On 2016-10-10 6:41 PM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
That said, "neutrality" has always been philosophically iffy for an
encyclopedia pretty much by definition: reality takes sides.
To clarify what I mean in relation to that fork - "objectivity" (their
second canon) is ar
On 2016-10-10 2:13 PM, David Gerard wrote:
"INFOGALACTIC: an online encyclopedia without bias or thought police"
Why is it people unfailingly mistake "no bias" with "biases that match
mine"?
That said, "neutrality" has always been philosophically iffy for an
encyclopedia pretty much by def
On 16-04-22 05:04 PM, quiddity wrote:
>> > i hate that
>> > signpost [7] cannot be read on mobiles because of formatting.
>
> Last discussed in November at
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Archive_9#Mobile_view_not_great
With luck, the work on https://phabricator.
On 16-04-12 06:25 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> Yeah, what have DARPA ever done for us..?
For the benefit of those who do not sport beards[1], one of the most
relevant things that is a legacy of DARPA - and certainly the one Andy
is alluding to - is that of Internet itself (née Arpanet).
-- Coren / M
On 2016-03-22 2:04 AM, James Salsman wrote:
Are the FreeBSD-based pfSense C2758 series in the Foundation's throughput tier?
[...]
That looks like decent mid-range gear, but definitely not the the
hardware-supported levels needed to support operations.
What are the current Foundation throu
On 2016-03-21 6:15 PM, James Salsman wrote:
Is there a list of equipment that WMF uses without viable FLOSS
alternatives, please?
The switches and routers for one; as far as I know, high-end networking
hardware is not available with Libre OSes, nor would the supplier
support one flashed with
On 2016-03-21 8:34 AM, Ricordisamoa wrote:
And yes, it'd be nice if the server side was under WMF's control too!
Yes, and no.
The extra control is hypothetically nice, but in practice one-off
services that are different from the rest of the infrastructure (as a
shop would be, like the blog,
On 2016-03-21 8:03 AM, Ricordisamoa wrote:
As in [1] I'd like to know whether the use of Shopify is acceptable
for a FOSS-friendly organization. Thanks in advance.
While Shopify isn't FLOSS-only, they're a fairly okay place that does
contribute to FLOSS themselves (mostly in the Ruby and Go w
On 16-03-01 03:57 AM, David Emrany wrote:
> What nobody is prepared to acknowledge is that only under Lila's term
> some of the most blatant and egregious instances of coordinated PR
> socking and on-wiki abuses could come out.
I was tangentially part of the investigation that led to many of those
On 2016-02-26 6:39 PM, Lodewijk wrote:
I would suggest you discuss what kind of qualities you seek in an ED, what
kind of person you would be looking for - rather than specific people.
Above all, and foremost amongst any quality an ED should have is to be
an *excellent* communicator. I see th
On 16-02-22 02:08 PM, Pine W wrote:
> Also in the long run I hope that the Wikimedia Foundation and our volunteer
> community will emerge strong, resilient, healthy, and vibrant.
I've not always agreed with you, Pine. Not often, in fact.
But in this I think you will find broad agreement and a st
On 2016-02-20 10:36 PM, Lila Tretikov wrote:
Information asymmetry is a big issue. For example, in my role there is a
lot I cannot say, I have responsibilities to protect people in the
organization both current and former. So, for example, if someone is fired,
even for cause, I would not say anyt
On 2016-02-18 7:18 PM, Risker wrote:
June-July-August is the most expensive period
for just about everywhere in the world; March, April, September and October
tend to be much less expensive in lodging, travel and direct conference
costs. Maybe we need to rethink*when* we are holding Wikimania a
On 2016-02-08 5:53 PM, Ellie Young wrote:
The Community Resources team at the WMF recently held a consultation
I will join my voice to the chorus expressing concern and dismay at the
completely ridiculous interpretation of that minor discussion - it
clearly does not resemble a mandate to make
On 2016-01-23 1:24 AM, Josh Lim wrote:
Is there anyone else here who’s subscribed using a Yahoo! address and has spam
problems, either with their or others’ e-mails?
Yahoo is known to be problematic for sending and getting mail from labs
as well.
-- Marc
_
On 2016-01-21 7:08 AM, Florence Devouard wrote:
Either the board is completely paralyzed and no more able to make any
decision as to what they should do. Or the board has decided not to
provide any feedback, which I consider completely disrespectful to the
community and unhealthy generally.
I
On 2016-01-20 10:09 PM, Risker wrote:
Marc is not a member of the WMF staff.
