No-indexing of project-space pages

[Gregory Maxwell]

On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 12:16 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
<cimonavaro@...> wrote:

> Umh, this might be a stupid question, but since I don't know any
> better, I'll ask anyway...
>
> What would be wrong with having sectioned dumps? With
> mainspace and article talk pages in one dump section, and
> Userpages, userspace subpages and user talk pages in
> in another section of the dump, and a third dump for all
> the wonderful "Wikipedia" namespace pages and their
> talk pages.
>
> That way everyone can pick and mix...

What a great idea!

(which is why it's already done that way  :)  ... Also, I don't
believe that most mirrors which actually use the dumps copy anything
but the articles though I don't have any data to back that up)

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[geni]

2008/7/30 Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@...>:
> What a great idea!
>
> (which is why it's already done that way  :)  ... Also, I don't
> believe that most mirrors which actually use the dumps copy anything
> but the articles though I don't have any data to back that up)

Depends. Some take the lot on the basis that it gives the more content
to put adds next to. And if we go noindex on all that stuff it will
stop getting whacked by the duplicate content penalty.



--
geni

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

geni wrote:

> 2008/7/30 Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@...>:
>  
>> What a great idea!
>>
>> (which is why it's already done that way  :)  ... Also, I don't
>> believe that most mirrors which actually use the dumps copy anything
>> but the articles though I don't have any data to back that up)
>>    
>
> Depends. Some take the lot on the basis that it gives the more content
> to put adds next to. And if we go noindex on all that stuff it will
> stop getting whacked by the duplicate content penalty.
>
>
>
>  

This is all very interesting.

I wonder if I am reading this correctly.

Do I understand correctly that those who do not just
download our non-mainspace (you know the real wikipedia
stuff of articles like of an encyclopaedic value), do it with
full knowledge that isn't really encyclopaedic matter, but
download it anyway?

On the gripping hand the arguments I have heard
against adjusting the licencing of the non-mainspace
pages has been on the basis of not providing free
web-hosting, so everything has to be copy-left.

Somehow I don't think that equation passes the
sniff test.

Particularly in the light of the fact that the
MediaWiki help-pages are already definitely
*not* copy-left, but decisively PD.

Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WJhonson]

Are you saying the non-article-space isn't under the license?
 
Otherwise I'm not following what you're saying.
 
Perhaps someone can link to ANY mirror at all, that is actually publishing  
the talk pages.  If there is one, I'd like to know what is it exactly with  an
exact example.
 
IF there is a mirror already publishing the talk pages, with their history  
of course, that all of these is rather moot isn't it.
 
Will Johnson



**************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for
FanHouse Fantasy Football today.      
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Gregory Maxwell]

On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
<cimonavaro@...> wrote:
[snip]
> Do I understand correctly that those who do not just
> download our non-mainspace (you know the real wikipedia
> stuff of articles like of an encyclopaedic value), do it with
> full knowledge that isn't really encyclopaedic matter, but
> download it anyway?

They have the option to download only articles. We can't guess their
understanding or motivation.  I think that they are just grabbing the
first thing that works is the more obvious theory. ;)

> On the gripping hand the arguments I have heard
> against adjusting the licencing of the non-mainspace
> pages has been on the basis of not providing free
> web-hosting, so everything has to be copy-left.
>
> Somehow I don't think that equation passes the
> sniff test.
>
> Particularly in the light of the fact that the
> MediaWiki help-pages are already definitely
> *not* copy-left, but decisively PD.

You're free to make your contributions more liberally licensed, just not less.

If you want to post information about yourself under a restrictive
license, there are lots of low to no cost web hosts that allow it. So
long as you're a contributor the projects are very permissive about
making your userpage just a link to your website, as far as I've seen.

Beyond the "avoiding free webhosting", keeping the project spaces
freely licensed contributes to keeping freely licensed content part of
the culture and superordinate goal.

