On 12/13/2010 7:00 AM, foundation-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
> Send foundation-l mailing list submissions to
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> foundation-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> foundation-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of foundation-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material (Fred Bauder)
> 2. Re: Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material (Tracy Poff)
> 3. Re: Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material (David Levy)
> 4. Re: Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material (David Gerard)
> 5. Re: Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material (Fred Bauder)
> 6. Re: Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material (The Cunctator)
> 7. Re: Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material (Fred Bauder)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:25:37 -0700 (MST)
> From: "Fred Bauder"<fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks
> material
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <59185.66.243.193.108.1292185537.squirrel(a)webmail.fairpoint.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>
>> On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 5:49 PM, David Gerard<dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, raw data is a primary source and therefore likely unsuitable for
>>> en:wp.
>>>
>>> The raw data is, however, US government public domain and therefore
>>> suitable for Wikisource as an important historical text (which it is).
>>> Possibly when the whole collection has been released and there is
>>> context to give. Particularly notable cables might be worth curating
>>> for their importance.
>> I'm not so sure about that. These materials are coming from the US
>> government, but they have not been published by the US government. It
>> depends on the exact text of the law, but I do think it's likely that
>> the government PD is about material both created and published by the
>> government rather than just created. Even if not, there might still be
>> a restriction that it only holds for work that has been legally
>> published.
>>
>> --
>> Andr?? Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com
> The information is classified; republishing it is a crime in the United
> States; Wikipedia is hosted in the United States. We would not be alone,
> but could be made an example of. Not likely, but not something to waste
> limited resources on, IMO. What does our republication or link to the
> material add in terms of information for the reader, other than ready
> access to primary data?
>
> In contrast to WikiLeaks, neither our principals nor our corporation is
> anonymous. The barn door is open; the secrets are running wild in the
> world; should we catch them and put them in our pasture? Solidarity? Duty
> to the truth? Do the right thing? Viva la Revolution!?
>
> Fred
>
> User:Fred Bauder
>
>
>
>
Republishing classified material that is already leaked is NOT a crime.
That would mean the NYT, LA Times etc would all be criminals for
publishing classified material, in which they do reports on. Wikileaks
did NOT leak the cables. The soldier who obtained them leaked the
material via Wikileaks who then published them.
Jason Safoutin (en.wikinews)
In a message dated 12/10/2010 12:08:37 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jayen466(a)yahoo.com writes:
> Suggest you read the draft policy, rather than the votes.
>
You're suggesting that all the no votes are simply trolls then?
That's a lot of no votes to just cast them off as people who didn't read
the draft, isn't it?
What?
Yours sincerely Princess Rebecca
-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Sender: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 17:27:52
To: <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Reply-To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: foundation-l Digest, Vol 81, Issue 37
Send foundation-l mailing list submissions to
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
foundation-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
foundation-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of foundation-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content (Andreas Kolbe)
2. Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material (Andreas Kolbe)
3. Re: Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material (Fred Bauder)
4. Re: Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material (David Gerard)
5. Re: Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material (Andreas Kolbe)
6. Re: Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material (David Moran)
7. Re: Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material
(Cool Hand Luke)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:39:04 +0000 (GMT)
From: Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial
Content
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
<foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID: <833994.88374.qm(a)web29608.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> People don't read they react.
Here is a real-life example. I asked a German mate of mine why he had
opposed the policy, with the following oppose rationale:
"Oppose No need to go beyond existing legal obligations, just follow the
laws that apply." (Oppose 114)
When I asked him in which way he thought the policy went beyond obscenity
and privacy law, his reply was that he hadn't bothered to read it:
http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer_Diskussion:Fossa&action=…
"I have no idea what's in the policy, but the most liberal policy
feasible is a policy that adheres to the laws that apply. If, say, the
servers are located in Guinea, they should adhere to Guniean law, if they
are located in Tulsa, US/Oklahoma law applies. No need for redundancies
here."
