On 8/28/2012 10:44 AM, Wyatt Lucas wrote:
> On an unrelated note, could you possibly not use that signature in emails to the mailing list? It's tantamount to advertising.
And your sig isn't? :)
> Sent from my iPhone.
As a new user of the Wikipedia it would be my humble request for you to link me up with my long lost friend, mentor and high school teacher who taught me together with his wife Sue green while they were here in Kenya on the world teach program
Please help me out to get in touch with this couple as there is some very important information that i would wish to share with them
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Robert Cummings <cummings(a)olemiss.edu>
Date: Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:56 PM
Subject: Fwd: [Ambassadors US] Proposal to enable the Education
To: teaching-with-wikipedia <teaching-with-wikipedia(a)listserv.olemiss.edu>
Hi Wikipedia Teachers:
Sorry if this is a cross post for you.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sage Ross <sross(a)wikimedia.org>
Date: Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:24 AM
Subject: [Ambassadors US] Proposal to enable the Education Program extension
To: Wikipedia Ambassadors <wikipedia-ambassadors(a)googlegroups.com>
A request for comment on whether to enable the Education Program
extension, for use in the US and Canada Education Programs and
(optionally) independent classes as well is live:
Feel free to voice your opinion on how the new automatic course page
features should be used.
User:Sage Ross (WMF)
Dr. Robert E. Cummings
Director, Center for Writing and Rhetoric
University of Mississippi
PO Box 1848
University, MS 38677-1848
Lazy Virtues: http://www.vanderbiltuniversitypress.com/books/156/lazy-virtues
Wiki Writing: http://www.digitalculture.org/books/wiki-writing
I've been told (and have verified) that the French Wikipedia indeed does
without categories to mark people as Jewish, LGBT, etc.
I actually quite like that approach.
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 7:53 PM, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > The question at issue is whether French Wikimedians might be individually
> > liable for violating French law if they add such categories in Wikipedia.
> Seems possible.
> Fortunately, Wikipedia offers both https and the ability to contribute
> anonymously, for those who are worried about this sort of thing.
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
"Under the French penal code, stocking personal details including race,
sexuality, political leanings or religious affiliation is punishable by
five-year prison sentences and fines of up to euro300,000 ($411,000)."
Doesn't this technically make the French Wikipedia illegal? I don't
really understand this law's nuances, so I'm wondering if someone with
more knowledge could elaborate.
So, I had a look at articles for creation today, and there was nearly 1,000 pending article submissions. Articles for creation has changed a lot since 2008 - it was of a similar structure to XFD - all submissions for a particular day were on one page, and people could come along and approve or reject based in certain criteria.
I think that system worked well. True, we have a lot more article creations, but I think it gave more visibility than the current system where everything is subpaged.
Some may think that the bar at AFC is set too high but this high bar discourages new users, especially when their submissions stay unreviewed for weeks at a time. And since editor retention is something we are trying to focus on, it seems a worthy project since many new users have their first experiences in AFC. The lack of volunteers in wikiprojects like AFC is not a new thing, so it's not that volunteers have reduced. I think we need to consider if AFC is something we still want to have, and if so, how can we improve it?
Making the blog-rounds, there was a Utah court case that includes
surprisingly lengthy (and generally positive) discussion on whether and
when to cite Wikipedia in court decisions:
See footnote 1 (page 5) in the majority opinion, and a separate
concurring opinion filed by another judge solely on the
Wikipedia-citation question (starts on the bottom of page 7). My
favorite part is where they cite the Wikipedia article "Reliability of
Wikipedia" as part of the analysis.
Embarrassingly, the article of ours they cite, [[Jet Ski]], is actually
in a sort of sorry state. But they seem to do so only for the relatively
mundane usage note in the opening paragraph, which explains that "Jet
Ski" is a trademark, but is often used imprecisely, in colloquial usage,
to refer to other similar devices not manufactured by Kawasaki. I guess
the OED doesn't have a note on that yet? Or maybe they don't have OED
subscriptions over at the court? Alternately, maybe they just liked the
way we worded the explanation and wanted to quote it rather than
re-explaining the same thing in their own words.