In a message dated 3/25/2009 3:02:52 PM Pacific Standard Time,
geniice(a)gmail.com writes:
>
> Err no we are looking to create an encyclopedia. Government
> surveillance is a separate issue.
>>
You are assuming that "we" means the project.
I used "we" to mean "all right thinking people".
Will
**************
Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or
less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)
2009/3/25 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7962912.stm
> "The Guardian said the draft review requires primary school children
> to be familiar with blogging, podcasts, Wikipedia and Twitter as
> sources of information and forms of communication."
> It looks like there may be a little more demand for my proposal for
> WMUK to go into schools...
Now on the Slashdot firehose:
http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=3905743 Hey, I voted for it
...
- d.
Enquoted text can mean (in my book):
1. You are quoting verbatim some source; or
2. You are using an expression tongue-in-cheek or with implied sarcasm,
hostility or a questioning stance (i.e. John and Pat are "good friends"; Mr Smith
is in his "private compartment"; I appreciate your "delightful" conversation)
Will Johnson
p.s. Sometimes I have use "*" for this purpose and I've seen other's do it
as well. It's much easier than trying to underline or bold some phrase.
**************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or
less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)
The problem with extending the use of square brackets to cover sarcasm,
tongue-in-cheek and incredulity is that square brackets traditionally mean "this
context is being added and was not previously present in the quoted text".
I.E. The Prime Minister stated, "Yesterday Mrs [George] Jones went to
Hampshire." The editor of the top-most source is inserting "George" not to convey
emotional meaning, but merely to convey contextual meaning within a quoted
phrase.
Also, I believe the use of quotes to cover the cases I mentioned is already
present in materials.
In a message dated 3/24/2009 8:18:44 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
brewhaha(a)freenet.edmonton.ab.ca writes:
I think square
brackets work better for your second case, because newspapers use them to
correct grammar and insert context
**************Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or
less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)
In a message dated 3/25/2009 1:34:36 PM Pacific Standard Time,
thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com writes:
> I don't think the IWF will make that mistake again. I never thought
> I'd see so many people being so outspokenly against a charity
> dedicated to fighting child pornography!>>
This is what you said, which misses the point.
People weren't against them because they are dedicated to fighting child
pornography, so this is a straw man position.
People were against them because they operate censorship inside a black box.
Quite a different situation. And why people were so vehement in their
condemnation.
Will
**************
Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or
less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)
In a message dated 3/25/2009 3:09:46 PM Pacific Standard Time,
nadezhda.durova(a)gmail.com writes:
> How's Wikipedia's coverage of history, compared to the average British
> school textbook?>>
It's certainly more in-depth in certain areas. What modern textbook will
mention three children of Henry IV who died as children? Also it tends to make
research easily as it links related topics to each other so you can smoothly
jump forward through relevant or even tangential articles and then back to where
you started.
**************
Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or
less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)
In a message dated 3/25/2009 2:59:55 PM Pacific Standard Time,
thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com writes:
> What I meant was that one would
> expect people to be thoroughly in support of a charity dedicated to
> fighting child pornography so the fact that there was such outspoken
> criticism shows how big a mistake blocking Wikipedia was.
>>
But by saying it in this fashion you are mixing two arguments into one.
People *are* thoroughly in support of them.
But people *are also* thoroughly against unjust censorship.
It wasn't because they blocked Wikipedia. It was because they excercised
utterly outrageous censorship powers.
And to this day, they really haven't learned anything except not to block
Wikipedia. They will most likely happily block other sites, without recourse,
without openness, and without any attempt at fairness. Wikipedia just happens
to have people monitoring it who can *do* something about these actions. Not
every site owner does.
**************
Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or
less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)
In a message dated 3/25/2009 1:34:36 PM Pacific Standard Time,
thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com writes:
> I don't think the IWF will make that mistake again. I never thought
> I'd see so many people being so outspokenly against a charity
> dedicated to fighting child pornography!>>
That response misses the point.
This "Charity" operates as a black box, not only censoring but refusing to
acknowledge that their acts are hidden, unknowable and possibly arbitrary.
We need this level of censorship? No. What this "charity" should do, is
operate in an open manner with appropriate levels of communication with the
public it claims to be serving.
Big brother is not what we crave. It's what we seek to destroy. It's what
we should all seek to destroy. This charity needs to step forward, apologize
for their indecency and change their method of operation.
Will Johnson
**************
Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or
less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)
In a message dated 3/25/2009 1:59:45 PM Pacific Standard Time,
thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com writes:
> No, I didn't miss the point. The point is that IWF will not block
> access to Wikipedia again, >>
>
>
You were defending an organization that operates censorship police in a
closed manner. That is not defensible.
Will Johnson
**************
Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or
less. (http://food.aol.com/frugal-feasts?ncid=emlcntusfood00000001)
After a few weeks of bug fixes, we've caught up with MediaWiki
development code review and I'm pushing out an update to the live sites.
This fixes a lot of little bugs, and hopefully doesn't cause introduce
too many new ones. :)
* Change logs: http://ur1.ca/2rah (r47458 to r48811)
As usual in addition to lots of offline and individual testing among our
staff and volunteer developers, we've done a shakedown on
http://test.wikipedia.org/ -- and as usual we can fully expect a few
more issues to have cropped up that weren't already found.
Don't be alarmed if you do find a problem; just let us know at
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/ or on the tech IRC channels
(#wikimedia-tech on Freenode).
We should be resuming our weekly update schedule soon -- I won't be
doing a mega-crosspost like this every week! -- and will continue to
improve our pre-update staging and shakedown testing to keep disruption
to a minimum and awesome improvements to a maximum.
I'd also like to announce that we've started a blog for Wikimedia tech
activity & MediaWiki development, in part because I want to make sure
community members can easily follow what we're working on and give
feedback before we push things out:
* http://techblog.wikimedia.org/
I'd very much like to make sure that we've got regular contacts among
the various project communities who can help coordinate with us on
features, bugs, and general thoughts which might affect some projects
distinctly from others.
-- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)
CTO, Wikimedia Foundation
San Francisco