What the policy tried to do was make editors aware of existing laws, incl.
privacy, because at the moment, if you nominate a blow-job or similar
picture imported a few weeks ago from a "no longer active" Flickr account,
it is as likely as not that three people will turn up for the deletion
discussion.
One says, "You can't see all of her face." Another says, "It's in use in
a project, so we can't delete it". Another says the nominator is a prude,
and a fourth says, "It has educational value."
As Scott said, it's a chat-show phone-in.
Andreas
--- On Sat, 11/12/10, ???? <wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> From: ???? <wiki-list(a)phizz.demon.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] 2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Saturday, 11 December, 2010, 8:57
> On 10/12/2010 20:37, WJhonson(a)aol.com
> wrote:
> > In a message dated 12/10/2010 12:08:37 PM Pacific
> Standard Time,
> > jayen466(a)yahoo.com
> writes:
> >
> >
> >> Suggest you read the draft policy, rather than the
> votes.
> >>
> >
> > You're suggesting that all the no votes are simply
> trolls then?
> > That's a lot of no votes to just cast them off as
> people who didn't read
> > the draft, isn't it?
>
>
> People don't read they react. In the UK a couple of years
> ago there was
> a petition that gathered 50,000 signatures against a
> proposal to ban all
> photography in public spaces. As a point of fact there was
> no such
> proposal.
>
> This received over 10,000 responses and a huge number of
> point ny point
> rebuttals despite the fact that it is obviously a joke
> based around the
> Brady Bunch.
> http://www.adequacy.org/public/stories/2001.12.2.42056.2147.html
>
> As the respondents to the above were pretty much the same
> constituents
> as wikipedians (young, male, technically savvy) why would
> any one think
> that exactly the same thing isn't going on with those
> currently voting?
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:59:30 +0000 (GMT)
From: Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)yahoo.com>
Subject: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
<foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID: <271444.65772.qm(a)web29618.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
This might need some eyes and attention:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=401953034#Creation_of_articles_from_leaked_classified_documents
It concerns Wikipedia articles reproducing the content of the recent
Wikileaks releases, notably
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Critical_Foreign_Dependencie…
Andreas
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 09:20:59 -0700 (MST)
From: "Fred Bauder" <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks
material
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
<foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID:
<58152.66.243.193.108.1292170859.squirrel(a)webmail.fairpoint.net>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
We might suppress a leak made directly into Wikipedia, for example
information about a troop movement, but once something has been published
on a thousand mirrors there is little point. I don't think links on
Wikipedia to documents which remain classified is a good idea. The
disclosed primary documents will come under intense analysis in reliable
sources; those analyses are notable and properly included in Wikipedia
despite their source in classified primary documents. Copying a list of
potential military targets from a classified document would seem out of
bounds unless a source generally considered reliable has widely
distributed the list.
Fred
User:Fred Bauder
> This might need some eyes and attention:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=401953034#Creation_of_articles_from_leaked_classified_documents
>
> It concerns Wikipedia articles reproducing the content of the recent
> Wikileaks releases, notably
>
> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Critical_Foreign_Dependencie…
>
> Andreas
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 16:49:06 +0000
From: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks
material
To: fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net, Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
<foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID:
<AANLkTinTde9-KK7hESJ8v1hrrMwQumb+9rGYOtykENO_(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On 12 December 2010 16:20, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote:
> We might suppress a leak made directly into Wikipedia, for example
> information about a troop movement, but once something has been published
> on a thousand mirrors there is little point. I don't think links on
> Wikipedia to documents which remain classified is a good idea. The
> disclosed primary documents will come under intense analysis in reliable
> sources; those analyses are notable and properly included in Wikipedia
> despite their source in classified primary documents. Copying a list of
> potential military targets from a classified document would seem out of
> bounds unless a source generally considered reliable has widely
> distributed the list.
Yes, raw data is a primary source and therefore likely unsuitable for en:wp.
The raw data is, however, US government public domain and therefore
suitable for Wikisource as an important historical text (which it is).