[anymore].
But yeah, that was my personal opinion only and not any sort of
staff-like thing - I was never involved in superprotect or its deployment.
I was hacking happily at Wikimania in London when I saw (a) part
On 2016-01-19 12:53 PM, Pine W wrote:
The constitutional crisis that WMF created by using Superprotect to force
Image VIewer on the communities [...]
... except that this is not what happened. While that narrative might
be satisfying for someone who looks for a sense of being the stalwart
de
On 2016-01-11 1:37 PM, Asaf Bartov wrote:
"I neglected to look at relevant data before deciding to fund
Wikimedia Antarctica"
But, but... the editathon at McMurdo Station was a resounding success!
-- Marc
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
On 2016-01-04 2:22 PM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
Off the record,
Obviously not - that was part of a different email I started. :-)
-- Marc
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New
Off the record,
On 2016-01-04 2:08 PM, Pine W wrote:
[...] whether there will be another employee survey. If
there's a lot of dissatisfaction among the staff, the reasons for that
dissatisfaction would be helpful to know.
It would, wouldn't it? Old numbers may or may not be as interesting,
b
On 2016-01-04 1:56 AM, Pine W wrote:
I agree that the turnover issue is a matter that needs some consideration.
But I think that issue is more relevant to the ED rather than the Board.
Wouldn't that depend on whether the ED is acting at the behest of the
board or not?
-- Marc
_
On 15-12-04 04:14 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> Funny how the first response from a WMF employee was that they thought
> using stock images was OK.
Please don't put words into my mouth that weren't there. I said that I
didn't find it /concerning/, not that it was "OK".
My point in that email
On 15-12-02 09:46 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> It wouldnt have been hard to make a free photo of a coffee, or even
> create a derivative of this lovely CC0 SVG
I don't think I'm concerned about the foundation fundraising staff
deciding to use a stock photo - expedience and all, but I'm pretty
On 15-10-05 05:26 AM, Gnangarra wrote:
> I think we are stuck with Montreal and to change now isnt going address the
> problems this decision has created
I... am obviously in a delicate situation responding to this thread, and
specifically to that particular statement; but I think it's worth sayin
On 15-08-31 03:01 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
> I've come to the unpleasant realization that for my own good, I
> need to step back and focus on healing, and then look around for new and
> exciting opportunities.
Godspeed, Philippe. I've known you for all of those six years, and I
can tell you
On 15-04-22 01:49 PM, Asaf Bartov wrote:
> Everybody is busy, most Wikimedians
> have day jobs or demanding schoolwork of some sort.
Except that for most people, editing Wikipedia (or involving oneself in
some manner around the project) is a /diversion/ from their jobs and
whatnot whereas for some
On 15-04-22 11:54 AM, Sydney Poore wrote:
> I fully support allowing our talented and dedicated WMF staff to have the
> opportunity to choose the people who guide the direction of the WMF.
I'd like to add to this that the (pretty small) set of staffers that
would not otherwise have had eligibility
On 15-04-17 05:13 AM, rupert THURNER wrote:
> The only goal of a brilliant person in the this area
> is to get rich with his own company. I d curious to hear how you handle
> such conflict of interest.
I'm sorry - what?
I have no abundance of love towards the US society or its government as
a rul
On 15-04-09 04:52 PM, Lila Tretikov wrote:
> but it is also not for everyone as it can be
> isolating
I think that, at the Foundation, we are blessed to have several
opportunities a year to meet with our colleagues during events, and that
things would be much more difficult as a distributed team i
On 15-04-07 12:51 PM, Anthony Cole wrote:
> Wikipedia
> should not be trusted for anything - least of all health matters .
That's a perfectly true, but perfectly vacuous assertion. Wikipedia
should be trusted exactly as much as any other single source may be
trusted, for exactly the same reason.
On 15-04-01 03:57 PM, Jens Best wrote:
> For me (and other students) "going online" wasn't cheap back in the 90s
Perhaps the date is the issue here, but is this some attempt at humour?
"Wasn't cheap"? Are you seriously comparing your student lifestyle
with the socioeconomic reality of the people
On 15-04-01 03:58 PM, Pierre-Selim wrote:
> This is only the beginning: next step is the measurement of cute pixels,
> encyclopedic pixels and amazing pixels.
