Zithromax. Zithromax without prescription. Zithromax false positive test for cocaine….

*Check our new PornTube site!*

.
http://liveporntube.org/thumbs/lesbian.jpg

Porn at Wikipedia

T Girl Island takes you on vacation to an island paradise where they show them by fucking and amazing cumshots. free live lesbian porn
Hardcore lesbian porn.The large pictures that we all seen some of it before, however there for you to see as a member.Lesbian hunter porn. girlfriends free lesbian porn galleries
Nude lesbian porn.Virius free porn lesbian.However, the photos are taken from clothed to naked news is the update every day.Milf lesbian porn. black bisexual porn stars lesbian thumbnails
Everything is really know how to pick free chat or private chat.However in looking directly into Tony Casting Couch are very good thing. hot lesbian porn
If you have that link they have a burner! lesbian porn comics
After the first thirty minutes long featuring sexy lingerie.Lesbian oral sex porn.They also have them nicely into one hot story library that Mother Nature gave them. lesbian porn threesome
I dove right click the link, which also downloadable options.Brutal mature lesbian threeway porn.Whatever he does cost ten dollars more than that are available. 100 lesbian porn

Related topics:
Free Bdsm Movies . Extreme Sex Clips Online!
Free Bdsm Videos . Extreme Sex Video Online!
Asian Shemale . Extreme Sex Clips Online!
Exploited Teens . Best Sex Movies Online!
Bdsm Cartoons . Exclusive Sex Clips Online!

Even the idea of vandalism revert bots caused a huge controversy – when I started running TB2 there was considerable pushback – “can a bot be trusted” etc but then people realized it caught a good chunk of “stupid vandalism” and fast – and eventually people got to the point where they freaked if it wasn’t there.

That being said, having it all running in MediaWiki saves a lot of bandwidth / CPU cycles. The original TB2 host actually was recycled about 6 months ago.

@filceolaire: The anti-vandal bots are only “built in” to the Wikimedia software in any way as of the implementation of the AbuseFilter extension, which came out March 2009 (I know this because I created filter #12, in the first rush; my next, less than 24 hours later, was #46). Bots are specifically separate from Wikimedia’s MediaWiki software: they’re designed, coded, and run by users. MediaWiki’s involvement is primarily through the API and the “bot” user right, which each provide significant support for bots.

Anti-vandal bots in general have been around since at least 2006: it’s easy to trace it back that far since that’s when the user page of Tawkerbot2, one of the early anti-vandal bots, was created.

Whenever that happened it should have caused a step reduction in edits as the vandalism edits and the subsequent reverts would disappear from the logs.

How were vandal edits (as measured by antivandalbot reverts) affected by this 49,000 reduction you noticed? Did they drop at the same time? In proportion? Not at all?

Good info. However, a few points I don’t necessarily agree with….

Thanks, Fuzheado.

Interesting discussion, though they were a bit wrong to say that Commons is only for “encyclopaedic content” – not true. By definition, Commons is for content that is useful to projects other than just Wikipedia.

I was wondering whether you had seen Jimmy Wales’ blog post on the BBC’s Digital Revolution open source documentary where he defends the notion of elitism within Wikipedia. I’d be interested in your opinion of that. Does Jimmy speak for all Wikipedians in that statement?

isn’t just a “meetup”. Please don’t hold the fact that we actually have meetings against us!

Many excellent American non-profits choose to work on something less than a continental scale, and we hope to follow their model- one of my favorite local ones is the .

To see some of the other stuff we’re doing, come on down to in July!

It\’s worth pointing out, however, that the resistance we found is suggestive of the fact that the newbies are finding it hard to contribute material that passes the filter of the community. This is somewhat consistent with your interpretation.

The most interesting bit to me is about growing “resistance” and the shrinking “middle class”. I wonder if, rather than resistance pushing the middle class out, both trends are primarily the result of articles maturing. Immature articles generally grow without much serious refactoring or reversion, but once they basically have material that touches on all the content relevant to the article, improving quality (inevitably?) entails more of the kind of editing that shows up as “resistance”, and is the kind of work that fewer people enjoy doing. In other words, it’s all about low-hanging fruit.

It is Wikipedia, with ads!! You guys should comment that on the next podcast.

If you want to be part of future episodes, the skype public chat linked in the sidebar is the place to watch. If you have skype, click on that.

Am I in the wrong place?

Maury

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/wikigroaning.php
http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/wikigroaning-ii.php

The only criteria for deciding article deletion should be “is it possible that someone might want to read this”? If you delete articles because they are too short, poorly referenced, or in list format, you are damaging your customer relationship – and for what?

Legitimate encyclopedia envy is a poor motivation for policy making.

If some small minds wish to make a “professional” wiki, so be it, but the popular content should not be destroyed.