In any case, if nazi-pedia is really trying to make it look like
you're a contributor there, they could do amply well without copying
your Wikipedia userpage. :)  Licensing is not the right tool to use
against fraud. It's a wrong fit.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[geni]

2008/7/30 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro@...>:

> This is all very interesting.
>
> I wonder if I am reading this correctly.
>
> Do I understand correctly that those who do not just
> download our non-mainspace (you know the real wikipedia
> stuff of articles like of an encyclopaedic value), do it with
> full knowledge that isn't really encyclopaedic matter, but
> download it anyway?
>

Probably. Wikipedia mirrors have various approaches. The bulk content
to hang ads around approach would consider non project namespace stuff
to be worth having. Others looking to run encyclopedic mirrors less
so. Still others take selected pages to pad existing content. Then
there are various sites that use wikipedia to feed Markov chain
generators or as blog posts.


--
geni

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Wily D]

http://www.realtech.co.za/realwiki.php?title=User_talk:WilyD

On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 3:45 PM,  <WJhonson@...> wrote:

> Are you saying the non-article-space isn't under the license?
>
> Otherwise I'm not following what you're saying.
>
> Perhaps someone can link to ANY mirror at all, that is actually publishing
> the talk pages.  If there is one, I'd like to know what is it exactly with  an
> exact example.
>
> IF there is a mirror already publishing the talk pages, with their history
> of course, that all of these is rather moot isn't it.
>
> Will Johnson
>
>
>
> **************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for
> FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
> (http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[David Gerard-2]

2008/7/30 Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@...>:

> In any case, if nazi-pedia is really trying to make it look like
> you're a contributor there, they could do amply well without copying
> your Wikipedia userpage. :)  Licensing is not the right tool to use
> against fraud. It's a wrong fit.


Speaking of which, I vaguely remember that en.metapedia.org used to be
a mirror/fork, but now doesn't appear to be. (Many articles appear to
be Wikipedia-originated and are labeled as such and licensed under
GFDL.) Anyone got any idea what's up with that?


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Chris Howie]

On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Wily D <wilydoppelganger@...> wrote:
> http://www.realtech.co.za/realwiki.php?title=User_talk:WilyD

And there are several others I found a while back that were mirroring
my user/usertalk pages.  I don't have the exact links handy.

--
Chris Howie
http://www.chrishowie.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crazycomputers

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Gregory Maxwell wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> <cimonavaro@...> wrote:
> [snip]
>  
>> Do I understand correctly that those who do not just
>> download our non-mainspace (you know the real wikipedia
>> stuff of articles like of an encyclopaedic value), do it with
>> full knowledge that isn't really encyclopaedic matter, but
>> download it anyway?
>>    
>
> They have the option to download only articles. We can't guess their
> understanding or motivation.  I think that they are just grabbing the
> first thing that works is the more obvious theory. ;)
>  

Who says we can't guess? And why do you follow that with
what is palpalby just your personal guess?


I don't think it follows Ochams Razor to assume that people
in search of profit would make a special exception in the case
of Wikipedia and act in a directly naîve way. That is simply asking
too much from credulity; even if I know some net-rippers-off can
be astoundingly stupid. There can be a presumption that most of
them do one or the other, but assuming they do the naïve choice
by default, is "the most ridiculous thing I ever heard".

>  
>> On the gripping hand the arguments I have heard
>> against adjusting the licencing of the non-mainspace
>> pages has been on the basis of not providing free
>> web-hosting, so everything has to be copy-left.
>>
>> Somehow I don't think that equation passes the
>> sniff test.
>>
>> Particularly in the light of the fact that the
>> MediaWiki help-pages are already definitely
>> *not* copy-left, but decisively PD.
>>    
>
> You're free to make your contributions more liberally licensed, just not less.
>
> If you want to post information about yourself under a restrictive
> license, there are lots of low to no cost web hosts that allow it. So
> long as you're a contributor the projects are very permissive about
> making your userpage just a link to your website, as far as I've seen.
>
> Beyond the "avoiding free webhosting", keeping the project spaces
> freely licensed contributes to keeping freely licensed content part of
> the culture and superordinate goal.
>  

I think you missed the part where I was asking *specifically*
about _copy-left_ and *not* "freely licenced". No biggie, easy
to miss.