That metric is all wrong, because it presumes that all pixels are
equally valuable. Surely, you should be also assigning weights to
pixels
On 15-04-01 01:06 PM, Jens Best wrote:
> I will take the time to explain you why [I believe] net neutrality
> is more than you suggest and why [I think] we need to be a
> little bit less starry-eyed [than I believe we are] when
> it comes to the reasons why telecoms are behaving sooo nice
> to Wiki
On 15-03-19 08:19 AM, Fæ wrote:
> after that it started to become impossible to organize an editathon
> without first having an employee agreeing it
That seems... wrong.
For one, that experience may be WMUK's but it's certainly far from
universal. WMCA organizes monthly editathons in Montréal,
On 15-03-18 03:09 AM, Mathias Damour wrote:
> [from the Convention on the Rights of the Child]
> "[...] this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart
> information and ideas of all kinds"
Interestingly enough, to me this reads /against/ the idea of a
"Wikipedia for Kids" insofar as
On 15-02-25 11:15 AM, Edward Saperia wrote:
I'm not sure you've understood correctly. In my proposed system, people
propose projects and these projects are advertised on the centralnotice
banners.
Ah, I indeed hadn't. My understanding was that you wanted to substitute
for the grants process(e
On 15-02-25 09:37 AM, Edward Saperia wrote:
if they hit their
fundraising target [...]
Your idea is provocative, and intriguing, but I think that - at least in
this form - it is doomed to fail because it actually steps around what
makes kickstarter-like crowdfunding work.
(a) people put fo
On 15-01-09 09:26 AM, Richard Symonds wrote:
I believe mailman allows people to be added without confirmation
too!
It does, our list admins are just too polite to do that to people.
-- Marc
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta
On 14-12-31 12:20 PM, David Gerard wrote:
On 31 December 2014 at 17:18, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
How have you determined that this is not simply a bug or coding error,
exactly?
It is true that I'm assuming bad faith here entirely on the basis of
the previous bad-faith behaviour.
On 14-12-31 11:45 AM, David Gerard wrote:
Really - some person has*knowingly* coded this, considering this
ethical behaviour to put into code and release into the wild.
How have you determined that this is not simply a bug or coding error,
exactly?
-- Marc
On 14-12-09 08:45 AM, Jens Best wrote:
when calling the usual and established understanding of net
neutrality repeatedly "absolutist".
Except that it is. At its heart, "net neutrality" demands that there be
no QoS or pricing difference to 'net access depending on the endpoint.
That is, funda
On 14-12-06 04:44 AM, K. Peachey wrote:
The view at 3200x1800http://i.imgur.com/IY28Tmp.png
... yes? Your point is?
Clearly the banner was constructed to occupy the width of the window,
and it's height will be proportional to that (taking into account font
metrics).
I'm no fan of the curr
On 11/30/2014 01:12 PM, Jens Best wrote:
> First it's kind of interesting that net neutrality which is very clear in
> its definition becomes "overly simplistic and unrealistic" and "inadequate"
> the moment it collides with an organisations own interests. Isn't that
> quite an coincidence? ;)
At
On 11/30/2014 11:08 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
> I think it's difficult to argue that Wikipedia Zero is
> not, at least in the strictest sense, a violation of net neutrality.
That's perfectly true, but because the traditional definition of "net
neutrality" (and, by extension, the definition of what viol
On 10/25/2014 01:50 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> [...] that probably doesn't mean investing in Labs, exactly.
> Not if you want to have a long-term, substantive impact, in my opinion.
I'd like to address that particular recurrent canard here, if I may.
Things that reside in labs are empathically /not/
On 10/25/2014 03:38 PM, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
> (That's just me fantasizing; Parsoid people may
> have a different idea.)
Parsoid, AFAIK, represents marked up articles as very strict HTML with
Mediawiki-specific attributes - exactly what is needed to maintain a
sane and consistent machine readabl
On 10/15/2014 04:52 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> I suggest that you need a stricter definition to start with.
It's also highly disputable that the Foundation would be justified in
reducing the fiduciary care it must employ in its investment strategy
for a set of ill-defined objectives that fa
On 10/06/2014 11:29 PM, Risker wrote:
> John, please explain what your point is here. I mean really, picking on
> individual people who voted in the election?
Risked, I don't think Jay had a point beyond answering the question "Are
there many staffers who vote that wouldn't otherwise have been el
On 10/05/2014 08:24 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> I checked a few of the WMF admin staff who have been employed more
> than a year, and many dont look likely to reach the 300 threshold,
> even with wikitech and foundation wikis included.