Possibly when the whole collection has been released and there is
context to give. Particularly notable cables might be worth curating
for their importance.
(Note that although impact in the US of the actual information is
minimal, it's proving interesting in countries outside the US as
people discover what their elected leaders have actually been up to.
So there will in fact be individual documents that will be noteworthy
in themselves.)
- d.
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 17:09:09 +0000 (GMT)
From: Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks
material
To: fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net, Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
<foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID: <610484.82397.qm(a)web29617.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Fred,
I agree. However, any [[WP:UNDUE]] argument of the kind you are making,
> Copying a list of potential military targets from a classified document
> would seem out of bounds unless a source generally considered reliable
> has widely distributed the list.
will not win the day. See the section "laughs maniacally" on the article's
talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Critical_Foreign_Dependencies_Initiative#…
The editor "laughs maniacally" because they have found *one source*, i.e.
this news/blog site
http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-critical-foreign-dependencies-2010…
that reproduces the Wikileaks list in full. Thereby, the reasoning goes,
it has been published by a secondary source, justifying its inclusion in
the article. Once included with a secondary source, it can and will
thereafter be defended under [[WP:NOTCENSORED]].
This is a situation that occurs frequently. There may be 450 reputable news
outlets that have taken an editorial decision not to publish something, for
valid reasons, vs. one that has published it. Per [[WP:NOTCENSORED]],
editors get to go with the one source that has. By and large, we have
sacrificed editorial judgment, and the NPOV idea that we should reflect the
editorial judgment of our best sources, to [[WP:NOTCENSORED]]. This applies
to articles of this sort as much as it does to the way we illustrate
articles on sexuality and pornography.
Andreas
--- On Sun, 12/12/10, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote:
> From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks material
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Sunday, 12 December, 2010, 16:20
> We might suppress a leak made
> directly into Wikipedia, for example
> information about a troop movement, but once something has
> been published
> on a thousand mirrors there is little point. I don't think
> links on
> Wikipedia to documents which remain classified is a good
> idea. The
> disclosed primary documents will come under intense
> analysis in reliable
> sources; those analyses are notable and properly included
> in Wikipedia
> despite their source in classified primary documents.
> Copying a list of
> potential military targets from a classified document would
> seem out of
> bounds unless a source generally considered reliable has
> widely
> distributed the list.
>
> Fred
>
> User:Fred Bauder
>
> > This might need some eyes and attention:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=401953034#Creation_of_articles_from_leaked_classified_documents
> >
> > It concerns Wikipedia articles reproducing the content
> of the recent
> > Wikileaks releases, notably
> >
> > https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Critical_Foreign_Dependencie…
> >
> > Andreas
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:17:06 -0500
From: David Moran <fordmadoxfraud(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks
material
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
<foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID:
<AANLkTikHJj8rm1QqeEAu1FLZCz=SekgnqUL2zEcLPe57(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Taking the nonexistence of an article on a particular subject as positive
evidence of an editorial judgment by our "best sources" is an unsupportable
argument. Wikipedia is not here to index articles published in the NYT and
Washington Post. A reputable secondary source is a reputable secondary
source is a reputable secondary source.
FMF
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Fred,
>
> I agree. However, any [[WP:UNDUE]] argument of the kind you are making,
>
> > Copying a list of potential military targets from a classified document
> > would seem out of bounds unless a source generally considered reliable
> > has widely distributed the list.
>
> will not win the day. See the section "laughs maniacally" on the article's
> talk page:
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Critical_Foreign_Dependencies_Initiative#…
>
> The editor "laughs maniacally" because they have found *one source*, i.e.
> this news/blog site
>
>
> http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-critical-foreign-dependencies-2010…
>
> that reproduces the Wikileaks list in full. Thereby, the reasoning goes,
> it has been published by a secondary source, justifying its inclusion in
> the article. Once included with a secondary source, it can and will
> thereafter be defended under [[WP:NOTCENSORED]].