Then again, maybe the situation is more nuanced, and the
question is ont really about less or more "free" but about
the precise licence, where people can even disagree about
which licence is the most "free". I certainly can consider
many "copy-left" licences to be "encumbered" in certain
specific manners, and still wrap my head around those
peoples mindset that contend that going whole-hog PD
is letting downstream users hobble the content that is
derivative later.

The fact is that choosing any specific licence as a requirement
or even choosing some minimum which has to be compatible
with the chosen licence for non "content" pages, does
constitute a restriction; though arguendo a restriction
against allowing restriction.

> In any case, if nazi-pedia is really trying to make it look like
> you're a contributor there, they could do amply well without copying
> your Wikipedia userpage. :)  Licensing is not the right tool to use
> against fraud. It's a wrong fit.

Well, of course here you are extrapolating that something
that I said a while ago, was a hidden reference in a post
that did not explicitly not reference it at all. Nicely done.

Hand on my heart, I didn't even think about the Nazipedia
thing in talking about userspace licencing this time. I in
fact didn't think about this at all in personal terms; I was
genuinely trying to explore the real licencing landscape
we have to work with, not just you and me, but all of our
contributors. Take that as you will, believe it or not.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WJhonson]

But these links are only the *current* version of the talk page.

So the fix to "libel" or whatever is simply deletion, and a new dump/load
which is essentially the exact same fix in-wiki.  So no-indexing talk would do
exactly nothing to address the supposed concern.

You would still have new libel showing up in-wiki, and depending on the
dump/load timing that would or wouldn't get saved for another day or whatever on
mirrors, and then vanish.  No indexing doesn't make it appear or go-away from
google under that scenario.  And when it appears, it doesn't make it stay longer
or shorter.

If I'm wrong, why am I wrong?

Will Johnson


**************
Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign
up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
     
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Wily D]

There is finite lag time, which in some cases I've seen be quite large
(~1 year, though I'll never find it).

The user_talk page of mine is pretty recent, though.

WilyD

On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 4:39 PM,  <WJhonson@...> wrote:

> But these links are only the *current* version of the talk page.
>
> So the fix to "libel" or whatever is simply deletion, and a new dump/load
> which is essentially the exact same fix in-wiki.  So no-indexing talk would do
> exactly nothing to address the supposed concern.
>
> You would still have new libel showing up in-wiki, and depending on the
> dump/load timing that would or wouldn't get saved for another day or whatever on
> mirrors, and then vanish.  No indexing doesn't make it appear or go-away from
> google under that scenario.  And when it appears, it doesn't make it stay longer
> or shorter.
>
> If I'm wrong, why am I wrong?
>
> Will Johnson
>
>
> **************
> Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign
> up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
>
> (http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Gregory Maxwell]

On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 4:25 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
<cimonavaro@...> wrote:

> Who says we can't guess? And why do you follow that with
> what is palpalby just your personal guess?
>
>
> I don't think it follows Ochams Razor to assume that people
> in search of profit would make a special exception in the case
> of Wikipedia and act in a directly naîve way. That is simply asking
> too much from credulity; even if I know some net-rippers-off can
> be astoundingly stupid. There can be a presumption that most of
> them do one or the other, but assuming they do the naïve choice
> by default, is "the most ridiculous thing I ever heard".

Having talked to some of the less brillant people trying to set up
mirrors I think you may be attributing too much of the outcome to
intent if you're attributing any of the outcome to intent at all. ;)

We do have quite a few recourses against mirrors who behave
unreasonably.  For example, we could hold them to the strict letter of
their licensing requirements, so frequently followed sloppily.

