing that the museums have to actively
participate in providing copies of something to someone.? Has somebody claimed
that?? If they did, it wasn't me.? I have never
But not established users ?
-Original Message-
From: Brion Vibber br...@wikimedia.org
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Mon, Sep 28, 2009 5:36 pm
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Status of flagged protection (flagged revisions)
for
You cut off the response.? I was responding directly to the post previous
where it was stated that crats and admins could poke at this.? So I'm wondering
why not open it to all established editors.? There are editors who have been
around a long time and are not admins.
-Original
Thanks.? Ok I've found you do that now.
http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#Adminship_requests
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Mon, Sep 28, 2009
I thought that the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision basically was that a
reproduction like this enjoys no new copyright ?
W.J.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
In a message dated 9/27/2009 5:51:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
wiki-li...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
I disagree. I think the priority is to have the full
resolution pictures of Public Domain works.
That seems to be a demand to have the highest resolution copies possible.
I was
201 - 239 of 239 matches
Mail list logo