An interesting question, I think, is /whether/ anyone fr
On 10/03/2014 06:58 PM, Michael Peel wrote:
> It’s great to see that this article has been formally reviewed, although it
> is disappointing to see how short the author list for the formal article is
> here, given how many people have actually contributed to the article over the
> years.
In the
On 10/02/2014 07:24 PM, James Heilman wrote:
> Hope these sorts of efforts will improve the reputation of Wikipedia and
> the number of contributors. I guess we will see.
Beyond this, and (IMO) even more importantly, it means that we are
succeeding at our mission where it counts. That a Wikipedia
On 09/15/2014 09:03 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> All the problems you mentioned I consider solved since about 2006 on
> it.wiki, modernise your practices.
... isn't that what Flow is trying to do?
-- Marc
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines
On 09/10/2014 01:41 PM, Diego Moya wrote:
> Take a look at this deleted topic at the test page that was deployed at
> en.wiki:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topic:S214uoczkp47cfsx
As far as I can tell, you could see it because it never /was/ deleted.
I just deleted it, can you still see it?
I
On 09/10/2014 01:25 PM, Diego Moya wrote:
> [...] that allow editors and admins to
> detect and combat vandalism and remove BLP sensible material and
> libel; features which are not available in Flow as of today.
That is simply not true, at last as of the master branch. Topics and
replies can be
On 09/10/2014 11:53 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> Making entering text on a phone a process not made entirely of pain
> will be interesting.
I don't think it's the text proper that's the issue so much as the
navigation and (often) markup that uses a great deal of punctuation that
phone interfaces were
On 09/10/2014 11:45 AM, MF-Warburg wrote:
> What do you propose to make talk pages easier to read and analyse?
That's a hard question, and I expect one where a lot of UX
experimentation will need to take place before we know.
But one thing /is/ known: it's going to be feasible iff the data is
act
On 09/08/2014 10:18 AM, Risker wrote:
> The most obvious one is automatic signing of comments, and it is
> something that we have technically been able to impose for years; sinebot
> didn't come into existence in a vacuum.
I suppose that's a philosophical divergence between us then - that
sinebot
On 09/08/2014 12:46 AM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> While it may not be everybody's dream system, talk pages are quite
> usable, as demonstrated by a lot of people using them every single
> day.
That's... not a demonstration of usability. Like many people, I found
myself using some random blunt
On 09/07/2014 01:57 AM, Diego Moya wrote:
> a major property of a document-centric architecture that is lost in a
> structured one is that it's open-ended, which means that end users can
> build new features and flows on top of it, without the need to request the
> platform developers to build supp
On 09/06/2014 01:12 PM, Todd Allen wrote:
> But dismissing them by setting up a (rather
> ridiculous) straw man is not helpful.
I *wish* it was a strawman. How else would you qualify:
"And sadly we have enough users around who try to contribute content
without having time to go through "the rite
On 09/06/2014 12:34 PM, Isarra Yos wrote:
> if the designers do not even understand the basic principles behind a
> wiki, how can what is developed possibly suit our needs?
You're starting from the presumption that, for some unexplained reason,
collaborative discussion benefits from being a wiki (
On 09/05/2014 11:12 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> On 25.08.2014 06:07, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> FLOW?
Last I checked, Flow isn't deployed except as experiments in a handful
of places, and is still in active deployment.
But you're correct that this would constitute a replace
On 09/02/2014 01:35 PM, pi zero wrote:
> (1) It's very easy to use.
> (2) it naturally promotes incremental learning.
I'm sorry, but both of those assertions are not only wrong, but
profoundly misguided.
Wikimarkup, and templates, are /relatively/ easy to use for someone who
has at least a passi
On 09/02/2014 10:35 AM, Liam Wyatt wrote:
> The key here in my opinion is:
> - clear communication about what state constitutes "success" (e.g. "When
> 80% of people who have opted in have STAYED opted-in")
> - clear communication about the progress towards that state (e.g. Showing
> the "success"
On 09/02/2014 02:52 AM, Yann Forget wrote:
> OK, I could buy that [fixing image pages]. But then why not
> fixing that *first*, so that
> any MV implementation coming afterwards would be smooth?
In the best of worlds, that would have been ideal.
Now, no doubt I'm going to be branded a cynic for t
On 09/01/2014 12:57 PM, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
> The *correct* solution is to make MV bail completely on pages it fails to
> parse, falling back to the known bad-but-sufficient behaviour, and maybe
> adding a hidden category unparsable by MV to the image, so that it can be
> addressed. If 10% of t
On 09/01/2014 11:45 AM, Todd Allen wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
> We've heard that before.