>
> This is a situation that occurs frequently. There may be 450 reputable news
> outlets that have taken an editorial decision not to publish something, for
> valid reasons, vs. one that has published it. Per [[WP:NOTCENSORED]],
> editors get to go with the one source that has. By and large, we have
> sacrificed editorial judgment, and the NPOV idea that we should reflect the
> editorial judgment of our best sources, to [[WP:NOTCENSORED]]. This applies
> to articles of this sort as much as it does to the way we illustrate
> articles on sexuality and pornography.
>
> Andreas
>
> --- On Sun, 12/12/10, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote:
>
> > From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net>
> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks
> material
> > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Date: Sunday, 12 December, 2010, 16:20
> > We might suppress a leak made
> > directly into Wikipedia, for example
> > information about a troop movement, but once something has
> > been published
> > on a thousand mirrors there is little point. I don't think
> > links on
> > Wikipedia to documents which remain classified is a good
> > idea. The
> > disclosed primary documents will come under intense
> > analysis in reliable
> > sources; those analyses are notable and properly included
> > in Wikipedia
> > despite their source in classified primary documents.
> > Copying a list of
> > potential military targets from a classified document would
> > seem out of
> > bounds unless a source generally considered reliable has
> > widely
> > distributed the list.
> >
> > Fred
> >
> > User:Fred Bauder
> >
> > > This might need some eyes and attention:
> > >
> > >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=401953034#Creation_of_articles_from_leaked_classified_documents<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notic…>
> > >
> > > It concerns Wikipedia articles reproducing the content
> > of the recent
> > > Wikileaks releases, notably
> > >
> > >
> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Critical_Foreign_Dependencie…
> > >
> > > Andreas
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 12:27:49 -0500
From: Cool Hand Luke <User.CoolHandLuke(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia articles based on Wikileaks
material
To: fredbaud <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net>, Wikimedia Foundation Mailing
List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID:
<AANLkTim4q8R4dufu0u6=cbFGLAugWqJS7jo+4NW81_hQ(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Exactly right. Using the documents themselves prior to secondary analysis
is a WP:PSTS problem in the first place. Once secondary sources have
analyzed them, the sourcing problem will be resolved, and any secrecy
concern will be even more moot than it is already.
Frank
On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net>wrote:
> We might suppress a leak made directly into Wikipedia, for example
> information about a troop movement, but once something has been published
> on a thousand mirrors there is little point. I don't think links on
> Wikipedia to documents which remain classified is a good idea. The
> disclosed primary documents will come under intense analysis in reliable
> sources; those analyses are notable and properly included in Wikipedia
> despite their source in classified primary documents. Copying a list of
> potential military targets from a classified document would seem out of
> bounds unless a source generally considered reliable has widely
> distributed the list.
>
> Fred
>
> User:Fred Bauder
>
> > This might need some eyes and attention:
> >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=401953034#Creation_of_articles_from_leaked_classified_documents<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_notic…>
> >
> > It concerns Wikipedia articles reproducing the content of the recent
> > Wikileaks releases, notably
> >
> >
> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Critical_Foreign_Dependencie…
> >
> > Andreas
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
End of foundation-l Digest, Vol 81, Issue 37
********************************************
Hi.
This morning the Wikimedia Foundation had a meeting about migrating to
Google Apps. Google Apps is a Web-based closed source office suite that
includes Gmail and a few other services.[1]
I had a few questions about this migration.
Has the decision to use Google Apps been finalized? If so, who made the
final decision?
What are the benefits of using Google Apps for the Wikimedia Foundation?
Is there a concern about using closed source software when there are
comparable open source alternatives?
Is there a concern that this will bring Google and the Wikimedia Foundation
closer together? After a $2 million grant, I imagine some people looking in
from the outside have their concerns about a takeover.
Are there concerns about Google's privacy practices? It doesn't seem
particularly wise to hand them all of your e-mail, especially if they
possibly have a business interest.