How about a check box in the search page stating “Include only articles which meet Wikipedia’s minimum standards”

http://www.wikihorror.wordpress.com

Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Most_missed_articles

Of the most popular search terms without articles, most are music-related, and I think come from external sites that try to automatically link artist names to articles. Almost all of these have never been created (often because the artist is new and/or technically non-notable, or because the title is not really a legit article title). But there are a bunch of long list titles that represent deleted content. These deleted lists, like “List of U.S. Army acronyms and expressions” and “List of advertising slogans”, were getting hundreds of hits per day, and are still getting tens of residual hits per day (from outside links?) months after deletion.

One of my favorites, deleted a while ago, was “List of snowclones”. Alas. I’ve long felt that we should have different inclusion standards for lists than for articles. Even if those types of things are ultimately unmanageable, they were the kinds of things that made people (myself included) love Wikipedia in its early years. At least we still have “List of nicknames used by George W. Bush”

We are not representing any official position and all opinions are the responsibility of their owners. Furthermore, we make no suggestion that we are “neutral” nor overtly non-political. When politics strays into our area of conversation then we make our opinions known.

Finally, although I don’t recall if I said “good guys” as a quote, even if I did it was not to imply that the Australian-left is always good and everyone else isn’t. Rather, that in the topic of Internet censorship (in Aust.) anyone who is fighting that is, in my books, a “good guy”.

I hope this clarifies things.

I like the “fair notice” concept a lot, Andrew.

Regarding the Technology Review article, I thought about this a bit because as with you I thought it was obviously and utterly wrong to say that Wikipedia ever purports to present the “truth”. But I think perhaps the author’s point, which was not well articulated, may have been that the problem is that people treat it as “the truth”, because of the -pedia moniker which is a kind of appeal to authority. That maybe readers think the deal is, “Trust us because we are a reference work, part of an academic tradition.” Of course we Wikimedians don’t exactly intend to offer this deal, but that is what people take from it.
And probably that is a problem, but I am not sure it is totally Wikipedia’s problem, rather than the populace at large’s.

http://ericsaysfuckyou.blogspot.com/2008/10/as-promised-heres-wikipedia-is-broken.html

So yeah, basically it’s audio versions of wikipedia articles. I’m sorry if this is the wrong forum for letting you know about this but I couldn’t find a contact link on your site.

Regarding Wikiquote, the very first post I wrote on my blog was about why I thought Wikispecies & Wikiquote would be the first projects to “leave the family”, so to speak. Wikiquote is not well-defensible from the WMF Mission or Vision.

As an aside note, isn’t it a bad thing if Wikipedia content is written in the same way as academic content? Aren’t we trying to bring knowledge to the people, instead of making it dry and “academic-sounding” for no particular reason?

Cheers,

Thomas Larsen

As for the conference format, I think that’s a great idea. There should be tutorial and how-tos at the beginning of the conference. Part of my proposal to Taiwan was doing some training/hands on in the Wikimania Lounge, so let’s see if we can’t get them to do more of that.

For future Wikimanias, I would like to see a program like this:

MON: “Wikimedia Academy”. Purely newbie day, lots of ‘what is X project’ sessions, how to contribute.
TUE: “Talkfest” – BoFs + possibly unconference format. Very broad topics: Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Commons, Wikinews, Wikisource, Copyright/licenses, Chapters, Wikimedia & education, Wikimedia & academia, Translation, Community.
WED-FRI: Traditional conference format.

Consdering how little support the non-Wikipedia projects generally get (is MediaWiki even removely suited to a lexicography resource or is it just the tool we have at hand?), I wonder if the question should be put to the community rather than the Board.

Also, I wouldn’t have said WV was the most hobbling of the WMF projects. C’mon, it’s like a year old! What shape was Wikipedia in at that time?

We actually packed out our small room. I guess some people liked having an alternative. But it was funny; about 10-15 minutes into our workshop, there was 2 or 3 *loud* announcements that Jimmy’s talk was now starting in the other room. As if to tell our audience, “This is your last chance!”

That said, I found it to be a somewhat disconcerting notion that basic geographical information added en masse by a bot would be considered to be a negative thing simply because of a “data management” issue. From an ideal point of view, I see this to be analagous to making a dictionary but leaving out all of the words that start with X because they are used less and would take extra work to find.

To summarize, I think that the amount of entries on Wikipedia is its key greatness–for a resident of Smalltown in Tinyland to find a preexisting entry will allow that resident to add that, say, it recently opened a school, and the article becomes all the better. However, the same casual user might be ignorant to creating a new article, thus the information goes unadded.

Again, this point of view is idealistic, and I certainly bow to practical voices who say that otherwise.

First, your information about what this proposed bot would do is a little out-of-date. After many editors expressed their concerns, the bot owner announced he would work closely with the relevant WikiProjects. I don’t know how this will work with some countries without related WikiProjects (for instance, Somalia), but this is a good move.

Second, of some 530 woredas, or local districts, & the 300 (out of 930) towns in Ethiopia, I’ve been surprised (both in a positive & negative way) of what I have been able to find. For instance, one fellow editor, Yom, who knew of my personal effort directed me to a useful compendium of material at the website of the Nordic Africa Institute in Uppsala — which I reference in many of my articles. I would be surprised if similar resources don’t exist manhy of other countries.

Geoff