Oh, I'm pretty damn sure that the "stick to the timeline" idea isn't
going to get traction ever again. :-) But yeah in general recogni
Warning, tl;dr rant below in which live my personal opinion.
On 09/01/2014 08:00 AM, Craig Franklin wrote:
> fter the catastrophic
> aborted launch of the Visual Editor, complete with numerous bugs that
> should have been picked up in even a cursory unit testing scheme or
> regression testing sche
On 08/24/2014 11:19 PM, Pine W wrote:
> I have
> heard people say "don't force an interface change on me that I don't think
> is an improvement."
I do not recall a recent interface change deployment that wasn't
accompanied with, at the very least, some method of opting out. Did I
miss one?
-- Ma
On 08/22/2014 01:54 AM, rupert THURNER wrote:
> is the conflict not only triggered by a deliverable which was not good
> enough?
Part of the difficulty of that statement is that the very /definition/
of "good enough" will necessarily vary from individual to individual,
with a non-zero segment of e
On 08/14/2014 02:36 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> So locally-editable site JavaScript, for locally-important gadgets and
> so forth, is in fact something that's needed.
That seems reasonable, but it's less clear to me that this should be
bundled with / part of the 'editinterface' right, at least as it
On 08/13/2014 01:31 PM, Trillium Corsage wrote:
> [...] that he has affronted "the community."
I've spent no small amount of years involved in the various layers of
administrative/governance/meta aspects of the English Wikipedia and from
this I learned one lesson:
"Whenever someone says 'the comm
On 07/16/2014 07:44 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> AFAIK deletion has
> never been a vote by policy on en.wiki.
No, but it almost always devolves to a vote de facto. Interestingly
enough, that particular question (did you close discussions by counting
show of hand vs evaluating the rationales)
On 07/14/2014 01:25 PM, Fæ wrote:
> Yes, some people may get scholarships to travel to Wikimania or other
> conferences, however my understanding is that this would be limited to
> those presenting.
Scholarships are also made available to attendees, specifically to allow
those who would not otherw
On 07/14/2014 10:39 AM, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
> I still
> believe, that the success of English Wikipedia hinges on the ability of the
> community to generate content, and that that's the absolutely most
> important part of English Wikipedia - all else, including consumption by
> end users - follo
On 07/10/2014 02:41 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> Anecdotally, (a) I don't mind the new viewer (b) I know a lot of
> people who've said they love it (c) I know a few who've said they hate
> it.
That also matches my anecdotal impression, with perhaps the added
apparent correlation between (c) and "has
On 07/03/2014 02:21 PM, John wrote:
> I'm in the process of working with Dispenser to get said proposal written
> and the ball rolling. However this process will take some time
Said proposal from Dispenser/Betacommand has been posted at:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Caching
On 07/03/2014 07:03 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
> Is Reftools FOSS? Is the source code available? If so, why isn't somebody
> else just migrating it to WMFlabs, and what can be done to help that happen?
No, it is not, and Dispenser has explicitly stated that nobody was
allowed to run it.
In particula
On 07/03/2014 07:12 AM, James Salsman wrote:
> Can someone please explain to me why the Foundation can't give
> User:Dispenser 24 TB on Tool Labs?
To make matters a bit clearer, Dispenser's current Reflinks tool (and
all his others) do not need 24T of storage (nor would toolserver have
had that st
On 06/29/2014 03:19 PM, Pine W wrote:
> If you or someone else can suggest reasonable ways to reach 90% confidence
> that identity documents are genuine and that identification information
> will not be compromised while in transit or while at WMF, then I think it
> makes sense to require identific
On 06/06/2014 06:14 AM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> Regardless of the merits of the policy, which others have addressed,
> and with all due respect to Lila, her arrival has no bearing on this.
And, unless I am mistaken, adoption of the policy was an act of the
Board of Trustees who are, quite literally,
On 06/04/2014 02:36 AM, rupert THURNER wrote:
> @labs
> Could you please provide a reference why labs can be misused?
The problem with Zero-rating (all of) labs is that there is no
constraint on the actual nature of the content that is provided there.
While we /do/ have rules about what is and is
On 06/01/2014 07:13 AM, edward wrote:
> Which explains the gender bias, yes?
At least in large part; Risker explained it more eloquently than I.