It would probably be helpful if we more explicitly discouraged mirror
sites from copying the user-pages. I think the download page currently
says "you probably don't want this one" but we don't really ask them
not to.   I think we'd rather make it clear what we do and don't want
before we can decide that someone is probably being malevolent.

>> You're free to make your contributions more liberally licensed, just not less.
>>
>> If you want to post information about yourself under a restrictive
>> license, there are lots of low to no cost web hosts that allow it. So
>> long as you're a contributor the projects are very permissive about
>> making your userpage just a link to your website, as far as I've seen.
>>
>> Beyond the "avoiding free webhosting", keeping the project spaces
>> freely licensed contributes to keeping freely licensed content part of
>> the culture and superordinate goal.
>>
>
> I think you missed the part where I was asking *specifically*
> about _copy-left_ and *not* "freely licenced". No biggie, easy
> to miss.

I very much did notice you said specifically copyleft... which
resulted in the very first sentence. "You're free to make your
contributions more liberally licensed, just not less."  If you want to
say your userpage is also available as public domain you're welcome to
do so.

So the actual requirement is that you must offer your userpage
contributions under the GFDL but you can also publish those
contributions under any number of additional licenses.

So you're perfectly free to moot the copyleft on your own stuff by
offering non-copyleft free license terms... which is why I took your
commentary to be free licensing vs not, rather than say much about
copyleft.

[snip]
> The fact is that choosing any specific licence as a requirement
> or even choosing some minimum which has to be compatible
> with the chosen licence for non "content" pages, does
> constitute a restriction; though arguendo a restriction
> against allowing restriction.

Sure, it's a restriction that you must at least offer a particular
license over your userpages. But its a restriction which improves
consistency, discourages particular kinds of wasteful discussion
(zomg, you can't copy from my user page! yours is incompatibly
licensed!), and which generally removes a flexibility which has little
relevance to our mission. (though perhaps more relevance to someone
looking for a free webhost! :) )

>> In any case, if nazi-pedia is really trying to make it look like
>> you're a contributor there, they could do amply well without copying
>> your Wikipedia userpage. :)  Licensing is not the right tool to use
>> against fraud. It's a wrong fit.
>
> Well, of course here you are extrapolating that something
> that I said a while ago, was a hidden reference in a post
> that did not explicitly not reference it at all. Nicely done.

Communication accomplished well results in an understand of both the
direct and the implied.  ....  But here I was just guessing since I
wasn't quite sure where you were going.

> Hand on my heart, I didn't even think about the Nazipedia
> thing in talking about userspace licencing this time. I in
> fact didn't think about this at all in personal terms; I was
> genuinely trying to explore the real licencing landscape
> we have to work with, not just you and me, but all of our
> contributors. Take that as you will, believe it or not.

Gladly.  .. and in any case.. The concern that Nazipedia can copy our
userpages in a way that makes our contributors look like
nazipedia-supporters is a valid concern... it's just not not one which
I think we can or should address with licensing.  Sorry for jumping
ahead of you incorrectly.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WJhonson]

The thing is, once there's is a dump/load no matter what the timing is, that
"libel" or BLP-concern or whatever now lives until that mirror decides to do
another load, and of-course provided that the offending material has been since
stricken from our world.

This whole issue seems like : a tempest in a teapot, a search for a needle in
a haystack and also an attempt to drain a well with an eyedropper, as well as
an attack against a windmill with a sword and chasing a gnat with a bazooka.

I made that last one up :)

Will Johnson


**************
Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign
up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
     
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Gregory Maxwell]

On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Chris Howie <cdhowie@...> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Wily D <wilydoppelganger@...> wrote:
>> http://www.realtech.co.za/realwiki.php?title=User_talk:WilyD
>
> And there are several others I found a while back that were mirroring
> my user/usertalk pages.  I don't have the exact links handy.

