2012/11/22
2012/11/18
2012/01/31
2012/01/27
2012/01/20
2012/01/17
Great Racer
View Larger Map
http://www.scoop.it/t/neutopia/p/996307856/the-inevitability-of-google-for-the-enterprise
Google have already won the war with FB or whoever, the game now is just to let us know this gently. I bet there is a lawyer word for this.
I hope
that the web blackout thing encourages more site makers to include a |Style| link at the top left (wherever) of every page which offered at least the choice of light-on-dark and dark-on-light themes. And I don't just mean the 'skin' or 'chrome' cop-out that, for instance, gmail offers.
Yes, this is not a joke.
- I love your idea of spending the day (while we aren't editing) discussing the future of Wikipedia. It'll be nice to drop all our usual internal arguments for a day and think about how we might simplify and improve processes, grow the community in a positive direction, etc. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Just to note. I came here to suggest that this "blackout" be
optional. But, from what I've read, a few vocal idiots have the ear of
Mr. Wales and he doesn't care about editors who have put their time and
effort into this project. So, if nearly eight years of my life doesn't
mean anything to Wikipedia, I don't see a reason to continue working on
and promoting Wikipedia. It now appears to be a little toy that Mr.
Wales has decided he can turn on and turn off whenever he likes. -- kainaw™ 23:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you feel that way but the overwhelming consensus of the
community, not just a few people, was to do the blackout. Your
contributions are much appreciated, and I view this action as a way to
stand up for your rights.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Looking at the discussion on your talk page and the vote at the SOPA
Initiative page I think it is charitable to say there was community
consensus. At least 10% of the votes for a full blackout came from
apparent single-purpose accounts. I believe at least as many were just
on the edge of being single-purpose accounts. On your talk page it
appears even worse. Almost all of the first thirty or so votes at least
were random IP votes with comments on this being either their only or
almost their only edits on Wikipedia. Quite a large portion on top of
that came from stale accounts or newbies. Certainly there are major
established editors who favor a blackout, but there are also a
substantial number of major established editors who vigorously oppose a
blackout. How can anyone take Wikipedia policy seriously any more if the
Foundation can just count heads in a vote and decide they can suspend
policy to have the entire site used as a platform for pushing some
political agenda? What happens when a flood of editors get angry about
the next cause célèbre of the Internet?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- The Foundation didn't count heads. The RfC was closed by volunteer admins, same as usual. I think the community is pretty clear that we should never take action on general political issues, only those that are directly relevant to our mission.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Looking at the discussion on your talk page and the vote at the SOPA
Initiative page I think it is charitable to say there was community
consensus. At least 10% of the votes for a full blackout came from
apparent single-purpose accounts. I believe at least as many were just
on the edge of being single-purpose accounts. On your talk page it
appears even worse. Almost all of the first thirty or so votes at least
were random IP votes with comments on this being either their only or
almost their only edits on Wikipedia. Quite a large portion on top of
that came from stale accounts or newbies. Certainly there are major
established editors who favor a blackout, but there are also a
substantial number of major established editors who vigorously oppose a
blackout. How can anyone take Wikipedia policy seriously any more if the
Foundation can just count heads in a vote and decide they can suspend
policy to have the entire site used as a platform for pushing some
political agenda? What happens when a flood of editors get angry about
the next cause célèbre of the Internet?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you feel that way but the overwhelming consensus of the
community, not just a few people, was to do the blackout. Your
contributions are much appreciated, and I view this action as a way to
stand up for your rights.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
I blog therefore I am!
I blog therefore I am!: Wikipedia going dark on Wednesday!: Yes, this is not a joke.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)