Once concluded, the RFC process revealed the community’s
desire to see a new travel project created. The Wikimedia Foundation Board
supports the community’s decision and is moving forward with the creation
of this new project.
Is this a valid announcement from the WMF board before the official
On 6 Sep 2012, at 07:38, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
Once concluded, the RFC process revealed the community’s
desire to see a new travel project created. The Wikimedia Foundation Board
supports the community’s decision and is moving forward with the creation
of this new
The community has unofficially summarized the RfC here
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Travel_Guide#Summary_of_arguments
But yes the final summary and decision was to be left to the WMF.
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
Hi all,
on behalf of the Board of Trustees I'm glad to announce the following
statement about the travel guide RfC
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Travel_Guide :
Through the RfC, it is clear our community has reached consensus in
favor of the creation of a travel guide. The
On 6 September 2012 08:18, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:
The community has unofficially summarized the RfC here
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Travel_Guide#Summary_of_arguments
But yes the final summary and decision was to be left to the WMF.
Just to follow up
Just to note:
Everyone (including in the recent board statement) seems to be avoiding
mention that this new travel site has come about due to Wiki Travel admins
having an interest in moving away from IB, or that it will be seeded with
Wiki Travel content.
It seems intellectually dishonest to
Nonsense; the blog post is the PR release.
So, yes, unfortunately I assert bad faith - hiding it in the brief is
basically standard misdirection, in my experience. And for a movement
dedicated (supposedly) to transparency it is very sad to see.
Tom
On 6 September 2012 15:03, David Gerard
In contrast to Tom's opinion, I believe that WMF has done the right thing -
write the blog post in a way so as to create the biggest PR impact within
the limits of factual accuracy; and link to the PDF and discussions for the
sake of transparency.
On 6 September 2012 15:12, Thomas Morton
\o/
Nice!
and I'm wondering how they will sue for importing content that is on free
license...
On 6 September 2012 10:21, Alice Wiegand awieg...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
on behalf of the Board of Trustees I'm glad to announce the following
statement about the travel guide RfC
The Wikitravel site seems to be declining in a hurry, even from what
was evidently a sad state just several months ago. The main remaining
administrator, an employee who goes by IBobi (IB as in Internet
Brands), has limited his actions almost exclusively to arguing with
other community members and
On Sep 6, 2012 7:27 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Other than in the process of enforcing telecommunications law, is
there any way to challenge the presumed immunity of a particular
entity under Section 230? It seems to me, as a layperson, that
Internet Brand's role in Wikitravel has
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 6, 2012 7:27 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Other than in the process of enforcing telecommunications law, is
there any way to challenge the presumed immunity of a particular
entity under Section 230? It
Forwarding questions from Research-l with permission, with the hope that these
will spark discussion here on Wikimedia-l.
RJensen:
Comments: I have not seen any editor make actual use of the Article
Feedback tool -- are there examples? Yes Wikipedians are very proud
of their vast
13 matches
Mail list logo