Thats a live mirror, not someone working from a dump.
[http://www.realtech.co.za/realwiki.php?title=Special:Recentchanges]

Live mirrors are forbidden... but I think almost all of the bad
behaving mirror sites that I've seen are live mirrors.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WJhonson]

In a message dated 7/30/2008 1:54:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
gmaxwell@... writes:


> I think we'd rather make it clear what we do and don't want
> before we can decide that someone is probably being malevolent.>>
>

So under the license we are now going to say, "we won't stop you from copying
this page, but if you do we'll punish you for it."

Uh.... I see a problem with this approach.

Will Johnson


**************
Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign
up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
     
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WJhonson]

In a message dated 7/30/2008 1:58:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
gmaxwell@... writes:


> Live mirrors are forbidden... but I think almost all of the bad
> behaving mirror sites that I've seen are live mirrors.>>
>

Fact ?
That live mirrors are forbidden?


**************
Get fantasy football with free
live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today.
     
(http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020)
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Gregory Maxwell]

On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 4:58 PM,  <WJhonson@...> wrote:
> In a message dated 7/30/2008 1:54:35 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> gmaxwell@... writes:
>> I think we'd rather make it clear what we do and don't want
>> before we can decide that someone is probably being malevolent.>>
> So under the license we are now going to say, "we won't stop you from copying
> this page, but if you do we'll punish you for it."
>
> Uh.... I see a problem with this approach.

I don't.

"All content here is freely available under the terms of the GNU Free
Documentation license [...]  However it can be confusing to the public
and irritating to our users if you set up duplicate copies of portion
of these dumps designated as "user pages" on publicly available
websites. Irritated users may criticize your activities as unethical
if not technically forbidden due to the confusion, and may scrutinize
your business activities to a much greater degree than they would
otherwise. Especially careless use of Wikipedia "user pages" may
result in your site fraudulently misrepresenting itself as being
explicitly endorsed by one or more Wikipedia contributor, potentially
opening you to litigation since no such endorsement is conveyed by
Wikipedia's free content licensing.  As such, if you are simply
interested in making an online mirror we recommend that you only use
[fileX] and leave [fileY] to people producing backups, historical
archives, private mirrors, or performing research."


On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 5:00 PM,  <WJhonson@...> wrote:
> In a message dated 7/30/2008 1:58:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> gmaxwell@... writes:
>> Live mirrors are forbidden... but I think almost all of the bad
>> behaving mirror sites that I've seen are live mirrors.>>
> Fact ?
> That live mirrors are forbidden?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks#Remote_loading

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[David Gerard-2]

2008/7/30  <WJhonson@...>:
> In a message dated 7/30/2008 1:58:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> gmaxwell@... writes:

>> Live mirrors are forbidden... but I think almost all of the bad
>> behaving mirror sites that I've seen are live mirrors.>>

> Fact ?
> That live mirrors are forbidden?


Yup. They're blocked with an article header that looks like [[Leech
(computing)]] and an explanatory message.


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

David Gerard wrote:

> 2008/7/30  <WJhonson@...>:
>  
>> In a message dated 7/30/2008 1:58:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>> gmaxwell@... writes:
>>    
>
>  
>>> Live mirrors are forbidden... but I think almost all of the bad
>>> behaving mirror sites that I've seen are live mirrors.>>
>>>      
>
>  
>> Fact ?
>> That live mirrors are forbidden?
>>    
>
>
> Yup. They're blocked with an article header that looks like [[Leech
> (computing)]] and an explanatory message.
>
>
> - d.
>  

Though to be clear, this because of the load it causes,
not because of any metaphysical reason it would be
forbidden to be as up to date as wikipedia itself is
(and party to all the good and evil that entails), as far
as content is involved. Us being a "live" site rather
than one where content is "published" after a central
editorial process, is one of the cornerstones that
allows us to operate. Or has at least been. We will
duly enter uncharted waters, once we progressively
tighten the definition of what us being a "live" site
means...


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen.





_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l