Also, as an FYI to others on the list - Steve Foerster founded a competitor
to Wikiversity and has an extreme conflict of interest in this topic. Most
likely, he doesn't even have a Wikiversity account.
On Sun, Dec 22, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Steve Foerster <steve(a)hiresteve.com>wrote;wrote:
Agreed. The mention of PlanetMath, which is a good
resource, was
obviously meant to be a helpful response to a question asked by someone
else.
Even if there is a policy against mentioning external resources, no matter
how relevant or good they may be, it should be rescinded. Such a policy
would place the organisation over its stated goal to further education.
-=Steve=-
-------- Original Message --------
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 17:13:07 +0000
From: Nkansah Rexford <nkansahrexford(a)gmail.com>
To: Mailing list for Wikiversity <wikiversity-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikiversity-l] Are "solved problems" suitable for
Wikiversity?
@jeffery, mentioning Planet math here is advertising? Really? When did
that become advertising?
Hmmmm, still wondering. Its not as if the link is to Joe's personal
website or something. Its a website known by many. Joe is just bringing up
an issue and I believe its great considering the matter than banning the
matter saying its advertising.
"Not an advertising group"? Apart from the mailing list of Wikiversity,
where else can discussions of this sort be held?
I'm in this mailing list, Wikimania, Wikipedia, and other mailing lists.
Links are posted to references and stuffs like that. They're all Wikimedia
mailing list, but how come such links never get categorized as adverts but
are used in discussion?
Is this "not advertising group" idea applied to only Wikiversity?
Cmon
google.com/+Nkansahrexford | sent from Tab
_______________________________________________
Wikiversity-l mailing list
Wikiversity-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiversity-l