There is a bias against women because the skillsets currently useful to
be able to edit wikitext (programming, heavy markup languages) are more
common in
On 05/31/2014 08:27 PM, James Salsman wrote:
> Individual editors' skill with wikitext should be independent of
> almost all of the systemic biases from which we suffer [...]
Seriously?
I have (non-CS) engineer friends that, upon hitting that edit button,
basically went "Gak! No way!"
Wikitext
On 05/29/2014 09:25 PM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
> If not, the Telcos are making a loss.
> Why?
I should expect because they expect the goodwill they earn doing so will
turn people into paying customers. Indeed, some of them have been
rather explicit in their expectation that as their customer
On 05/29/2014 08:57 PM, James Salsman wrote:
> but it was misplaced because being able to figure out wikitext
> is an excellent attribute in new editors
I think that statement fails on two aspects: for one, saying that the
enthusiasm 'was misplaced' is rather premature as VE itself is rather
incom
On 05/29/2014 05:24 PM, Jens Best wrote:
> A noble cause
> doesn't necessarily make breaking an important principle unproblematic.
In my opinion, if the definition of the principle makes the obviously
perverse conclusion that a beneficial thing like giving access to
educational resources for free
On 05/29/2014 04:55 PM, rupert THURNER wrote:
> another sad day, wikimedia foundation as the vicarious servant of the
> telecom industry on its way destroying net neutrality.
I would *really* like to hear your reasoning on this, given that there
is absolutely nothing that prevents any telco provid
On 05/29/2014 03:21 PM, Tilman Bayer wrote:
> *Airtel Offers Nigerians Free Access to Wikipedia*
Yeay! Grats Zero team for yet another victory bringing Free knowledge
to all people!
-- Marc
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.w
On 05/28/2014 08:59 AM, Fæ wrote:
> A curiosity that only manifested
> itself shortly after the public announcement of your employment by the
> Foundation board.
In all fairness, Fæ, if my spouse had been hired as the leader of a very
visible and significant business or nonprofit, I too would find
On 05/27/2014 10:18 AM, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
> From what I remember from it is that
> what is called Osteopathy in the UK isn't the same thing that's called
> Osteopathy in the US
Ah, that explains it. :-)
Regardless, "Don't diagnose yourself with Wikipedia" seems to be
infinitely good advice
On 05/27/2014 09:44 AM, Stevie Benton wrote:
> American Osteopathic Association
I'm not an expert on the latest woo-woo, but isn't Osteopathy one of the
numerous "faith-based 'medecine'"?
-- Marc
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://m
On 05/24/2014 11:26 AM, edward wrote:
> You mean "selectively quoting"? I was not aware of misquoting you. I
> used your very words.
Fair enough; I do enjoy the occasional semantic game now an then. I
could make a cogent argument how selectively quoting sentence fragments
is, necessarily, "misqu
On 05/24/2014 11:13 AM, edward wrote:
> Also this complaint
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sue_Gardner#Child_protection
> from a sitting arbitrator suggests the issue is a serious one.
There are issues indeed about who is supposed to handle what aspect of
the matter; with opinions dive
Hello again, Wil.
It's obvious that I'm not going to change your mind - nor is it my place
to do so. But there /is/ one question of you that I would be remiss to
not answer:
On 05/23/2014 11:49 PM, Wil Sinclair wrote:
> If they are exposing serious problems
> that desperately need fixing, then w
On 05/23/2014 07:06 PM, Wil Sinclair wrote:
> I participate on WO because I think every voice deserves to be heard.
I'm going to give you a serious piece of advice here as someone who has
held one of the most public position of "authority" on the English
Wikipedia (the scare quotes are quite on pu
On 04/28/2014 10:29 PM, Russavia wrote:
> because the
> WMF Executive Director's words are pretty clear, and the "movement" should
> not be putting one cent into such positions.
That's an interessing conclusion you reach, because the Executive
Director's words *are* indeed clear - as you quoted:
On 04/27/2014 10:15 PM, Risker wrote:
> WMF
> staff review the applications using a specific rubric agreed upon with the
> FDC, and post their results.
So what then is the supposed conflict in letting WMDE also review the
proposed WMF spending using a rubric agreed upon with the FDC and
posting th
On 04/21/2014 12:07 PM, Nathan wrote:
> Of the 120 staffers that don't have a "staff account", how many have
> accounts with (WMF) in the username - or accounts at all?
I honestly do not know the numbers, though I'd wager "most" is close to
reality - certainly any recent addition to the teams.
I
1 - 100 of 197 matches
Mail list logo