Any clarifications on this would be great!
MZMcBride
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Apps
The following is an important point by Fajro:
>
> Google has links to their other sites in the top of every poge:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/fajro/5249799850/in/set-72157625445178785/
> Wikipedia "sister proyects" are also relegated to the bottom of the page.
>
>
The idea of a navigation bar to the other projects was floated in the
mailing list post by Erik Moeller mentioned earlier as well.[1]
Say the projects were all renamed. Great. What's changed? Only the name
on each page and likely the logo in the upper left. Will the smaller
projects magically get more readers and editors and Google page rank? No.
We know Wikipedia is huge and gets all the attention from the Foundation and
the appeals from *Wikipedia* "authors" showing up on all the sister projects
just reinforce that. But as long as links to related content at sister
projects are relegated to the bottom of articles per the Wikipedia Manual of
Style and the suggested navigation links to sister projects go
unimplemented, nothing will change, regardless of what you want to call the
projects.
[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-May/029991.html
-- Adrignola
I suggest that use of Paypal is contraindicated due to their deliberate
efforts to inhibit the spread of information by closing their account with
Wikileaks. It is inappropriate for Wiki to be associated with Paypal or
Amazon.com. These corporations are the opposite of what Wikipedia and
associated entities hope to be or currently are. Closing the account with
Paypal will also send a message to Amazon that there are consequences to
efforts to censor the knowledge base of humanity.
Thanks for reading this. I hope to see debate and action on this proposal.
Robert T.
In a message dated 12/10/2010 2:58:08 PM Pacific Standard Time,
jamesmikedupont(a)googlemail.com writes:
> my idea was that you will want to search pages that are referenced by
> wikipedia already, in my work on kosovo, it would be very helpful
> because there are lots of bad results on google, and it would be nice
> to use that also to see how many times certain names occur.
> That is why we need also our own indexing engine, I would like to
> count the occurances of each term and what page they occur on, and to
> xref that to names on wikipedia against them. Wanted pages could also
> be assisted like this, what are the most wanted pages that match
> against the most common terms in the new refindex or also existing
> pages.
>
Well then all you would need to do is cross-reference the refs themselves.
You don't need to cache the underlying pages to which they refer.
So in your new search engine, when you search for "Mary, Queen of Scots"
you really are saying, show me those external references, which are mentioned,
in connection with Mary Queen of Scots, by Wikipedia.
That doesn't require caching the pages to which refs refer. It only
requires indexing those refs which currently are used in-world.
W
I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.
You're Invited to Gmail!
Mono mium has invited you to open a Gmail account.
Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:
*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.
*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.
*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Mono mium and other friends in real time.
*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.
You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.
Once you create your account, Mono mium will be notified of your new Gmail
address so you can stay in touch. Learn
more<http://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.html>or get
started<http://mail.google.com/mail/a-44b55d248-6490e4a0c3-uWx-ymkQFhc5HFB_O-REHWVz…>
!
Sign up<http://mail.google.com/mail/a-44b55d248-6490e4a0c3-uWx-ymkQFhc5HFB_O-REHWVz…>
Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043
In a message dated 12/10/2010 6:52:05 AM Pacific Standard Time,
zvandijk(a)googlemail.com writes:
> It is difficult to say how many people refuse to donate to Wikimedia
> because they want to donate to Wikipedia. People should know that you
> can't donate to a website itself but only to the institution behind
> it. You also can't sue "Ebay the website", only "Ebay the company". >>
>
However like all fund-accounting, you can donate to a fund set-aside
exclusively for items related to WikiPedia, and not for any other WikiMedia
activity.
I would be very surprised if a non-profit were not using fund accounting as
their accounting system.
W
The "controversial content" study by Robert Harris and Dory Carr-Harris was
completed a few weeks ago.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2010_Wikimedia_Study_of_Controversial_Content
What is the board's view of the recommendations that resulted from the study?
Are there any ongoing deliberations whether or not to put some of them into
practice?
A.